Re: Testing Chat IV: A New Hope
Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:54 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8PefgJung wrote:Men On The Wall
"you said you'd ban me last" "i lied"
https://testingstan.arsdnet.net/forum/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8PefgJung wrote:Men On The Wall
Sufficiently traumatized?Darksi4190 wrote:I just watched this weeks Game of Thrones.
What. The. Fuck.
They stabbed Robb's pregnant wife in the womb several times. And that was the opening of festivities.Oxymoron wrote:How fucked up was that episode ?
I don't watch GoT and don't give a flying fuck about spoilers so feel free to describe every single sordid details.
You know, it was worth holding on to spoilers just to see reactions like this. And it's only going to get better in the nextDarksi4190 wrote:I just watched this weeks Game of Thrones.
What. The. Fuck.
as of now, it's reading 700 pages for the 17 on which something happensOxymoron wrote:Remind me again what the appeal of the series is supposed to be ?
Well yes, but wikileaks worked with various legit newspapers to censor all the names etc.Flagg wrote:One of the things he released was the names and personal information of every soldier stationed in Iraq.Darksi4190 wrote:I've never actually read the Wikileaks cables. Is there any information in them that might be of use to our actual enemies, I.E. Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups? I mean if Manning was publishing the locations and travel routes of SEAL Teams and such, then yeah I understand going after her for treason. But from my understanding, it was just a bunch of diplomatic information.
I know some government officials have come forward and said that people (mostly Afghan and Iraqi informants) have died as a result of the Wikileaks release, but i've never seen that corroborated by a third-party so i'm taking it with a grain of salt.
Not traumatised, noFlagg wrote:Sufficiently traumatized?Darksi4190 wrote:I just watched this weeks Game of Thrones.
What. The. Fuck.
At least no one got their dick cut off.
I don't watch the show, but there are really no sympathetic characters in the books. Like, at all. Well, maybe a couple of the incidentals, and I guess there are a few that would be sympathetic if they weren't so plain ignorant and stupid.evilsoup wrote:
Not traumatised, no
more bored
killing off all the sympathetic characters would work better if I gave a fuck about any of them
and the whole thing could have been staged so much better, they should have used the power of montage. They had a cool instrumental piece and they completely wasted it
I did lose my family's Game of Thrones death pool though - I bet on Catlyn, and she dies last
Tits, ass, the occasional pussy shot, and lots of senseless violence and brutality. Plus, GRIMDARK and DRAGONS.Oxymoron wrote:Remind me again what the appeal of the series is supposed to be ?
to be fair, brienne and jon are the main ones that would be more sympathetic if they didn't make so many dumb decisions, and jaime is, at this point, probably the most sympathetic viewpoint character in the books, even though he is a ruthless murderer. it would be spoilers to explain why, though.evilsoup wrote:Robb and atlyn com across as sympathetic in the show
so do the rest of the Starks, actually, even if they consistently make terrible decisions
so does Tyrion, and Brienne, and even Jaime has had his moments
I also quite like the blonde one (with the dragons) and Jorah
and of course the fatty fat one and Jon Snow
eh, now that i think about it, brienne is still pretty sympathetic, she was just trapped in the mountain that blog's vague attempt at a social conscience for too long before something happened. but suffice it to say, jon goes full horror-movie character later on. now that i think about it, bran is still fairly sympathetic, although he does some downright awful things too.evilsoup wrote:I don't find that 'making stupid decisions' stops characters from being sympathetic. Unless it's to truly ridiculous extents, I tend to find it endearing.
pushing 10-year-olds out of towers, otoh...
ABC is actually what you would call pretty good because it isn't 24-hour coverage. But no American news network is really good, except for local ones every once in a while. All the real reporting is done by either the wire services or the newspapers, which makes the blase attitude most pundits have to their death more than a little creepy.evilsoup wrote:man
so the BBC are putting ABC (the american one) news on in the wee hours, I guess as an alien point of view
is ABC especially bad, or is all American news this lolworthy? They just had a five-minute segment on winnebagos, after spending thirty seconds on the protests in Turkey (A KEY US ALLY)
OTOH apparently the americans have a new kind of sandwich made of glazed doughnut, with bacon and egg in the middle, so I guess you win this round
Network news is the death of America.evilsoup wrote:there was no coverage of the Bradley Manning trial in the ~1 hour I saw
the coverage of the Turkey protests claimed that they were over 'suspicions of abuse of power' rather than 'the government is allegedly trying to turn Turkey into an Islamic state'
the vast majority of it was silly stories 'oh winnebagos let's put in a load of vox pops to help us advertise this thing', 'this woman is helping to give poor children birthday parties', 'MIGHT THIS FAD DIET BE BAD FOR YOU?!?!?'
Jesus
I finally understand what you all complain about, if this is the standard, you have my condolences.
Late 70s actually. When corporations began buying TV networks and put an emphasis on ratings rather than reporting.Darksi4190 wrote:I have to ask, exactly when did this trend begin? People talk about a time when the news did real reporting, and had honest anchors like Walter Cronkite, or that guy who stood up to Macarthy.
I'm guessing it started during the Reagan administration, since that seems like it's right about when everything started going wrong with America.