Show Posts - The Great Terror - Gaming World Forums

Entertainment and Media What am I supposed to have seen?

Print topic

The Great Terror

August 21, 2008, 05:06:43 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

I will second Vertigo from Jetson's list, Jimmy Stewart was never so creepy and I feel its Hitchcock's strongest film. Best soundtrack of his films as well in my opinion.

The Third Man is also a great flick. It is black and white but its a beautiful film for black and white. Shot in postwar Vienna the photographers did a great job of capturing the city and making it a solid part of the tale.

Some films I did not see on anyone's list but highly recommend:

Lone Star by John Sayles is another must watch. It's probably John Sayles' magnum opus in both screenwriting and directing. Lone Star like many of John Sayles' films is a tale about a community told through the lives of individual characters in that community. Wrapped up in this exquisite narrative is a murder mystery, a tale of unrequited and forbidden love, the search for identity as a people and as an individual, and ultimately a man's conflict with his father. All of it is brought together beautifully in a very powerful statement in the film's conclusion. Yes all of that is vague, but trust me the film is brilliant.

Another one is a recent film that I think may be the best film of the 21st century so far. The Last King of Scotland directed by Kevin MacDonald is about a young Scottish doctor who runs off to Africa to get away from his parents and for other idealistic reasons. He becomes involved with Uganda's strongman ruler Idi Amin by treating his hand in the village, and is soon ensnared into his organization by the force of his personality. Idi Amin is played by Forest Whitaker who was absolutely deserving of the Oscar he earned for this role. Its a tale of tyranny and mistrust of the vein of another classic Scottish Play, Macbeth. Idi becomes increasingly violent, paranoid, and controlling as the yoke around his rule tightens. I highly recommend this film.

The Battle of Algiers is a film by Gillo Pontecorvo about the violent civil war in Algiers that pitted its French colonizers against the general arabic and islamic natives. Set in the city of Algiers the film follows several different narratives including the viewpoints of terror cell leaders, french security officers, and the French Colonel that comes in to establish martial law. The film is forty years old, but has stunning commonalities with Today's struggles with Terrorism. Cent Com actually screened this film as a discussion starter for dealing with Terrorism after 9/11. It has a lot to say on the matter without being a dry documentary.

Logged

General Talk Where do you stand politically? (Now with poll)

Print topic

The Great Terror

August 16, 2008, 04:34:20 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote

Holyshit, how are you that left and that authoritarian at the same time? This test is bonkers!

No, the conventional understanding of left and right is what is bonkers. Classically it refers to (as it does on this graph) to economics. I.E. Socialism (left) vs. Free Market (Right). Authoritarian vs. Libertarian refers to government's role on social issues and implementation of government policy. Extreme authoritarians want the government to control everything, and extreme Libertarians want government to cease to exist.

What is commonly thought of as the American right is a result of the marriage of free market economists with Christian and Moralist groups of a more authoritarian bent on social values. This is a phenomenon that came out of Reagan's candidacy and was continued since in the Republican Party. However when you are talking about the left and right it does not traditionally refer to regional politics, it refers to economics.

Hidden content (Click to reveal)

Logged

Entertainment and Media The Dark Knight

Print topic

The Great Terror

August 02, 2008, 05:18:47 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

My Review of The Dark Knight (contais spoilers) (Click to reveal)

This is NOT the greatest film of all time. It is not in the top ten. It is not even in the top twenty. If you actually think that go watch some more movies and get over Heath Ledger's death. This is a good movie. It is solid and clever, but unlike great movies it lacks anything substantial to say other than, "sometimes you need to throw some rules to the winds to deal with evil..." What it does very well is be topical. Its war on terror references are all over the place continuing the staple of today's politics become a part of comic lore including a Gotham City reproduction of the FDNY working at ground zero with the Bat overlooking on a twisted piece of girder. Yet it suffers from saying anything compelling other than saying we live in a time where we need hero's even though we will despise what they do. Is Batman, GWB wiretapping our cellphones to find that Joker Terrorist? I think so. And while I agree with the film's point of view on the War on Terror I am also able to see that the depth that the movie explores these issues is too shallow to make it anymore than a good film. Sorry guys if you want a three dimensional statement about terrorism and its effect on society and humanity check out The Battle of Algiers. Great movies like The Battle of Algiers go deeper into these matters to touch what is universal, thus rendering them timeless. The Dark Knight will be stuck in its time period, sorry. Out of context of today's politics it says little to the nature of our being, art, fiction, or anything really. Yet aside from the greatest movie of all time hype on IMDB this is a good film.

Much has been made about Heath Ledger's masterful performance as the Joker, and he is easily the best batman villain to take the screen. He is not, however, the best actor in this movie. The best performance in this film is Commissioner Gordon, played by Gary Oldman. As a minor everyman character he had less to work with than Heath Ledger who benefits greatly from a well written role and stage time. While Heath gets all the glory with his cleverly constructed lines and crowd winning moments of bad-assery. Oldman is able to craft a very compelling everyman struggling to do what is right and survive in a world fraught with out of control super villains and batman. He is the only character that actually evoked any sympathy and had some humane depth. Heath Ledger was second best in this film. He delivered the joker very well and took advantage of what was an extremely well written part. Michael Cain as Alfred was as usual effective as a father figure and mentor for the Bat. Christian Bale was OK. It was a very emblematic brooding boy scout batman, but since the movie didn't call for a lot of serious acting out of Batman it was buyable.

What hurt this movie was Maggie Gyllenhaal, Rachael Dawes. It wasn't that she was bad. It was that her part was extremely integral to Harvey Dent's believability as Two Face. For us to buy that Harvey throws away everything because she was destroyed, we need to believe she was utterly special and irreplaceable. She fails at that gloriously. Instead she is rather uninspired arm candy who, unlike Bruce Wayne's arm candy, has lines. She ends up to be little more than a prop in the film to be saved, because of a love vaguely developed and utterly non-existant on the screen except for a few uninspired kisses. Rachael Dawes dies and I don't really care. Gordon has his family kidnapped and threatened by Two Face and I do. Considering that Rachael Dawes is infinitely more important than Gordon I would say this is both a testament to how well Gordon was played and how uninspired Rachael Dawes was.

Yet aside from Racheal Dawes failure to be compelling and the shallow reduction of Terrorism as symbolized by the Joker, this was a great work of cinematography, lighting, sound and costume. The Dark Knight is perhaps the closest Batman film to recreate the comic book feel without the goofy cartoony sheen. Batman's costume is rather stoic and a tad menacing, and believable as something strong and flexible. The angles and light the director choose to shoot in made for some incredible still frames reminiscent of exemplary cover art and concept drawings. The editing was also top notch. The way the story is developed was quite entertaining and the director masterfully hooked us into the charming irony and intriguing madness of the Joker from the immediate beginning with his charming little bus "joke." It is well worth the money, and is worth seeing more than once, but not even close to the greatest movie ever hype. Its not even the greatest movie of the 21st century. The Last King of Scotland trashes this movie easily in that regard.

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 22, 2008, 04:45:31 am

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote from: Juris on July 15, 2008, 05:45:24 am

Bah. He's alluding to the general mud-slinging bullshit that basically occupies the media's time.

Anyways TGT, you sound like a pretty educated guy. This might sound like an odd question to ask, so please forgive me. But where do you go for your news/citation? I'm just getting into politics, so I'm looking for a relatively safe place to start reading up on current events.

It depends what you want. Hard relatively unadulterated news I often take straight from the AP, AFP, Reuters wires, usually through Yahoo. For larger feature articles I've often found the CS Monitor and the Washington Post have done some great work. The CS Monitor particularly delivers such thoughtful articles on a very consistent basis. But again it depends what you're looking for. Washington Post is a good source for stuff on Capitol Hill and National elections and CS Monitor is much better for what's going on around the world and the social consequences of various policies. For opinion stuff I like the National Review and The New Republic. Their basically the opinion journals for the American right and left respectively.

Anything is safe as long as you understand what it is and know how to sift for hype and take away what may or may not be valid. When talking heads or articles mention data I myself can look at such as polls and such I always take a look at them and form my own opinion about the numbers.

Blogs are eh. A whole bunch are kept by activists who think they're fighting Satan in the aisle across. Most of them are reactionary to shit posted on other blogs or crap that gets their goat in the news. There are some good ones out there but they're like that saying about opinions and assholes. Everyone has one and most don't smell nice. What's always served me well was never assuming cartoony malevolent machinations on the other side of the aisle, always following up on referenced material on things that interest me, and as corny as it sounds trying to see it from the other sides perspective (hence the fact that I read The New Republic).

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 14, 2008, 11:04:08 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote from: Ryan on July 14, 2008, 02:54:25 am

while i agree that this was a pretty large backpeddle on obama's part, come on! he clarified his position a few months before it even happened and said he would agree to take public financing if him and mccain sat down and etched out a deal regarding the 527s and swiftboating shit.

There is a ninety million dollar reason why Obama chose to opt out, and it was the potential to raise ninety million more than he could under public financing rules.

Second 527's is a non issue. The FEC after '04 clarified once and for all that it is illegal for 527's to advocate for or against a candidate. They were meant to be issue lobbies and that is what they have been, since. Also I urge you not to live in a parallel universe where the only 527 smearing candidate's in '04 was Swiftboaters for truth. Moveon.org, America Votes, and America Coming Together did their fair share of smearing as well as an all too eager National news anchor with a pile of fake documents. The politics of smear and dirty laundry are universal and frankly nothing new. Andrew Jackson's opponents smeared that his wife was a bigamist and whore and that his mother was a prostitute. If anything smear could be considered less vicious than it used to be. Kerry had bigger problems than Swift Boats. He couldn't answer why he voted against Iraq War I and for Iraq War II, during the debate he merely dittoed the president on the strategy for Iraq, but added he would do it better with no explanation as to what that means or how, and said that he would only take defensive action if it passed the global test. He was manhandled by himself.

Quote

how is that any worse than say mccain, who during his 2000 run called jerry falwell an agent of intolerance and in '08 gave the commencement address at liberty? or his complete reversal of his opinion on offshore drilling? or his complete reversal on torture and habeus corpus?

Jerry Falwell. One who cares. Two who cares. Three who cares. He's on the margins and becoming of lesser importance by the day, and second he said that personal remark eight years ago. People are allowed to change their minds on people. For example I have changed my mind on Rendpppppr. But really in the grand scheme of things it means little about anything. Its just a photo op and attempt to heal ties with the Christian Right of the party. It wasn't like he was a pro-choice atheist suddenly finding Christianity and a respect for unborn children. Personally I'm pro choice but there are bigger more important things than Roe V. Wade and Gay marriage.

Okay number two. There is no complete reversal on offshore drilling. He was asked at a townhall meeting if he would be willing to revisit (think once more) his stance on ANWAR and he said yes. That's a big nothing. His voting record on the matter speaks for itself.

The final one. The bill was DOA anyway. George said he was going to veto, and he did. Perhaps it was some security for the General Election, or perhaps he traded his show of Republican solidarity for support on something else. Who can know. At least he has a record. Obama can't claim much of the same. Though interestingly enough with the Primary in hand Obama changed his position on FISA and voted for the changes the POTUS sought. I'm sure that leaves you warm and fuzzy inside.

Also I heard an interesting tidbit on NPR while I was on my way to walmart to purchase some vise grips. Fresh Air had some longtime Obama supporter from the Illinois State senate days. He regailed us listeners with the interesting tale of how he won his first election. To summarize Barak had his aids challenge his opponents' nomination petitions (including a longtime democrat that held the seat but that's a longer story) and had them kicked off the ballot. He ran thusly unopposed by using the same tactic the state's political machine uses to keep people off the ballots and control the seats. That's the politics of change and virtue for you.

But frankly we can trade these barbs of political gossip and snipe away childishly over details that are often inane. Personally I look for reason to be for a candidate, not against.

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 14, 2008, 02:24:36 am

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote from: Marmot on July 13, 2008, 10:58:00 pm

objectivism is pretty bad. like, if you want to be an egotistical fuck there are better writers out there, like max stirner or nietzche. ayn rand was a terrible human being and her books are both terribly written (thats why nobody outside the us reads them) and terribly philosophically and she was mad with the whole left because the bolshies seized her pharmacies boohoohoo.

Usually when I see someone reference something in a sentence that is meant to be sarcastic and ironic I take it with a grain of salt. I am not an Objectivist. Ayn Rand's only book that is close to decent is We The Living. The rest is preachy and unreadable. Ironically We the Living is disliked by Objectivists for reasons that sort of escape me, prolly cause it has a soul and moral ambiguity. Otherwise I find you're oversimplifying why she left. The Bolshies ruined Russia's economy, butchered thousands during the revolution and incarcerated thousands more. The reasons for leaving such a place are legion for those capable. What's your opinion on Solzhenitsyn? I mean the Soviets did give him a free room to stay in, right? He should stop whining.

Nietzsche has a good spirit on how we should challenge ourselves as individuals to be great and enlightened. But I can't palette his conception of being extraordinary giving you the right to be above morality for a vague higher morality that you get to make up. I defer to Dostoevsky who argues that there are immutable basic ethics and morals, and that the breaking of them isolates, lessens, and potentially destroys the individual life and freedom.

I did enjoy the egotistical fuck comment. Yeah I know selfishness serving the common good. Invisible hand. Yada yada yada. I'm in the camp that there may be no such thing as true altruism. I wouldn't therefore turn to say that being as egotistical as possible is a good thing for everyone. We'd be better off if we were more self aware on such.

Logged

General Talk So there may be some interesting things in my future...

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 13, 2008, 07:25:15 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote

They also said that they told the doctor about the abuse from my relative and reiterated (which they did a lot before) that the police wouldn't do anything because it was so long ago.

Likely nonsense. I don't know how long ago it was and what California's statutes of limitation on sexual assault/rape are, but it is likely high. In Massachusetts John Geoghan was charged with several sexual assaults dating all the way back into the seventies during the whole Catholic priest molestation debacle in early 2000. California is most likely the same because often times sexual abuse, particularly pedophilia is kept under wraps by irresponsible parents, and its not until authorities get involved with the kids that this stuff comes out.

Had they revealed this kind of abuse to the therapist the issue would've been sent to whatever CA's department of health and human services is, irregardless of the statutes of limitations on the matter. They are mandated reporters. They would be putting their license in jeopardy if they don't and open themselves to criminal liability on the matter. So I doubt very much that your parents told him that they used to let some guy diddle their kids and did nothing about it, nor even called the police. All that said they sound like a piece of work, and its a good thing you got out of there.

Quote

Anyway, there were some things I wanted to talk to the doctor about, but with my parents and my little sister in the room - I couldn't really go into much (since I'm trying not to make my sister more angry at them).

Say it all in front of them and the doctor. Force the issue. Any good psychologist will see the dynamic and read what is going on. Just don't lose your cool about it. Call CA's equivalent of child services and report what you know. Putting them on notice will require them to send an agent to inspect the living situation and investigate the matter, and involve the police if necessary. If you were sexually abused by this relative or were witness I would go to the police and file charges against the individual. That would get the ball rolling.

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 13, 2008, 05:54:25 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote

but if you take too long you could be stuck in that track forever

I could be a liberal forever! That would be terrible. But its good to know you think your growth stopped at eighteen. I thought the same thing when I was twenty. It's cute.

Quote

I was planning on just being a condescending asshole

I didn't notice that. It's probably cause it comes so naturally for you.

What I find ironic is how like a teenaged highschooler you have judged me based on the clique I seem to fit into and not by any substance I have presented therewith in my words or behavior, and so have gone on to shower me with masturbatory flame-light condescension. But I'm sure this behavior comes from deep seeded altruism and not some insecure egotistical need to be dittoed and cockstroked by the peers in your clique.

Quote

but this could actually be an interesting debate if anyone would feel like taking the opposing side again. But if you don't want to debate, I guess my only advice is to not mention libertarainism and objectivism, because it tends to make people wanna beat it out of you.

Considering my first impression of you, you seem to be an intolerant little fag who would much prefer a circle jerk, so I have my doubts on debating you. You'll see me around on the issues, but I'm not interested in navel gazing with you at the moment. I don't have much to go on, so I withhold further judgment on the matter and say possibly a rain check in the future when I am more sure that you are not a faggot.

Quote

libertarainism is a horrible extreme btw, stop saying you're moderate because you can't be both.

Thank god I lean toward Libertarianism then. Really the way I designate myself comes from the imperfection of American political labels where liberal means a wider range of social freedoms coupled with a psuedo socialist welfare economic agenda, and Conservative means a free market economic agenda with an authoritarian stance on a whole bunch of social issues. I'm a free marketer with a stay out of the bedroom attitude on social issues and government. Traditional bedrock of Libertarianism. But unlike the Libertarians I don't want an end to the federal and state systems of government or any of that nonsense that comes from the far right Ruby Ridge tax evading Libertarians. Hence I add moderate as a modifying adjective. You do understand that moderate can be used as an adjective, right? I prolly fit best as a McCain Republican, or an American centrist. Your average swing voter most likely.

Quote

how do you feel about mccain switching his positions on almost every major issue

At least he didn't tell the people he would take public funding for the POTUS race and then turn around and renege on it. I would have a bit more respect on the matter if Barak had at least been honest and said that it was because he could potentially raise more money. Instead they spun it as a protest against the broken public financing system in dire need of reform. Please. But I challenge you to be more specific on your claim. On another thread perhaps?

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 12, 2008, 08:50:39 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote

paulsies

Nope Ron Paul is a loon who likes to hang out with survivalists, who write incessantly about the coming race war and other such nonsense. I much prefer McCain but that is another thread entirely. I suppose I stick myself under the libertarian label because I'm afraid my social values don't make me fit in with the arch conservatives of the party.

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 12, 2008, 06:06:23 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote from: Marmot on July 12, 2008, 09:57:46 am

if you are a libertarian i bet you will stop liking garcia marquez because he is a borderline communist who is best pal of fidel castro.

anyuway welcome and garcia marquez does rock-

Aye Dios mio! And I thought they forced him to work for all those socialist rags! Me and my fellow Objectivists must meditate on this revelation.

I'm an art transcends politics kind of guy. Only shallow partisans dismiss art solely on little labels and petty associations.

Quote

Stay here so we can watch you grow out of libertarianism by the time you're 18. Welcome to our forums! *cumw into jeffs moth*

You guys have a time machine? Or a fountain of youth? I already grew out of the Suburban, white, Che worshipping, "all my problems and misguided anger is the system's fault," Liberal sub"culture" at about that age. But I'm glad you attributed what little you know of my political beliefs to youthful naivety and lack of life experience.

Just to clarify I am not one of those "lol give me ma drugzertarians." Nor am I one to be like, "I'm sick of paying taxes to keep up all these roads and sewers." I actually find those things (roads and sewers) to be pretty cool. Like I said moderate. I understand the practicality and necessity of government in the current world we live in. In a perfect world it would be a Libertarian political arrangement. But that would mean that the greater majority of people would be well prepared for it with the individual tools necessary for success and reasonable stability within the system. That isn't today or the immediate future or perhaps even the far future. Ideals aren't ways of life they are things to work toward. Life is always about that compromise, at least in my experience.

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 11, 2008, 08:00:17 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Would you like my social security number? Perhaps my pin?

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 10, 2008, 04:21:04 am

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote

I'm from Seekonk

Quote

One of my roommates lives in East Bridgewater.

That's a big room you guys have.

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 10, 2008, 03:00:03 am

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Oh what the hell, Bridgewater.

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 10, 2008, 02:43:02 am

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

I'm near Taunton and that's all I'll leave you to go on. Otherwise The Man will find me, and bring me down again.

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 09, 2008, 05:57:40 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

No, I don't. Why don't you explain why you feel compelled to troll this thread. Is it because I disagreed with you on the youtube one? Seems rather petty to me.

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 09, 2008, 04:06:08 pm

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote from: Lord Kamina on July 09, 2008, 11:37:30 am

You like García Marquez? No wonder you suck.

I know and to think they gave him a Nobel prize when there is so much more worthy manga around.

Logged

General Talk YouTube ordered to reveal its viewers

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 09, 2008, 05:54:12 am

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote from: TREG on July 09, 2008, 04:23:49 am

While not big guy vs little guy, I think most people have a tendency to view it as vaguely 'good guy vs bad guy'.

Google's argument for access in China was that it was the lesser of two evils; I.E., better some access in China than no access in China. They made no secret about how they felt about China's censorship laws and petitioned to change them. While it's not an ideal situation, giving some help to the average Chinese citizen is better than not allowing any Google access at all.

However, in order for this case to work, Viacom should have to demonstrate actual financial harm caused specifically by YouTube's policies. YouTube has an active moderation system which consistently prunes videos that are tagged as copyright infringement. I find it hard to believe that this is anything but a misdirected measure to fight 'piracy' when honestly it's incredibly hard to find consistently good licensed content on YouTube either way because it's removed so quickly and the length of clips is limited. But then again, every time they go against an actual distributor like TVlinks, copycats in protected countries just pop up.

It's a losing battle and they should find a way to market free programming and still make money, like what NBC does with all of its programs (free HD streams with some ads) or South Park Studios.

To be honest I think if many of the TV staples such as Network news weren't taking such a big hit from internet generated content (i.e. AP/Reuters/AFP feeds and such), you wouldn't be seeing such a backlash over it. The internet took a big chunk that the other mediums once had monopolized to a certain extent. All that said, there is nothing right about Google collecting ad revenue on other people's copyrighted material. Whether its a billion in damages remains to be seen, and I have my doubts they will gain that amount by the end. At some point they will arrive at a number they both agree to and settle out, I'm sure.

As far as content is concerned I can tell you there's plenty of Seinfeld. Not full episodes, maybe if scroll far enough back you'll find one, but plenty of hefty six to ten minute clips. Which is a good chunk out of a twenty two minute program. Whether that is choking Viacom out of one billion I doubt, but they certainly have a claim in my opinion.

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=seinfeld&page=1

Considering the cadre of clips of 6 - 10 minutes that have sat around for a year or two I don't know if you can really call the moderating stringent. Its not like Seinfeld is an obscure show.

Nice jousting with you TREG.

Logged

General Talk YouTube ordered to reveal its viewers

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 09, 2008, 04:08:54 am

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Big media companies like, Google??? This is hardly the big guy vs. the little guy. If it were Viacom would be suing the uploaders which they are not. They are suing google/youtube for collecting ad revenue on their content and doing little about it. But if its all about ethics with you I can tell you only one of these companies helped China screen the internet of offensive materials for its people to "safely" consume, and it wasn't the evil Viacom corporation. How is that scrupulous?

Logged

Introductions New guy in town

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 09, 2008, 02:04:49 am

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote from: Ryan on July 09, 2008, 12:15:38 am

i can feel the libertarian rage... boiling.. swelling..

I mutter Adam Smith's wealth of nation's uncontrollably when I'm angry.

Logged

General Talk YouTube ordered to reveal its viewers

Print topic

The Great Terror

July 09, 2008, 01:59:33 am

Stalinist
Group: Member
Joined: Jul 6, 2008
Posts: 33

Quote

You are an imbecile through and through...

"Financial damages" have always been debatable

That's the point I'm making chief. They are suing for a billion in damages. Viacom wants, scratch that, needs that information to justify their damages and make their case. Glad we agree. Do you feel better now that you've got that off your chest? I may be new but was the flame necessary?

Quote

it's no different than taping shit shown on the television, or even if it's actually illegal, it usually helps promote a product and in the end more people buy it.

Well chief its not about buying the product. Its about the ad revenue. The networks don't make shows to sell 'em they make to get you to tune in so they can sell the ad space. Some dude ripping them sans the commercials and throwing them on youtube where google makes ad revenue for providing the interactive medium seems to rub them the wrong way understandably so.

Also Viacom understands that people are taping shit off of television. But the effect is no where near similar. The audience for such viewings is severely limited when said tape is kept off the internet. Even you would agree there.

Logged