Jump to content

The Doctor

Deadicated Fans
  • Posts

    2,118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by The Doctor

  1. I love it - El Ligero is bravely fighting the corner of kayfabe in all circumstances. Is he going to sign official documents as 'El Ligero'? :D Bless.
  2. Some gut wrenchingly awful stuff like finding out my niece has San Filippo syndrome and her best possible outlook is to make it to 15 years of age (www.caitlinsdream.com). Then the worry of having to go through genetic counselling and tests to see if the Mrs and I were at risk of a baby with the same condition. On the upside, the good news is that we are at no higher risk than anyone else, so have been told not to worry about it. I lost my job in February and was fretting for a few weeks about where I'd be getting my next paycheck from, but thankfully found a new one before I was unbearably broke and have settled in well. Had chickenpox for the first time at the age of 33 - that was fun. :P Overall though, I'm a glass half full type and I've got a great home life, loved every minute of the latest series of Doctor Who and was really impressed with the Incredible Hulk film (I know those last two are really fanboy things to single out as having made my 1/2 year, but they did, okay?! :D ). I've had some good times with friends this year and they are all doing well with work, getting engaged, having babies, getting better jobs, buying a house, etc. We are all starting to feel like proper grown-ups this year!
  3. What I mean is that the very first response in this thread mentioned paedophiles and that association has cropped up repeatedly since. A paedophilie is an adult who experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. They are being referred to because the concern is that they will experience sexual arousal from these images. Why? Well, I don't think I'm really going out on a limb by inferring that it's because these kids are naked. The logic seemed to be naked = sexual, or at least open to being interpreted as being so by a paedophile viewing them. So I just wanted to point out it's not as simple as that - hence my statement of 'naked does not automatically equal sexual'. If anything, your question agrees with my point: clothed doesn't automatically mean non-sexual either. So where do we go? These images cause debate because people feel that they could have been seen as sexual by a paedophile. Then again, so can a clothed child in a sexually provocative pose. Actually, what is a sexually provocative pose for someone who is aroused by children? I'd suppose a picture of them being particularly childish. So playing, running, photos of that are a bit dodgy too. Tell you what, we'll just stop taking photos of kids altogether. Problem fixed. I agree, someone could. But only because, as you also state, people can be aroused by the strangest of things - a fence, for instance. So no photos of them either, just to be on the safe side. Images of what? Children? As I've already stated, if a paedophile is sexually aroused by a picture of a child, then how much can we ban here? Any image of any child that could be a stimulus/catalyst? Isn't that every image? A kid with a lollipop. Oh, I can only imagine what's going on in a paedophile's mind there... The wider picture here is that a topless 13 year old girl is paedophile bait to our perceptions, but in other places they could quite legally and acceptably be a married mother of two. To my mind, though my society has conditioned me to see a 13 year old as a child, not a young woman, I feel she'll still be perfectly old enough to decide if she's happy having her photo taken. I know 13 year old girls, I'm sure what I think, even if they were my daughter, wouldn't really matter if they wanted to do it! I actually am an artist myself, so maybe we do see things a bit differently/oddly, but I swear to you that I don't think I'd object anyway. In the case of the second image, with a child that age, hand on heart it wouldn't even cross my mind that anything was sinister about it. I'm being labelled as naive, but it truly wouldn't occur to me to question the intention there. Loads of parents take pictures of their naked children. Girls run around without a top on even when they are wearing bottoms. They don't think twice about it, and neither do I. I know, I know, but what else can I respond with? I think it's most likely that no one reading this is getting off on those pictures. Belty thinks maybe someone is. Neither can prove a damn thing. Why think the worst? Why prefer not to assume the worst of people? Individual choice, I guess.
  4. What I mean is that the very first response in this thread mentioned paedophiles and that association has cropped up repeatedly since. A paedophilie is an adult who experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. They are being referred to because the concern is that they will experience sexual arousal from these images. Why? Well, I don't think I'm really going out on a limb by inferring that it's because these kids are naked. The logic seemed to be naked = sexual, or at least open to being interpreted as being so by a paedophile viewing them. So I just wanted to point out it's not as simple as that - hence my statement of 'naked does not automatically equal sexual'. If anything, your question agrees with my point: clothed doesn't automatically mean non-sexual either. So where do we go? These images cause debate because people feel that they could have been seen as sexual by a paedophile. Then again, so can a clothed child in a sexually provocative pose. Actually, what is a sexually provocative pose for someone who is aroused by children? I'd suppose a picture of them being particularly childish. So playing, running, photos of that are a bit dodgy too. Tell you what, we'll just stop taking photos of kids altogether. Problem fixed. I agree, someone could. But only because, as you also state, people can be aroused by the strangest of things - a fence, for instance. So no photos of them either, just to be on the safe side. Images of what? Children? As I've already stated, if a paedophile is sexually aroused by a picture of a child, then how much can we ban here? Any image of any child that could be a stimulus/catalyst? Isn't that every image? A kid with a lollipop. Oh, I can only imagine what's going on in a paedophile's mind there... The wider picture here is that a topless 13 year old girl is paedophile bait to our perceptions, but in other places they could quite legally and acceptably be a married mother of two. To my mind, though my society has conditioned me to see a 13 year old as a child, not a young woman, I feel she'll still be perfectly old enough to decide if she's happy having her photo taken. I know 13 year old girls, I'm sure what I think, even if they were my daughter, wouldn't really matter if they wanted to do it! I actually am an artist myself, so maybe we do see things a bit differently/oddly, but I swear to you that I don't think I'd object anyway. In the case of the second image, with a child that age, hand on heart it wouldn't even cross my mind that anything was sinister about it. I'm being labelled as naive, but it truly wouldn't occur to me to question the intention there. Loads of parents take pictures of their naked children. Girls run around without a top on even when they are wearing bottoms. They don't think twice about it, and neither do I. I know, I know, but what else can I respond with? I think it's most likely that no one reading this is getting off on those pictures. Belty thinks maybe someone is. Neither can prove a damn thing. Why think the worst? Why prefer not to assume the worst of people? Individual choice, I guess.
  5. We all know very little with 100% certainly. But I'm confident that what I said will stand. I'll ask, shall I? Was anyone here aroused by the images we are discussing? Did that little girl look sexually attractive to you? I really don't think that I am all that naive at all. But if I am, then I'm happy to be that way as opposed to paranoid, fearful and eager to censor expression. Wow, that’s a big question. I’ll try to answer it as thoroughly as I can without actually writing an essay about it. As I write this, paedophilia is defined in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and other sources as a diagnosable mental disorder. But, as you touch upon, it depends when you ask. This is now. Not so long ago lobotomy was seen as a general cure for all perceived ills. Definitions and perceptions change. Currently, paedophilia would be classed as a paraphilia, which is any of several persistent, intense sexual interests, fantasies, or urges involving nonhuman objects, pain or humiliation, children, or nonconsenting individuals. Paraphilias may or may not interfere with the capacity for sexual activity with consenting adult partners. As I’m living in 2008, though I’d like to think that I’m a free thinker, I can’t deny that some of my thought processes are bound to be influenced by the age I’m living in. You are correct in supposing that I would defend homosexuality (though I didn’t even mention it). Society defines what is ‘normal’ and in turn what is ‘abnormal’ is what falls outside of this. This means that not only time will change what is deemed the norm and thus acceptable, but also location, with several countries or states currently having an age of consent as low as 12 years of age. Not so long ago, a sexual perversion would have been defined as any aberrant sexual practice that was not penile-vaginal sex. Current western attitudes would appear to have separated procreational sexual intercourse from recreational sexual intercourse, and the latter can take almost limitless forms, most of which might raise an eyebrow but not an outcry. Various religious adherents view various paraphilias as deviations from a divine plan for human sexuality, as understood through their religious tradition or laws. Depending in part on the nature of the paraphilia in question, judgements can differ as to whether religiously it should be considered a case of sin, mental illness or simply harmless sexual variation. Western society may well be moving away from religious philosophies defining what is deemed acceptable within society and thus (broadly speaking) homosexuality has become more widely acceptable and not classed as a mental illness. In 50 years, the goalposts may well have changed in terms of what is legal/acceptable. As I see it, and it is only my interpretation bear in mind, though our society is increasingly permissive, it would still appear that non-consensual and/or harmful acts are frowned upon. Thus homosexuality can be viewed merely as an act between two consenting adults – so where’s the harm? With bestiality and paedophilia, it's more difficult to argue that no harm is being caused. Several issues remain. How can consent be deemed to have been granted by either a child or animal, which ordinarily would not be viewed as capable of taking responsibility for their own actions? If the act is physically forced upon them, consent has certainly not been given. There is the issue of duty of care - as an adult, we are responsible for safety of a child or animal, and in many cases intercourse with a child or animal will cause actual bodily harm to them, not to even begin to discuss the more lasting emotional or mental harm likely to be caused. Yes, I can. My philosophy is one of 'do no harm'. As far as I'm concerned, you can all get your jollies in any way you like, and even if it is technically a paraphilia, fetish, kink or symptomatic of what is currently being branded a mental illness, as long as you're happy and noboby and nothing is getting hurt by it, then you can carry on without a word of objection from me. And I'll happily argue the case for you bunch of dirty little weirdos to do whatever the hell you like as well. Another big question. Clinically, possibly nothing. Perhaps they just have somehow eroticised something ‘normally’ viewed as non-sexual. If a person were to sexually stimulate himself every time he looked at, for instance, a lightbulb, then he would eventually become conditioned to associate sexual arousal with seeing a lightbulb, then to be aroused by the sight of a lightbulb, and ultimately this paraphilia may interfere with the capacity for ‘normal’ sexual activity with consenting adult partners. But this could also be an over simplification. Several researchers have reported correlations between paedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem and poor social skills. There are also links between paedophilia and brain structure and function (I won’t get bogged down in details here). Or perhaps a combination of factors – an individual predisposed to being paedophilic further reinforces this with conditioning to eroticise children in their mind. Similar theories of genetic/physical causes have been applied to homosexuality and any other paraphilia/fetish/perversion you can shake a stick at. Or to put it more succinctly, we don't yet know for sure. But for argument's sake, let's say that a man attracted to children is that way for exactly the same reason as a man attracted to another man, or a cow, or a plank of wood. I'll still argue my 'do no harm' corner. Two men want to get it on? Their mutually consentual sexual shenanigans are fine by me. Children and the cow - I don't approve, see above. The plank of wood? Watch out for the splinters, but that aside, away you go.
  6. We all know very little with 100% certainly. But I'm confident that what I said will stand. I'll ask, shall I? Was anyone here aroused by the images we are discussing? Did that little girl look sexually attractive to you? I really don't think that I am all that naive at all. But if I am, then I'm happy to be that way as opposed to paranoid, fearful and eager to censor expression. Wow, that’s a big question. I’ll try to answer it as thoroughly as I can without actually writing an essay about it. As I write this, paedophilia is defined in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and other sources as a diagnosable mental disorder. But, as you touch upon, it depends when you ask. This is now. Not so long ago lobotomy was seen as a general cure for all perceived ills. Definitions and perceptions change. Currently, paedophilia would be classed as a paraphilia, which is any of several persistent, intense sexual interests, fantasies, or urges involving nonhuman objects, pain or humiliation, children, or nonconsenting individuals. Paraphilias may or may not interfere with the capacity for sexual activity with consenting adult partners. As I’m living in 2008, though I’d like to think that I’m a free thinker, I can’t deny that some of my thought processes are bound to be influenced by the age I’m living in. You are correct in supposing that I would defend homosexuality (though I didn’t even mention it). Society defines what is ‘normal’ and in turn what is ‘abnormal’ is what falls outside of this. This means that not only time will change what is deemed the norm and thus acceptable, but also location, with several countries or states currently having an age of consent as low as 12 years of age. Not so long ago, a sexual perversion would have been defined as any aberrant sexual practice that was not penile-vaginal sex. Current western attitudes would appear to have separated procreational sexual intercourse from recreational sexual intercourse, and the latter can take almost limitless forms, most of which might raise an eyebrow but not an outcry. Various religious adherents view various paraphilias as deviations from a divine plan for human sexuality, as understood through their religious tradition or laws. Depending in part on the nature of the paraphilia in question, judgements can differ as to whether religiously it should be considered a case of sin, mental illness or simply harmless sexual variation. Western society may well be moving away from religious philosophies defining what is deemed acceptable within society and thus (broadly speaking) homosexuality has become more widely acceptable and not classed as a mental illness. In 50 years, the goalposts may well have changed in terms of what is legal/acceptable. As I see it, and it is only my interpretation bear in mind, though our society is increasingly permissive, it would still appear that non-consensual and/or harmful acts are frowned upon. Thus homosexuality can be viewed merely as an act between two consenting adults – so where’s the harm? With bestiality and paedophilia, it's more difficult to argue that no harm is being caused. Several issues remain. How can consent be deemed to have been granted by either a child or animal, which ordinarily would not be viewed as capable of taking responsibility for their own actions? If the act is physically forced upon them, consent has certainly not been given. There is the issue of duty of care - as an adult, we are responsible for safety of a child or animal, and in many cases intercourse with a child or animal will cause actual bodily harm to them, not to even begin to discuss the more lasting emotional or mental harm likely to be caused. Yes, I can. My philosophy is one of 'do no harm'. As far as I'm concerned, you can all get your jollies in any way you like, and even if it is technically a paraphilia, fetish, kink or symptomatic of what is currently being branded a mental illness, as long as you're happy and noboby and nothing is getting hurt by it, then you can carry on without a word of objection from me. And I'll happily argue the case for you bunch of dirty little weirdos to do whatever the hell you like as well. Another big question. Clinically, possibly nothing. Perhaps they just have somehow eroticised something ‘normally’ viewed as non-sexual. If a person were to sexually stimulate himself every time he looked at, for instance, a lightbulb, then he would eventually become conditioned to associate sexual arousal with seeing a lightbulb, then to be aroused by the sight of a lightbulb, and ultimately this paraphilia may interfere with the capacity for ‘normal’ sexual activity with consenting adult partners. But this could also be an over simplification. Several researchers have reported correlations between paedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem and poor social skills. There are also links between paedophilia and brain structure and function (I won’t get bogged down in details here). Or perhaps a combination of factors – an individual predisposed to being paedophilic further reinforces this with conditioning to eroticise children in their mind. Similar theories of genetic/physical causes have been applied to homosexuality and any other paraphilia/fetish/perversion you can shake a stick at. Or to put it more succinctly, we don't yet know for sure. But for argument's sake, let's say that a man attracted to children is that way for exactly the same reason as a man attracted to another man, or a cow, or a plank of wood. I'll still argue my 'do no harm' corner. Two men want to get it on? Their mutually consentual sexual shenanigans are fine by me. Children and the cow - I don't approve, see above. The plank of wood? Watch out for the splinters, but that aside, away you go.
  7. I'm on the side of the artists here, and freedom of expression is a cause I will always fight for. There is nothing disgusting about either image whatsoever and it's a shocking state for a society to be in where they would be seen as such. I would say that part of the 'innocence of children' is that they happily will run around naked and be photographed nude without a second thought. And so they should. I think the world would be a better, safer and happier place if adults were less body conscious as well. Let's be clear here: naked does not automatically equal sexual. Even a depiction of a naked adult is not necessarily a sexual image, as thousands of the greatest works of Art throughout history will attest. It is quite an astronomical leap of twisted 'logic' that is being made when people seem to be implying that depictions of a child in a state of undress will ultimately result in an increase in deviant sexual predators prowling the streets and threatening our children's lives. How? How exactly? Hopefully everyone in this thread actually did look at the images before commenting. Were you aroused? Did that little girl look sexually attractive to you? I am confident in stating that we will all answer 'no'. That would be because we do not find anything sexually stimulating about an image in a non sexual context of a blatantly sexually immature child. Why would we? A person who would find such images sexual, and would then be motivated to act upon this arousal is sick. Strictest sense of the word, actually mentally ill. I think we can all agree with that, surely. It is a sick mind that has eroticised a naked, innocent child. The same sick mind that, even if all naked children were to be removed from the world, would be aroused by something else - an advert featuring children maybe, or a playground full of children, or just images they conjure up in their own mind. Removing these images from the world does not remove the sickness, or the sick people who would find something sexual in them. And we're contaminating ourselves - the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of ordinarily adults with healthy attitudes to sex by attempting to put ourselves in the mindset of such perverts. Could this be seen as sexual? Could, potentially, someone, somewhere, be aroused by this picture of a four year old? It's a kid! What are you on about? An image of this sort will never manufacture a paedophile out of thin air and it's a ridiculous, paranoid notion that it could. And I refuse to live in a world which regulates normal, healthy behaviour with paranoia and scaremongering. My nieces will splash around in their paddling pool in the summer, naked. And probably someone (Mom, Nan, Grandad, whoever) will take a snap of the happy moment. And no, it's not porn. And no they didn't sign a waiver form before the picture was taken. Any why should anyone question such a thing? Why should we even think that anyone would? But it's astonishing how many people would be uncomfortable doing things like this 'in this day and age' for fear of accusations of sinister intent. A sickness like this won't be cured with draconian censorship, passing new laws to restrict freedom of expression, filling our lives with fear, demonisation of paedophiles and witch hunts. I can't promise that if I am lucky enough to have kids of my own the fear won't be in the back of my mind somewhere - can they go 50 feet to the ice cream van by themself, is there a paedophile around the corner? Maybe I will have these fears, but I will promise this: I won't live in fear. I will not accept that I should live in a world of lack of freedom, censorship, distrust and fear. I will be protecting my child from that.
  8. I'm on the side of the artists here, and freedom of expression is a cause I will always fight for. There is nothing disgusting about either image whatsoever and it's a shocking state for a society to be in where they would be seen as such. I would say that part of the 'innocence of children' is that they happily will run around naked and be photographed nude without a second thought. And so they should. I think the world would be a better, safer and happier place if adults were less body conscious as well. Let's be clear here: naked does not automatically equal sexual. Even a depiction of a naked adult is not necessarily a sexual image, as thousands of the greatest works of Art throughout history will attest. It is quite an astronomical leap of twisted 'logic' that is being made when people seem to be implying that depictions of a child in a state of undress will ultimately result in an increase in deviant sexual predators prowling the streets and threatening our children's lives. How? How exactly? Hopefully everyone in this thread actually did look at the images before commenting. Were you aroused? Did that little girl look sexually attractive to you? I am confident in stating that we will all answer 'no'. That would be because we do not find anything sexually stimulating about an image in a non sexual context of a blatantly sexually immature child. Why would we? A person who would find such images sexual, and would then be motivated to act upon this arousal is sick. Strictest sense of the word, actually mentally ill. I think we can all agree with that, surely. It is a sick mind that has eroticised a naked, innocent child. The same sick mind that, even if all naked children were to be removed from the world, would be aroused by something else - an advert featuring children maybe, or a playground full of children, or just images they conjure up in their own mind. Removing these images from the world does not remove the sickness, or the sick people who would find something sexual in them. And we're contaminating ourselves - the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of ordinarily adults with healthy attitudes to sex by attempting to put ourselves in the mindset of such perverts. Could this be seen as sexual? Could, potentially, someone, somewhere, be aroused by this picture of a four year old? It's a kid! What are you on about? An image of this sort will never manufacture a paedophile out of thin air and it's a ridiculous, paranoid notion that it could. And I refuse to live in a world which regulates normal, healthy behaviour with paranoia and scaremongering. My nieces will splash around in their paddling pool in the summer, naked. And probably someone (Mom, Nan, Grandad, whoever) will take a snap of the happy moment. And no, it's not porn. And no they didn't sign a waiver form before the picture was taken. Any why should anyone question such a thing? Why should we even think that anyone would? But it's astonishing how many people would be uncomfortable doing things like this 'in this day and age' for fear of accusations of sinister intent. A sickness like this won't be cured with draconian censorship, passing new laws to restrict freedom of expression, filling our lives with fear, demonisation of paedophiles and witch hunts. I can't promise that if I am lucky enough to have kids of my own the fear won't be in the back of my mind somewhere - can they go 50 feet to the ice cream van by themself, is there a paedophile around the corner? Maybe I will have these fears, but I will promise this: I won't live in fear. I will not accept that I should live in a world of lack of freedom, censorship, distrust and fear. I will be protecting my child from that.
  9. I'm really surprised that people are saying this series has been mediocre or disappointing. I'll admit, I had my doubts about Catherine Tate coming on board as a full time companion, but she's blown me away with her acting ability and has made me invest in the character of Donna. The only episode which I've found even slightly disappointing was 'The Doctor's Daughter'. It was entertaining, but a title like that set me up for something less lightweight than I got (but then again, I did get to watch the gorgeous Georgia Moffet, so the episode had its appeal!). 'The Stolen Earth' (this latest episode) is everything I had hoped last series' finale would be - grand in scope, beautifully acted, tremendous special effects, and it is tying loose ends together very nicely indeed. Russell T. Davies is going out in a blaze of glory as far as I'm concerned. As for the cliffhanger, how evil was that? I'm wishing the next week of my life away so that I can watch how all this plays out! :jump
  10. Alright, I'll try to be balanced here by starting with some negatives. I have heard some people critique the CGI. I would argue that the technology simply does not exist yet to make 100% convincing CGI human(oid)s. If you for some reason want to pick holes you can. Think of Beowulf - beautifully rendered, but you never thought for a second that you were actually looking at Angelina Jolie, did you? In the final scenes you are aware that it is two CGI behemoths that you are watching, but I think you'd be unrealistic to think it would be any different at this point in time. I also know that in The Empire Strikes Back, I'm watching a rubber puppet, but in my head it's an alien called Yoda, okay? Okay. I also can't remember another film where so many of the scenes from the trailers ended up not being in the final cut. Bruce talking to Doc Samson ("It's a little bit more complicated than that"). Not in the film. The shots of both Hulk's hand coming up out of the pavement and him climbing out of his impact crater in the pavement, altered. Probably for the better, but you may well notice is all. Bruce walking across the Arctic. Not in the movie. Apparently there will be 70 minutes of DVD extras so us fan boys get to see these scenes. However, as much as I want (need!) to see these scenes, the film doesn't suffer for the lack of them, and the film is kept to a brisk pace in the final cut. Can I stop pointing out flaws now, please? I've taken a few days to post my opinion (I saw it on Thursday) because I was going to attempt to give a non-gushing, fanboy style review. I'm sorry, I am unable to do so. I just can't think outside the mindset of a lifelong Hulk fan who has waited 30 years to see what he's just seen. THIS FILM RULES! If you liked the 70s TV series, there is a lot to love here. Lou Ferrigno appears twice (a cameo and as Hulk's voice), Bill Bixby makes a brief showing (yes, really), the iconic and haunting 'Lonely Man' music is woven into the score and in essence a lot of this film is like what the producers of the 70s TV show would have made if they had the budget and the technology to do so. It's a great melding of the TV series (which I loved) and the comic (which I love). But what if you're a fan of neither? Well, I guess if you actually don't like the Hulk this film is a waste of your time, and sadly some reviewers fall into this group. What if you like the idea of the Hulk, of what the trailers seem to indicate is a thrilling, fast paced superheroic ride, but don't know much about him and think you won't get all the references, or perhaps didn't see the 2003 Hulk and don't know if this film can be watched without knowing the backstory? See it. It stands on its own merits. You need not have seen the TV series, Ang Lee's film or know much at all about old Dr Banner to really, really enjoy this film. As a man whose adult psyche has been shaped by seeing Bill Bixby transform into a green-painted Lou Ferrigno at the age of 4, I came out of the cinema beaming from ear to ear. But, perhaps more importantly, my best friend, my Mrs and her friend were all really pleasantly surprised as well. They enjoyed it a lot. It is a lot of fun, like Spiderman was fun, like Iron Man was fun - you don't expect these films to win Best Script Oscars, but they are ruddy enjoyable to go and see, to take your kids to see, and to see more than once. I loved the scenes in South America with Bruce on the run from General Ross, and the scene in the bottling plant (go see the film if you don't know what I mean) is nothing short of brilliant. The scene you'll probably have seen a glimpse of, where Hulk jumps off an overpass in a university campus to take on the army, just keeps getting better and better. All in all, if you are in the least bit intrigued see the film. If the trailers tempt you even slightly, see it. Forget the first film, whether you liked it or not, as this is a different sort of film all together - a fast paced, special effect laden, man on the run from the military and headed for a balls to the wall finale, exciting popcorn flick with both mass and fanboy appeal.
  11. I was told about this on sunday and honestly thought it was some sort of sick wind up. Now, as I see it reported in several places I have to accept it as a tragic waste of a young man's life. Tommy had barely started living, had his whole life in front of him and is gone way, way too soon. I trained alongside Tommy at FCW (I liked him so much I even let him nick a finisher I was working on and turn it into his signature 'White Wash'!), we made our debuts together there and I had the pleasure of not only working with him again but also getting to hang out backstage with him at LWL. I'll never forget him having a lift home from me after an LWL show. I'm in the driver's seat, Stevie Valentino was in the passenger seat and Tommy was in the back. Sounds perfectly normal until I point out that my car is a Smart! He was there crammed in, half buried under our kit bags, with Stevie and me saying to him every time he'd say something "shut up, luggage! Luggage doesn't talk!" Such a tragedy, such a waste. R.I.P. Tommy.
  12. New trailer people - that other one was just a teaser! Follow the link in my sig to the official site (you'll need Quicktime, BTW). :jump
  13. Thanks, DC - I'd not seen that before. Looks ruddy awesome! Have a butcher's at the 'behind the scenes' video here - it's only a few minutes long but it shows clips of the old Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno TV series and the producers and director talk about how it's influenced the new movie. Bruce is even dressed the same, for goodness sake! To me it's like Superman Returns where they wisely decided not to reinvent the wheel - people loved the feel and music of the 'original' so why fight it?
  14. http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1443/screenshotsf7.gif ^ Here's mine ^ BTW, does anyone know some good places to get 1280 x 800 desktops? I'm finding it a bit of a mission to get anything cool except pics of cities, glaciers, etc.
  15. I'm an absolute fiend for taurine based energy drinks. I usually drink Boost (99p for a litre bottle in my local shop) or Sugar free Tesco Kick (98p a litre or often on a 2 for £1.50 offer). My favorite though is Rockstar Juiced. It comes in a massive, Relentless sized can, and it's 50% juice (mango, orange, and passion fruit) + 50% regular Rockstar energy drink. Unlike a lot of energy drinks it doesn't even remotely taste like Red Bull - it tastes of gorgeousness and packs one hell of a wallop!
  16. I stumbled across this on MTV2 today and found it quite funny. . :lol
  17. Looks like it will be! In the green corner... http://i25.tinypic.com/30w89dj.jpg And in the, er... other green corner... http://i25.tinypic.com/i50ndi.jpg Let's get it on! According to the director, "our final battle – unlike a normal movie where the final fight scene is six minutes long, ours is 26 minutes long! So you get 26 minutes of two monsters pummelling each other through New York City". :snf50:
  18. BAM! Doesn't look too cerebral to me: The Incredible Hulk trailer And some rather tasty screen caps as well: http://i26.tinypic.com/8y9usx.jpg http://i31.tinypic.com/10msm7b.jpg Am am so excited about this now. I've been keeping my expectations low, especially given the lack of pictures or teaser trailers released, but after this...?! I'm psyched! :celb2:
  19. Couldn't agree more. This link may offer some insight on the matter: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nigger
  20. Couldn't agree more. This link may offer some insight on the matter: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nigger
  21. Just to stir some sexism into the mix along with all the 'racism', I am gutted by this because, as Ziggy quite rightly pointed out, Emily had the best bum in the house (check out her profile pics on the official Channel 4 site if you need reminding). My conspiracy theory style input on this: yes BB kicked the poor girl out to avoide a Shilpa-esque bout of controversy, but I'm sure that they already knew she was going on Friday anyway based on the votes cast so far. If she wasn't already halfway out the door I think they might not have actually instantly ejected her from the house and taken some other disciplinary measure. Given that I believe she was most likely going to go tomorrow anyway, this way BB gets to look ultra vigilant on the race issue but not actually disrupt their plans all that much.
  22. Just to stir some sexism into the mix along with all the 'racism', I am gutted by this because, as Ziggy quite rightly pointed out, Emily had the best bum in the house (check out her profile pics on the official Channel 4 site if you need reminding). My conspiracy theory style input on this: yes BB kicked the poor girl out to avoide a Shilpa-esque bout of controversy, but I'm sure that they already knew she was going on Friday anyway based on the votes cast so far. If she wasn't already halfway out the door I think they might not have actually instantly ejected her from the house and taken some other disciplinary measure. Given that I believe she was most likely going to go tomorrow anyway, this way BB gets to look ultra vigilant on the race issue but not actually disrupt their plans all that much.
  23. Nice choice! :xyx I drive a Smart Passion in funky 'scratch black' finish. People seem to find it a strange choice for a big, hairy lug like me, but I love it. Firstly, I like a car with real character. The kind you actually give a name to. I've had a bright Orange VW Beetle (my first car) and a couple of Minis (Austin ones, not that BMW muck), and with every car I've had, if I've driven past someone else driving that type of car, they'll wave and smile. I love that sort of thing and would hate having an anonymous car which was 10 a penny. As well as being a laugh to drive (it's like a dodgem!), my car's very economical to insure, tax and run and despite what people may think, is very roomy. Having just turfed my front lawn yesterday with 16 rolls of turf and 5 sacks of top soil, all of which was comfortably fitted in the car, I can honestly say its size is very seldom a drawback. And because I can park it in a space less than half the size a 'normal' car needs, a free parking space is never an issue even though I work every day in Birmingham City Centre. :)
  24. I'm no missionary, I don't even believe in Jeebus.
  25. Darkstar watched an episode of last season's American Idol at mine once. My Mrs then watched every other episode in the season obsessively. Then 4 hours of the stuff last night! My brain is melting and Lord help me I started to really enjoy it. :help Darkie, I'll never forgive you...
×
×
  • Create New...