|
Post by geode on Aug 26, 2018 16:56:52 GMT
So many cult films. I think Blade Runner deserved a listing on there. I chose Rocky Horror. It has a warm, cosy and cheeky vibe about it that is really the ultimate cult film. Once again, only films that had been subject to identification as the subject of a thread were eligible for inclusion in the poll. As was already pointed out D ark Star did not qualify for that reason. It would now as I started a thread for it. You can select up to three choices. Also, if enough "write in" votes are noted, a film can be included in the upcoming runoff poll.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 26, 2018 16:02:44 GMT
Most call-out threads are basically ad hominem attacks. As it is generally known by those who understand logical fallacies, when people resort to using an ad hominem approach they have essentially lost the argument and have nothing left to do but offer insults.
Not being able to "hold one's own" in a discussion can be due to a lack of knowledge, a lack of intelligence, or both a lack of knowledge and intelligence.
Yes, there are people who are intelligent who have taken using insults to an art form showing great wit when making them. Of course Don Rickles comes to mind, but also Oscar Wilde, Oscar Levant, Dorothy Parker, Winston Churchill and others. These all were very intelligent people. But have we really seen people possessing their intelligence and fine-tuned wit starting call-out threads here? I don't remember seeing evidence of this, and if anything those starting them here are generally exposing their limited cognitive abilities.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 26, 2018 11:55:50 GMT
Prince Charles looks like some unfortunate old man who knows he has no real power. Looks can be deceiving. Take Laurel and Hardy for example. On film it looked as if Hardy was the better-equipped, but in real life it was Laurel who was the brains of that operation. I think this is a bit unfair to Oliver Hardy. It is true that Stan had more of an interest in the behind the camera elements of making their films, such as how they were written and directed. Oliver was more content to create a character through acting.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 26, 2018 7:42:16 GMT
Vote early and often.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 26, 2018 7:40:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 25, 2018 10:06:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 25, 2018 4:13:08 GMT
I think you would have made a better case for anybody to watch this if you had offered a summary of what it is about, and given your own opinion about the content. Does it attempt to claim that America is Babylon? If so in what sense. Is it literal or allegorical? I did give a brief summary. Didn’t want to go into too much detail and write a whole essay on it, otherwise be no point in you lot watching it. Considering the title of the video, your summary was far too brief. How many essays and the like have been written about the prophecy of Daniel and Revelation and how these relate to the end times? Scores. So what sets this one apart and worthy of two hour's attention? Once again, how does America enter into this, as it would seem that this is the angle that might be different. If you could summarize what it presents in a short essay, why bother spending two hours to accomplish the same end. Is it that "thin" in terms of the conclusions it reaches?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 24, 2018 13:45:40 GMT
Still bothering me.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 24, 2018 13:42:58 GMT
Okay, here's what I got. Narrated by Hans Conreid..... Laugh and the World with You, Croak and You Croak Alone, or A Boing in the Hand is Worth Two in the Bush. Sounds promising. What fairy tale?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 24, 2018 10:07:58 GMT
The Herald Erjen, clusium, geodeFascinating video I recommend for the board’s Christians about biblical prophecy, specifically Daniel and Revelation, and how it relates to the end times. I think you would have made a better case for anybody to watch this if you had offered a summary of what it is about, and given your own opinion about the content. Does it attempt to claim that America is Babylon? If so in what sense. Is it literal or allegorical?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 24, 2018 2:11:26 GMT
They? Looks like a solo job. The script writer, the director and all those involved in setting up the scene for The Giggler's death, are all accessories after the fact. They make up the They. Why are they not accessories before the fact?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 23, 2018 17:34:40 GMT
geodeWhat’s with you vigorously defending a cult you’ve long since renounced? Mormons are not Christian because not only do they preach another gospel, they teach another Jesus, and a false god. Plus the founder is a demonstrably false prophet. I guess you missed some of my posts on the old IMDb board where I vigorously defended Muslims, Catholics and other religious groups? I defend against falsehoods. Quite frankly I don't think you have the proper knowledge to make the claims you make here. I have not only personally studied the beliefs of several Christian sects, I have worshipped with them. For that reason I have a grasp upon where they are the same and where they are different. As I stated, and you have ignored, the central concept of Jesus in the LDS faith is virtually identical with other Christian sects. That is of the Messiah, the Saviour, and the Good Shepard as a teacher. The Mormons believe Christ atoned for the sins of mankind and was resurrected. They basically teach the gospel as set forth in the Bible. If you had ever attended their services you would discover this is true. Where they are different is adding a backstory about a "pre-existence" and a multi-tiered heaven with "eternal progression" wrapped up with temple rituals. I came to find some of this superfluous and unnecessary, although essentially harmless. Joseph Smith remains an enigma to me. Some of what he claimed is demonstrably false. But it is apparent to me that he died believing most of what he claimed or he was one heck of an actor. Even with his closest associates he stayed in character and never broke form.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 23, 2018 13:59:24 GMT
I am a member of some forums that would not allow the OP to have been posted. They prohibit just posting a link with no discussion. It is a very poor way to make an argument, or shows an inability to make one. If an argument is implied here, taken with a background of prior posting, then the OP would come from the very first Catholic I have ever encountered that attempts to promote their own sect by attempting to tear down the Mormons. This is generally the province of Evangelical Christians. In case anyone thinks I am defensively posting on the Mormon's behalf let it be known that I am feeling quite distant from them just now, and have my own set of criticisms. But they very much are Christians under any sensible definitions. The core of their beliefs is in the Bible. They attempt to follow all the teachings of Jesus. The video has one of the poorest attempts to discredit Mormonism as not being Christian that I have ever encountered. His understanding of what Mormons believe is superficial and flawed. I spent decades as a Mormon and roughly 10,000 hours in classes and meetings. I know much better what Mormons believe than he does. His very first claim is false. He says that Mormons claim that an angel came and gave Joseph Smith the revelation for the Book of Mormon. This is false. His main argument is they teach another gospel. What really constitutes "the gospel" ...? I would say it is the teachings of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John not differences in belief about creation and cosmology. He says Mormons are polytheistic. This is a valid criticism from the point of view of true monotheistic faiths such as Jews and Muslims. The Mormon Godhead and the Trinity are similar concepts to try and explain the nature of God. Both really are polytheistic to a certain extent. The Trinity attempts to shove three gods into one, the Mormon Godhead keeps them separate but not equal, with all power and authority coming from the Father. He says that Mormons claim that God had sex with Mary. Well, Brigham Young did, but this is not a concept widely held by Mormons today, who generally hold to the same biblical passage about the Holy Spirit as Catholics and Protestants. Mormons becoming gods of their own planets? The president of the church twenty years ago started backing away from this concept. Mormons believe Jesus was the creator as well, under the authority of His father. Only God has Immortality? Mormons do not claim that man and God are co-eternal. He contradicted his earlier claim that Mormons claim that God created Jesus, Satan, and men. If so how can they all be co-eternal? Which does he wish to push? Mormons believe as other Christians that men can have eternal life with God going forward. He claims that Mormons do not believe God created man, but Mormons believe this as well. Mormons do not believe that people existed in spirit bodies before God started creation. They just believe in a two step process, first spiritual creation by God, then a physical creation...all done by God. He as a Trinitarian conflates the Father and Jesus. In doing so he creates a strawman about Mormons and then attacks them using it ignoring that they hold the two separate. No, Mormons do not believe men are equal with Jesus in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Mormons have about the same belief of faith and works as the Catholics. He is calling out Catholicism here as well. But at least here at the very end of his diatribe he finally gets to the Book of Mormon. Mormons feel they are saved by Grace. The interesting difference that he does not bring up is that they feel this salvation by Grace is extended to almost all men. He ignores James who wrote that faith without works is dead. This is really the difference. Can faith really exist by itself? He can't even pronounce Moroni correctly. This does not rhyme with Macaroni. The historicity of the BOM really is not relevant to the theology found within for this discussion. His claim that the Bible is consistent through all books by all writers is one that Mormons agree with, but non-Christians do not. Most of the theology in the BOM is quite consistent with the Bible, most is taken wholesale from it.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 20, 2018 5:38:18 GMT
^ is that NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH KING KONG disclaimer legit? Not sure, but how could they NOT be confused with it? It was a total rip off. Perhaps it is a joke from their legal department?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 19, 2018 16:40:08 GMT
The first feature by John Carpenter started as a student film. Obviously low budget (about $60,000).
Did you start this thread because of MY post? imdb2.freeforums.net/post/1964951 In part. I have a pledge to myself to post whenever the ridiculous "So" thread is on top. I had run out of threads to comment upon. When that happens I start a new thread. "Dark Star" seemed as worthy as any choice. I have some friends who have raved about it since it was first released, but I still haven't gotten around to watching it yet.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 18, 2018 16:26:06 GMT
The first feature by John Carpenter started as a student film. Obviously low budget (about $60,000).
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 18, 2018 13:48:16 GMT
Have not seen the earlier version.
You haven't seen which earlier version? Which earlier version, the Gaynor, Garland, or Steisand earlier version?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 18, 2018 13:40:49 GMT
"The cats are being stirred"...? VATS Fucking autocorrect! Good to hear that, the vision of agitated cats was disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 18, 2018 6:00:09 GMT
Like before they're at the factory. Hard to explain exactly... In reality it's like the making of the chocolate. The cats are being stirred, the "Hershey kisses" are being dollopped out on to conveyed belt. "The cats are being stirred"...?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 16, 2018 9:12:21 GMT
What time do your Christina values kick in? You seemed to have left them in bed today! And since this apparently needs to be spelled out in crayon for you, the story reported in those segments was REAL! The information given regarding the state of the war is real. The production was not, but who cares? The news being reported was real. In case you didn’t know, footage from almost 30 years ago is not a good indicator or reflection of what happens today. Most media outlets used blue screen to simulate locations, especially back then. That has no impact on the content or facts presented in the story. Ad hominem noted! Which accomplishes the requirements. It’s the networks that do NOT do this that champion fake news. Aww what a shame. Go cry to your boyfriend... Did I and Eddy ask questions that are too hard to answer?
|
|