Who the fuck cares? Again, it's not like they are doing anything to prevent you from seeing the original. It will always be available. Are you angry that The Magnificent Seven was made?
"It will be set in the present day, involving paramilitary mercenaries defending a village in northern Thailand." Makes sense. A lot of movies take inspiration in old samurai movies. I'd be pissed if they used the same story and wormed in some Americans in the story, but not because of the original, more as an insult to my intellect.
Well, Frankly, you and Martha Fischer are a little late, as it's already been remade no less than nine times. And anyway, a remake will not destroy the original - look at Wicker Man, for example - and of course, don't forget, neither you or Martha know a goddamn thing about it.
Well, that, and Martha Fischer is nobody to really share an opinion with - I've read over her articles, and she's little more than an irritating, shrill flim snob. She doesn't like movies, she likes feeling superior to people, and film is simply her platform.
Well, Frankly, you and Martha Fischer are a little late, as it's already been remade no less than nine times. And anyway, a remake will not destroy the original - look at Wicker Man, for example - and of course, don't forget, neither you or Martha know a goddamn thing about it.
Well, that, and Martha Fischer is nobody to really share an opinion with - I've read over her articles, and she's little more than an irritating, shrill flim snob. She doesn't like movies, she likes feeling superior to people, and film is simply her platform.
Oh really? I'd never heard of her until now and but now I know she is not one to take a valid opinion from.
Oh really? I'd never heard of her until now and but now I know she is not one to take a valid opinion from.
She wrote the article you linked to. Though to be fair, I don't know how often you read that site, and you could be forgiven for missing the small byline on a short op-ed piece.
Per my facebook, one of my relatives insists that chiropractic therapy helped "her digestion and general sense of well-being" when I posted about my sciatica. Woo is getting too close for comfort again.
Per my facebook, one of my relatives insists that chiropractic therapy helped "her digestion and general sense of well-being" when I posted about my sciatica. Woo is getting too close for comfort again.
I saw that, I really had to resist the urge to start shit.
Also, raw vegans obviously don't know that cooking is responsible for making tons of nutrients and flavors available to the human body that are otherwise "locked up" because the food is raw. Derp derp derp.
Oh, and then Prof Pangloss linked it in a Raw Food Vegan Facebook Group - CUE 250 EMAILS OF VEGAN ANGRY WARRRRGBL. In an hour.
Aaaaaasorry! I'll take the link down if you'd like.
Nah, it's cool. It's done now - though I do fear for the state of my inbox. It's up to you.
Start posting them to the blog with commentary.
Also, raw vegans obviously don't know that cooking is responsible for making tons of nutrients and flavors available to the human body that are otherwise "locked up" because the food is raw. Derp derp derp.
I'll be doing a followup post - I'll be needing some support on that one, since I'm running to the limit of my own knowledge and intelligence.
For serious? In the "I cleaned up my life and am now a responsible adult" manner that Glow-worm did, or in the "I accidentally all over your insidez and now we have babiez" way?
Are you angry that a bug's life was basically just a remake of Seven Samurai?
Also, the guy who is now writing Astro Toy is trying too hard to be the previous writer. It's kind of sad, he just needs to do his own thing with the column.
For serious? In the "I cleaned up my life and am now a responsible adult" manner that Glow-worm did, or in the "I accidentally all over your insidez and now we have babiez" way?
I have no idea, but he's married since '06 and apparently at least one of his kids is 12 (the other is 4)indicating existing child pre-marriage and probably pre-meeting-the-woman. He could have gone the initial route there, as last I heard he went home to live with his parents almost a decade ago, but it could just as easily be 'i haz made a babby'. He wants to friend me...but I'm a'skeart.
I was writing a report for my school about the usage of laptops. I meant to write "more power outlets" and instead I wrote "moe power outlets". Let's hope no one takes that at face value.
I can't believe that I still have to clobber the fact of the U.S. constitution describing a wall of separation between church and state into the brains of some people.
I can't believe that I still have to clobber the fact of the U.S. constitution describing a wall of separation between church and state into the brains of some people.
fact of the U.S. constitution describing a wall of separation between church and state
Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the phrase "separation of church and state." It's heavily implied, but the actual "separation of church and state" business comes from the writings of good ol' TJ, and the letter it's derived from has been quoted by the Supreme Court.
It is entirely the intention of the First Amendment that such a wall exist, but it is not stated explicitly in the Constitution.
I can't believe that I still have to clobber the fact of the U.S. constitution describing a wall of separation between church and state into the brains of some people.
Where does it say that?
Article IV: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
EDIT: Pete, I would be very careful when you state what the intention of the first amendment is. The intention of the first amendment is generally interpreted as protecting people from having outside religion forced on them or having their religious choices restricted. The people who passed the bill of rights were concerned with limiting the FEDERAL government's power. This is in no way exactly the same as general separation of church and state.
Further, actually banning religious inclusions from government functions (like the inauguration) would probably violate this amendment, as currently interpreted, because it would be a prohibition on the free exercise thereof.
EDIT: Pete, I would be very careful when you state what the intention of the first amendment is. The intention of the first amendment is generally interpreted as protecting people from having outside religion forced on them or having their religious choices restricted. The people who passed the bill of rights were concerned with limiting the FEDERAL government's power. This is in no way exactly the same as general separation of church and state.
Further, actually banning religious inclusions from government functions (like the inauguration) would probably violate this amendment, as currently interpreted, because it would be a prohibition on the free exercise thereof.
That was the point I was going to make, but I was waiting for the prey to take the bait. :P
That was the point I was going to make, but I was waiting for the prey to take the bait. :P
Yeah well... I just got out of Constitutional Law. Two hours talking about what the Constitution actually says and how the courts interpret it will tend to make you touchy when people go making naked, unsupported assertions about the intent of the text. I was wound up to pounce already. (Sorry Pete, but your assertions totally were naked. You should get them some assertion pants.)
Comments
And anyway, a remake will not destroy the original - look at Wicker Man, for example - and of course, don't forget, neither you or Martha know a goddamn thing about it.
Well, that, and Martha Fischer is nobody to really share an opinion with - I've read over her articles, and she's little more than an irritating, shrill flim snob. She doesn't like movies, she likes feeling superior to people, and film is simply her platform.
Though to be fair, I don't know how often you read that site, and you could be forgiven for missing the small byline on a short op-ed piece.
Including one person who literally thought that the WHO is controlled by Big Pharma Farmer. No, I'm not joking.
Also, raw vegans obviously don't know that cooking is responsible for making tons of nutrients and flavors available to the human body that are otherwise "locked up" because the food is raw. Derp derp derp.
This is totally an inside joke/reference, so if you don't get it, don't worry.
For serious? In the "I cleaned up my life and am now a responsible adult" manner that Glow-worm did, or in the "I accidentally all over your insidez and now we have babiez" way?
Also, the guy who is now writing Astro Toy is trying too hard to be the previous writer. It's kind of sad, he just needs to do his own thing with the column.
It is entirely the intention of the First Amendment that such a wall exist, but it is not stated explicitly in the Constitution.
Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
EDIT: Pete, I would be very careful when you state what the intention of the first amendment is. The intention of the first amendment is generally interpreted as protecting people from having outside religion forced on them or having their religious choices restricted. The people who passed the bill of rights were concerned with limiting the FEDERAL government's power. This is in no way exactly the same as general separation of church and state.
Further, actually banning religious inclusions from government functions (like the inauguration) would probably violate this amendment, as currently interpreted, because it would be a prohibition on the free exercise thereof.