Mega Thread The Random Thoughts Thread Part 1

[Powerstufff]

The ending is poor. But Affleck is certainly on a roll.

The ending was open to interpretation, and that was good.

It wasn't a neat packaged ending and that had my wife and I going over stuff all the way home, which we enjoyed a lot. If that didn't work for someone it could be problematic. Looking at the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes reviews afterward I could see both opinions coming up.

Personally I found 'Gone Girl' to be better in novel than in film, though both were excellent. I found Amy to be very sympathetic in the novel, but not so much in the film. In the film she was just a crazy bitch so, in that respect, I don't think the film stayed true to its portrayal of the novel.

Fair enough. I've heard a bit about the differences between the book and the film so now have the book waiting to read.

 

[Lagooner]

The ending was open to interpretation, and that was good.

I for one love an unresolved ending but not at the expense of logic. It's a great ride but plot holes everywhere.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

What do you call a girl who can spread her legs as wide as a tennis court?























Annette.

 

[manureid]

What do you call a girl who can spread her legs as wide as a tennis court?























Annette.

You should feel bad.







But you won't

 

[xflamedancer]

What do you call a girl who can spread her legs as wide as a tennis court?























Annette.

Get your coat.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

So who is owning up to having a mum with that name?

 

[Eddie Dingle]

And then telling her the joke?

 

[manureid]

I know that girl...but her name was not annette...

 

[BIG MATTY WHITE]

Personally I found 'Gone Girl' to be better in novel than in film, though both were excellent. I found Amy to be very sympathetic in the novel, but not so much in the film. In the film she was just a crazy bitch so, in that respect, I don't think the film stayed true to its portrayal of the novel.

SPOILER*****



I felt afflecks character got beaten......beaten badly

 

[raman]

What do you call a girl who can spread her legs as wide as a tennis court?

An ambulance.

 

[I Dont Care]

I was in an Asian grocery on Saturday morning and they had 1 kilo bags of umami flavouring which, according to the text on the bag, is 99% pure MSG.

Is that a good thing?

 

[ozph1870]

hahahahah........what.

 

[Steve Dore]

Is that a good thing?

No.

 

[bomberclifford]

How To Have Cybersex. [SFW]

 

[FromTheHartland]

hahahahah........what.

*slides purse behind couch*

Such a specific thing he's not going to do any more.

I like how the preacher says they preach reconciliation not condemnation,

 

[Garibaldi Red]

What do you call a girl who can spread her legs as wide as a tennis court?























Annette.

I went out with a girl called Annette in High School. She didn't like tennis but she sure did make a "racquet"

 

[Steve Dore]

How To Have Cybersex. [SFW]

Is that what Cybermen (and Cyberwomen) do?

 

[chiwigi]

Oh so you think its insignificant that his accusers have been widely disbelieved for decades, even though you already agreed they have the right to be believed?

And meanwhile innocent women are not suffering massive unfixable grief by society's comprehensive silencing of their victimhood because one man says theyre all liars?

He'll have his day in court. What happens outside of it is exactly as open to discussion as anything else, and the 'injustice' of one man being seen in a negative light if accusations are false is nothing compared to the pain he has inflicted if even one of his accusers is truthful.

Not by his hand IF he is innocent. Harming an innocent man because of harm caused to others by others is not justice in any way shape or form.

I didn't agree they were to believed, I agreed they had the right to be presumed to be telling the truth until proven otherwise, that's why we have a justice system.

He will have his day in court and that's when he can be punished and reviled if found guilty. No one should be tarred with the title of rapist (or paedo or murderer or even thief or liar) unless it is proven to be true.

To do otherwise is unjust, unfair and opens each and every one of us to trial by mob and meme.

 

[manureid]

Ol' mate Nick Stevens seems like a lovely fella.

 

[Portia]

Not by his hand IF he is innocent. Harming an innocent man because of harm caused to others by others is not justice in any way shape or form.

Harming an innocent victim to protect the reputation of the accused is not justice in any way shape or form.

I didn't agree they were to believed, I agreed they had the right to be presumed to be telling the truth until proven otherwise, that's why we have a justice system.

So we can presume that they are telling truth except cannot talk about their stories? They have to be silenced and no one should discuss them? That is a ludicrous suggestion, and flies in the faith of a presumption of truth telling on their part.

He will have his day in court and that's when he can be punished and reviled if found guilty.

He can be reviled whenever we like. But court does determine when his legal punishment begins.

No one should be tarred with the title of rapist (or paedo or murderer or even thief or liar) unless it is proven to be true.

Yeah, but thats not the law. He can take out a civil suit if he's not happy about how he's being talked about.

To do otherwise is unjust, unfair and opens each and every one of us to trial by mob and meme.

Thats a ludicrous hyperbole.

On that principle you are effectively denying the right to an opinion on any subject, because if you have no legal basis for any assertion, it can be seen as unjust, unfair and mobbish by a person of whom you speak negatively.

My claim that hot dogs at Footy Park are rubbish was no doubt unjust, unfair and mobbish to Leigh Whicker - should I be required to keep my silence, or is my opinion my opinion and I have a right to express it?

Civil suits are the recourse of the accused.

 

[Macca19]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...tack-court-hears/story-fni0fee2-1227141385315

ONE-time Carlton star Nick Stevens left his former partner lying in a pool of blood after threatening to kill her, a court has heard.
The woman told the court she heard her “cheek pop” as Stevens slammed her head into the wall of the kitchen at their Traralgon home on February 10 last year.
She had accused him of cheating on her.
She said: “He said, ‘I’m going to kill you.’ He said, ‘I’m going to beat you to within an inch of your life.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...tack-court-hears/story-fni0fee2-1227141385315

Oh Nick!

 

[5um0F1]

ONE-time Carlton star Nick Stevens left his former partner lying in a pool of blood after threatening to kill her, a court has heard.

Where is the reference to Protz Pooower, oh my mistake, its not some local starfish licker penning for the pissant ragvertiser ...

 

[chiwigi]

Harming an innocent victim to protect the reputation of the accused is not justice in any way shape or form.

So we can presume that they are telling truth except cannot talk about their stories? They have to be silenced and no one should discuss them? That is a ludicrous suggestion, and flies in the faith of a presumption of truth telling on their part.

He can be reviled whenever we like. But court does determine when his legal punishment begins.

Yeah, but thats not the law. He can take out a civil suit if he's not happy about how he's being talked about.

Thats a ludicrous hyperbole.

On that principle you are effectively denying the right to an opinion on any subject, because if you have no legal basis for any assertion, it can be seen as unjust, unfair and mobbish by a person of whom you speak negatively.

My claim that hot dogs at Footy Park are rubbish was no doubt unjust, unfair and mobbish to Leigh Whicker - should I be required to keep my silence, or is my opinion my opinion and I have a right to express it?

Civil suits are the recourse of the accused.

It's not ridiculous hyperbole, it is the basis of our civilization for crying out loud.

What is ridiculous hyperbole are claims against people before they have had a fair trial.

Comparing hot dogs to a condemnation of a potentially innocent man is also a ridiculous analogy.

Your over emotive responses are EXACTLY why the presumption of innocence is required.

As for your assertion that 'he can take out a civil suit', that's not really possible is it? And you know that, he can't sue the internet!

Why don't all the rape victims take out a civil suit? Lower evidence requirement etc. - see how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[Shaxx Attaxx]

Oak is our new premier partner! I'm going to grab an Oak egg nog to celebrate.

 

[Portia]

It's not ridiculous hyperbole, it is the basis of our civilization for crying out loud.

What is ridiculous hyperbole are claims against people before they have had a fair trial.

Comparing hot dogs to a condemnation of a potentially innocent man is also a ridiculous analogy.

They have equivalent value in the eyes of criminal law, which is to say none. In civil law, they are also the same.

Your over emotive responses are EXACTLY why the presumption of innocence is required.

For legal prosecution of a criminal offence, certainly. For everything else, there is no presumption of innocence.

As for your assertion that 'he can take out a civil suit', that's not really possible is it? And you know that, he can't sue the internet!

He can sue media agencies, the comedian that brought the accusations to prominence, etc. Plenty of options.

Why don't all the rape victims take out a civil suit? Lower evidence requirement etc. - see how ridiculous that sounds?

It sounds ridiculous because RAPE IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

Talking about Bill Cosby being a rapist is not.