lepercolony

i never doubted that -- i fully believe you can be a good person and not have a shred of accountability when it comes to the ideas you attempt to sell others. i was bummed to see him go too -- you know that. but you really can't say he didn't have enough opportunities to be a member here instead of a blogger. i think he's a good guy, but i also think he wanted to be a martyr (figuratively) for his ideas . . . so he just kept being a dick even though he knew he was being a dick until everyone got tired of him being a dick. that's honestly the fairest assessment i think haha. . . . all that aside, i'm genuinely sorry if this offended you because it wasn't my intent. on the other hand, it was pretty accurate. and i'd challenge you to tell me just how this place could have accommodated that dude even more than everyone tried to. honestly. his own sub-forum. all i'll say is that when Spectre got banned, the real loser was Lee. this place did a lot more good for him than he did for it, and you'll probably never convince me otherwise. sadface. oh, and the other thing i'll say is that i found a YouTube comment he made on a conspiracy theorist channel that mentioned me by name! (pretty much, anyway -- he was making fun of "Pacifists.") nice to know you're still on someone's mind, you know? i took a screenshot, never posted it because i figured what was the point, but now maybe i'll go look for it.

i'll take this one. this is all about Sony denying Marvel's rightful claim to the Spider-Man cinematic character. everyone knows Spider-Man movies would be ten times better being made by Marvel, placing the character alongside the rest of their characters where he belongs. Sony is just paying the price for keeping what has never truly belonged to them. Fox and the X-Men are next. i found proof on the internet so it's true, sheep. (that was usually how it went, right? i might be a little rusty, but if memory serves his MO was always to take something that happened and make it personally relevant to him by tying it to an issue he cared about despite having no evidence of anything.) man, today's been a nice little stroll down memory lane, lol. first Auptyk, now Spectre -- i'll just name-drop Wobblesock here and now the trifecta is complete.

lord, that's definitely him. although i'd like to think the "sir" he used is proof of our good influence on him. haven't thought about this guy in quite a while. kinda comforting to know some things just never change.

well that's just confusing.

fair point -- we may need more background. i'd assumed they were already FB friends and she was just saying Hi: hard to tell from that, you could read it a couple different ways. just because they haven't spoken for 20 years doesn't mean she hasn't been keeping tabs on him via FB -- apparently she likes "this year's" pics. maybe Steve can clarify. basically all's i'm saying is that Steve doesn't have to get ahead of himself here. that's a problem i have too. she asked about coffee and he's worried it could ruin his life. i get that kind of thinking, but it's wrong. for all he knows, coffee's just coffee, there are no ulterior motives, and they could end up re-connecting and be good buddies or something. you're not the same dude you were at 21. she probably isn't either. that said, at the end of the day it's probably not a good idea -- older women power trip. (so i've been told.)

or she was doing a little weekend browsing, noticed our boy here lost a bunch of weight and has the beard of a demi-god, and decided to shoot over a hello. social media can be a mysterious beast. sure it's smart to be cautious but everyone has their own motivations for reaching out to people. it's easier to assume the worst, especially for guys like you and me who personally wouldn't send something like this unless it was out of desperation. but that doesn't automatically mean she's desperate. i'm doing devil's advocate here because i can relate to how Steve said being burned in the past has made him less eager to jump in the fire again. totally get that. so (since it's you and not me, Steve) i say go for it. either way, as far as the drinking thing, that seems like it should be separate from whatever happened with this girl. i guess i'm saying that if you did pursue this and things went rotten, that doesn't have to mean you'll automatically hit the bottle again. you're a different dude now and should get credit for that. i think you answered your own question though: that seemed like the most telling part. if you don't want a relationship, you don't want a relationship. simple as that. also, this is extremely truth-y: i seriously need this tattooed on my forehead or something.

. . . sure why not. how long has this been a national story? this is the first i've heard of it.

kid Batman is winning me over. when he used the word, "totem" to describe the serial killer's persona i got a nerd chill. obviously since he's still a boy the show can't exactly focus on the physicality of his character, but i think they're doing a good job of developing his mind. also, i thought the scene with Oswald and his mother offered a future glimpse at the crime boss he'll become -- his body language and tone were completely different with her compared to how he presents himself to figures of authority. the show definitely has its corny and formulaic moments, but i do appreciate the attention to certain details so far.

@Deter i dunno about Teen Wolf, but i've noticed they seem to cast anyone they can from The Wire. (including Father Gabriel.)

. . . i just Hulkbustered my pants.

this past Monday's episode (in the States) started to spend some quality time fleshing out Bruce's character, hinting at his detective ability in particular, and i thought it was well done. i'm looking forward even more to an upcoming episode i read about that flashes back to Alfred's relationship with the Waynes, because that actor/character has been criminally underused so far in the series. i'm guessing they're going to make him an ex-military badass, Earth One-style.

guess i'll have to learn about BS elsewhere. i've heard about this "Reddit" thing that's been gaining traction.

watched episode 4 last night -- best so far, i'd say. also, sorry, didn't realize the premieres were delayed across the pond, i'll use spoilers just in case from now on. it's over the top, but hopefully once they develop the characters more they'll evolve out of cliches.

Gone Girl. Fincher is the new Hitchcock.

first, i'll vent: i find the Gordon GF's ex-lesbian relationship gratuitous and unnecessary. i seriously could care less and have no expectation for that subplot to evolve into anything meaningful, so it's just extremely annoying to me whenever they try to shoehorn it in. one thing i couldn't stop thinking about while watching the episode last night was the concept of the Wayne murder, and how they could do something pretty interesting with it. throughout much of Batman's various canons and origins, the identity of his parents' killer has often been eventually revealed (Joker, Joe Chill, etc.). but what occurred to me was how interesting it would be if they NEVER solve the Wayne murders in this series, which ultimately motivates Bruce to become . . . wait for it . . . The World's Greatest Detective. he becomes the pinnacle of deductive power because of the one mystery he could never solve: his parents' murder. that's always been my favorite aspect of Batman -- the idea that he could out-think his way out of any situation. and that's always been more appealing to me as a characteristic than being an Olympic-level athlete or having an infinite trust fund. it's also a trait that's largely neglected in recent history; while the Animated Series put his mind at the forefront of their stories, he doesn't ultimately do a lot of actual detecting in, say, the Nolan-verse. i guess i just figured if they're gonna tease out the resolution of the Wayne murders, and really milk it for at least a season or two . . . then why not go all the way and leave it unsolved, supplying Bruce with a believable reason to reject civilian life and start dressing up like a bat. novel, yet sensible. anyway, i'm hooked, but not in the "this show is so good" sense. more in the "i'm socially obligated as a nerd to watch this no matter how bad it is" sense. i think the success and longevity of the show will depend on how far they're willing to diverge from what we've already seen -- if anything i honestly think they need to be more aggressive about carving out their own universe. that way they can be free to explore characters and origins that keep them fresh. they have to assume that anyone tuning in to Gotham at this point is familiar with at least the Bat-basics . . . which means their entire audience thinks they know what to expect. we gotta be surprised if we're gonna watch the next episode. the Penguin plot is probably the most interesting so far, at least in terms of how much potential they clearly think that character has to help carry the show.

i guess i'm buying GQ this month. (welcome Cap, i never read the comics either so we're in the same boat.) SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY

i have a PS3 Mass Effect 3 #1 calendar in my PPR. ok sorry. //derail

wait can we not "like" posts anymore or have i just been away too long? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79JJOPHW_NQ @Jason, looks like they're tackling the marathon bombing this season. this show is pretty flawed, but it's also a Sorkin joint which means it's still better than 99% of everything else on TV. plus the subject matter deals directly with stuff i'm interested in (journalism, current events, etc.) so, yeah, i too have been hooked since the premiere. it doesn't hurt that Sorkin has never minded playing devil's advocate to the ideas he introduces on his shows. you'll often get reasonable arguments from either "side" of a given issue. West Wing would feature these dichotomies regularly. i eat that shit up. it also helps that Jeff Daniels can deliver a monologue like a fucking boss. this is the opening of episode 3 from the first season. i like it a lot. it's essentially this fictional newsroom's mission statement, which i guess means i believe in a fictional newsroom's mission statement. i've posted it here before when we've discussed the role and responsibility of media, and to highlight the fact that alternative media's characteristic lack of accountability makes it worse than worthless -- it literally destroys our dialogue. if you need proof of that, have a look at any conversation i've had with Spectre. seriously, any of them.

OK but which record did you break?

http://www.boston.com/news/2014/08/12/good-will-hunting-bench-boston-public-garden-becomes-robin-williams-memorial/9NupwfvGMPMUolDr9IpsYL/story.html?p1=Topofpage:sub_headline_4

Fans Go Ballistic On Twitter After Discovering The Teen Choice Awards Are Rigged http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fans-ballistic-twitter-discovering-teen-135500828.html "it's like my interests as an individual have no real merit, and everything (i thought) i liked is commercially predetermined based on decades of research on the developing adolescent brain!" said one teen (not really). oh, to be young again.

yeah cops are the best. pretty sure we all feel that way about Doc.

didn't think i could want the summer to be over already, but damn.

i remember this. chills.