Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/21/08 12:35 AM, stafffighter wrote:

The villains are a hundred times more interesting than Batman. For fuck's sake, Batman was almost a minor role in HIS OWN MOVIE.

Batman is meant to be understated in the face of the extravegant crimes he faces. It's called character depth. If you're not looking for that go see Hancock.

Umm... It's hard to establish character depth when the character isn't present as much as he should be. I remember in the old Batman flicks, Batman was the main character...

Also note that the only great acting came from the Joker, but shamefully, we'll never see this again because he killed himself (Ledger went crazy because he drove himself crazy method acting). Seriously, method acting is the biggest load of bull I've ever seen.

No, Ledger did not kill himself method acting. I'm sorry to deny you another emotional excuse to rag on this film. Interviews with anyone who'll address the question from the film say that when he took the make up off he was Heath, So that story is closed to me. I can see what you're saying about method acting because apparently you don't go to movies for acting.

Let's look at this from a rational point of view.

Heath Ledger is a drug addict with known mental problems. He then immersed himself in the role of a crazy person, taking it everywhere with him. He drove himself crazy by becoming obsessed with being the Joker, which caused him to take more drugs than he had before. After filming, he mysteriously dies of an accidental overdose.

Uttered by many sane actors, a commonly repeated phrase is, "Why don't you just act?" It is true that method acting has only become so popular with the ultra-liberal Hollywood scene... Before that, I remember actors just came as themselves, acted as someone else, and left as themselves. I dunno, I might be old-school, but there were still plenty of great actors.

The recent trend in Batman movies is stupid.

The villains are a hundred times more interesting than Batman. For fuck's sake, Batman was almost a minor role in HIS OWN MOVIE.

Also note that the only great acting came from the Joker, but shamefully, we'll never see this again because he killed himself (Ledger went crazy because he drove himself crazy method acting). Seriously, method acting is the biggest load of bull I've ever seen.

At 7/20/08 12:09 AM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 7/19/08 01:19 PM, Christopherr wrote: Why was 9/11 number two?

It's not that important compared to other events... It's just recent.

Starting two wars, drastically changing the Paradigm of the American Public?

I have no idea, I didn't watch any of it, just saying

Pearl Harbor, which started WWII, which changed far more than 9/11 did, was given a less important rank in that list. The only explanation is that it is recent, and the public does not understand the gravity of certain historical situations if they have not been alive for them.

I find it funny how the Democrats are pushing for drilling our own leases before ANWR.

They don't realize that every lease isn't a great place to drill, and that's the case with the leases they are pushing to drill.

Yes, they want us to drill on relatively dry ground before we drill in a location with significant amounts of oil.

Umm, we do spend a lot on hobos.

They can go to the Salvation Army and get food daily. However, most homeless stick to begging because the SA makes them work for their food.

We're not expected to bail them out because they are lazy.

Why was 9/11 number two?

It's not that important compared to other events... It's just recent.

At 7/18/08 04:20 PM, FalconPunch wrote: Being proud about something out of your control is stupid and ignorant.

Bullshit.

So we can't be proud of the country we were born and live in? We can't be proud of our family and ourselves because we didn't choose them?

At 7/18/08 03:37 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 7/18/08 02:07 PM, Christopherr wrote:

Unrelated pic created by me.

Thine ancient facial altercation.

Fixed.

Nobody thinks that this is about more than them fearing one woman? Seriously, they're making an example that extremist Islam, whether male or female, is absolutely NOT permissible in their country because it causes serious conflict.

As for this woman being harmless because she is a woman, remember that women can have babies. Extremist women often raise extremist kids, including the extremist males that are the men causing trouble.

At 7/18/08 12:02 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Out of many things I have been called by trolls in Politics, which ones should I add to my sig? The one by Shaggy in my user page is pretty funny but the one from his pet jack is enough to tell you what he is as it summed it up. Which one should I go for?

I kinda like "go eat some tampons"

Unrelated pic created by me.

At 7/18/08 05:43 AM, Ravariel wrote:

I forgot to put an E instead of that...

It was like 3 in the morning, forgive me.

At 7/17/08 10:55 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/17/08 10:41 PM, Christopherr wrote: They weren't the most accurate, but the real parameters were more complex and yielded an even smaller possibility of a planet able to sustain life comparable to Earth's.

Well, that's an odd assumption. Obviously life on a different planet would adapt to the specific environment in which it exists.

The parameters were the ranges at which any life could possibly survive in. They weren't set values, but very broad ranges...

At 7/17/08 10:19 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/17/08 08:52 PM, Christopherr wrote: We're also probably the only sentient beings in the universe.

Physicists have determined that the maximum number of planets that could possibly exist in the universe numbers around 1^24. The 75 parameters for the possibility of life, each with their own probability of being in the required range, work out to give about a 1^-98 chance of a single planet being able to sustain life.

First of all, what are those 75 parameters, and are they a necessity for life in general, or human life specifically?

Sorry, I only have the old notes from the lecture and a spreadsheet of all the parameters on an external hard drive back home (I'm on vacation right now). I just remember the numbers.

They weren't parameters for human life necessarily, but parameters for any significant form of life comparable to Earth. The conditions were things such as being within a proper range of an energy source.

They weren't the most accurate, but the real parameters were more complex and yielded an even smaller possibility of a planet able to sustain life comparable to Earth's.

At 7/17/08 08:57 PM, CIX wrote: Sounds something exactly what a Nazi would say. WE ARE THE MASTER RACE

Species. Master species. Which we are.

We're also probably the only sentient beings in the universe.

Physicists have determined that the maximum number of planets that could possibly exist in the universe numbers around 1^24. The 75 parameters for the possibility of life, each with their own probability of being in the required range, work out to give about a 1^-98 chance of a single planet being able to sustain life.

Even if you multiply this probability of having one planet sustain life by the absolute maximum number of planets to get the possibility of ANY planet being able to sustain life is about 1^-74... Making Earth a freak coincidence or a divine happening, whichever you want to believe.

At 7/17/08 06:11 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Her tears will dry when I hand her the keys to a shiny new Australia...

Watch it. You know you want to. It has Doogie Howser in it!

The freeze ray thing is cute.

I like.

At 7/17/08 05:30 PM, ThePretenders wrote:

At 7/17/08 10:06 AM, Christopherr wrote:

At 7/17/08 03:14 AM, ThePretenders wrote: I like neither Americans nor Europeans. They're both fat, dumb, racist and more less the same.

Excuse me? That's my country you're slandering, you know.

Slandering other countries is what I do best.

Just keep the baseless accusations to a minimum, please. I find that offensive.

At 7/17/08 03:14 AM, ThePretenders wrote: I like neither Americans nor Europeans. They're both fat, dumb, racist and more less the same.

Excuse me? That's my country you're slandering, you know.

I have nothing to think of Europe.

At 7/16/08 06:04 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: I'm tempted to find a Superman and wrap a vine around his neck for a picture

Superman? More people would actually get it if you did it to Batman.

Or hand out leaf bracelets to the people who are under my control.

There aren't enough leaf bracelets.

And possibly do inappropriate things to women dressed as Harley Quinn.

Who said Ivy was bisexual?

At 7/16/08 05:56 PM, n64kid wrote: In short, Whaling leads to a whale of a good time and funds projects with results that far surpass NASA.

It also leads to overwhaling... Which is the problem. Whales aren't as plentiful as fish, so whaling would hurt populations very quickly.

At 7/16/08 05:24 AM, poxpower wrote: I wonder what whale tastes like. Hmmm

Whale is not that good. Don't bother wondering.

At 7/16/08 12:12 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I can't believe you homos would rather talk about BASEBALL than skvnky's tree thong.

I kept on topic...

At 7/16/08 01:04 AM, fli wrote:

At 7/16/08 12:44 AM, Christopherr wrote: I was not fully aware that Fli had the ability or the desire to hit on chicks.
It might be true that no NG user can resist Skunky's tree-thong.

whoa, whoa, whao...
you're making me feel insecure.

Insecure? I just thought you were gay, so you weren't really into women.

I had no idea you had a Zorro side.

I was not fully aware that Fli had the ability or the desire to hit on chicks.

It might be true that no NG user can resist Skunky's tree-thong.

I joined in late, so forgive me...

Why are there pictures of Skunky with a tree-thong?

They were started again for political reasons, actually... To promote better relations between countries.

At 7/14/08 11:46 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Why does she have to?
She doesn't OWE anything, except taxes of course.
If she has somewhere to love the French government doesn't have any right to deny her right to live there. Its none of their goddamed business.

To become a citizen, the government needs to see you as useful. What would be the benefits that would come from naturalizing her?

I've said it already, it is their business who wishes to become part of their government and their country. I'm sorry that offends your moral codes, but the legal codes hold much more weight.

At 7/14/08 11:27 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Dude fuck laws, obviously i'm not a french legal scholar and I'm sure they are acting legally.
I'm talking about rights.
Just because they have the legal right to do it, doesn't mean they have the moral right to do it.

How is there a moral wrongdoing?

They're not doing this just to pick on Muslims. They're doing it because they feel she does not bring anything worthwhile to the French country.

At 7/14/08 10:28 PM, therealsylvos wrote: As long as someone isn't endangering the welfare of someone else, it is not the role of the government to decide who gets to live in the country.
If she owns property, or is living in the property of someone who willingly houses her its none of the governments business what her views are.
The only criteria is, will you infringe in some way on the rights of a citizen while you are here?
If the answer is no the government has no right to deny anyones right to live there.

No, there is no right to live where you want to, unless you are a citizen of the country you are living in. Whatever law you think allows them a right to become a citizen of the country of their choice does not exist.

It's ridiculous to even think that the government is not allowed a say in who may become a citizen and who may not, because they are. It is a power specifically delegated to them in their law codes.