The Metal Maniac

I remember one night in a bar, sitting down, drinking a rum and coke (the last of the many drinks I'd had that evening). The next thing I remember is staggering around outside the bar asking my buddies why we left in such a hurry. Evidently, that drink was the straw that broke the camel's back, and I blacked out. I honestly have no memory of what happened (I can remember walking outside the bar just fine, and even then I really had no idea why we had left) but according to my friends, the story goes a little something like this: Having finally aquired enough liquid courage, I asked this chick if she wanted to dance. She agreed, and all was well until her boyfriend showed back up. This guy was also apparantly twice my size. He asks the obvious qustion: "What are you doing with my girl?" I responded with an answer that must have seemed obvious at the time, though in retrospect, was not the wisest of things to have said. "If she's YOUR girl, what's she doing with ME?" Shortly thereafter, my friends removed me from the bar before I got my face pounded in. I think I kinda snapped back to remembering things after one of my friends threw me over a fence I had stopped to lean on. That jogged my mind I guess, so I can remember the rest of the night, which was mostly uneventful. Except for when we got home. I was crashing at my buddy's place for the night, so I literally did just that. I walked in his basment door, took about 4 steps, and collapsed face-down on the carpeted floor. He went off to get some water, and I laid there. Then I threw up. Notice, I didn't say "I got up and threw up." I just turned my head to the side and let fly. As I watched my vomit spread across the carpet, it occured to me that this was the single most disgusting thing I've ever done. Then, in another of those "it made sense when I was drunk" moments, I managed to stagger to my feet so I could go to the bathroom and clean up. However, I didn't want my friend to come along and step in the vomit on his carpet, so I removed my shirt and placed it next to the vomit, so as to mark the area. He later informed me that when he came back downstairs, he was very careful to not step on my shirt...and planted his foot right into the pile of puke instead. I don't drink so much anymore.

Well, Ripping Friends was the one which had a show or two specifically about The Man From Next Tuesday or whatever, I can tell you that much.

"Scream of the Butterfly" - Acid Bath

That's the thing though...all I'm really trying to say is, can't DNA evidence prove one man's innocence by proving another man's guilt? Again, the circumstances that would cause it would be unlikely, but I don't think it'd be impossible.

Now, I understand the point about DNA samples not being kept properly, and thus not very reliable in some cases...but since you said under any circumstances... If a girl accused someone of raping her, then they did DNA analysis and found no traces of his semen/DNA on her or any of her clothes (or on anything in her home) but did find semen from some other guy who was a known rapist on both her clothes (presumably the ones she was wearing at the time) and herself...wouldn't that prove the original guy's innocence, and that she was merely mistaken?

I still can't understand the original movie. The book has the most perfect Hollywood stuff in it that got left out for reasons I can't understand. But then again, the book is a lot more then "bugs! run!" so they kinda left out everything.

What if the crime in question was a rape, and they used DNA evidence to prove that someone ELSE raped the girl, and not the guy who was originally arrested? Yeah, slight chance and all that, but it's possible, isn't it? Anyway, I'm against it, mainly because I think that being dead is better then being locked in jail for 40 years. And I know some criminals have agreed, as there have been cases (if I'm not mistaken) of convicted murderers fighting for their "right" to be executed. I think having to live in jail for many, many years is a suitable punishment, as they're going to die anyway - they just have to suffer through prison first, and don't get the easy out of a nice, quick, painless death.

I've heard this same story - but I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to Colonel Sanders as "the guy" before. I'm also positive I once read on Snopes that someone tested KFC chicken and found like, 0 herbs spices - just salt, pepper, flour and MSG - but I can't find the article again, so I may just be insane.

Cats, because they're generally uppity little bastards who think they're better then people. I also hate people who agree with cats on this subject.

Holy fucking shit, did the finale ever kick ass.

You forgot the biggest difference between the movie/pilot and the actual show: They don't smoke any pot - instead, they snort coke. All the fucking time. I think it's obvious why that was left out of the show, but it is neat to see. Also, the characters of Julian and Ricky are pretty different. Like, they're both really dumb (as opposed to Julian having some brains - he says things that are Ricky-level stupid) and when they end up in prison, Ricky says he never wants to hang out with Julian again. But in the first episode of the show, it's Julian who doesn't want to hang out with Ricky. They almost totally switched characters - it's odd. And the pet assassinations are excellent. "We're not doin' any more fucking cats! This is the last fucking cat!" Oh, and Conky kicked ass. "You just remember who calls the shots around here, Bubbles."

The thing is though, assuming that Jesus had siblings (which isn't a stretch), his siblings wouldn't be children of God - they'd be children of Joseph. They'd share some of the same blood as Jesus, but not the divinity. And if Jesus had kids himself, then they would be, in part, divine. Which means they probably would have whatever "powers of God" which come with being divine. I agree with you that this sort of thing shouldn't cause an uproar, but it's easy to see why it would. Besides the fact that it potentially means descendents of God Himself are walking around, imagine how people would respond if they learned the Catholic Church had been lying to them for two thousand years about something extremely important in Jesus' life. And Jesus, being the son of God, was divine before he died. That's how he did all those miracles and such.

I do believe it is a result of his back injury.

The big deal about Jesus having kids (according to many conspiracy theories) is that Jesus' line didn't die out, and exist to this day, in the form of the Merovingians. Why is that important? Because anyone who was a direct descendant of Jesus Christ would also be a descendent of God Himself; I don't think something like that could debunk Christianity, but do you really have to wonder why Christians would see it as a big deal if there was more then one direct descendent of God upon the Earth? Anyway, I haven't read The Da Vinci Code, but having read Angels and Demons (written by the same guy and has the same main character - this one deals with antimatter and the Illuminati) I can say I'm looking forward to it, and am actually about to go start. That said, I think Angels and Demons would make a kickass movie, so hopefully The Da Vinci Code does really well so they'll make the prequel to leech out some more money.

No it isn't. It's geheimnis in German, mystère in French, geheimzinnigheid in Dutch, mystery in English, and a thousand other things in a thousand other languages. Granted, the WWE spells it wrong, but then again, they also dropped Jr. for no reason, and are the same people who spelled Chyna with a Y and Dog with two G's. *is picky*

If I'm not mistaken, the joke of the whole thing was that they used to make plastic hands for a ladies' pleasure. Kinda like a dildo, only a hand. Don't ask me why - that's just what I've heard. Anyway, given that tidbit, you should be able to see where the skit was going.

Any cop who needs to resort to a taser to subdue a HANDCUFFED NINE YEAR OLD GIRL really shouldn't be a cop.

I saw Kill Bill for the first time today. I really don't get the hype, and now have no interest in seeing the second.

I'm still curious as to why anyone is following the diet advice of a fat dead guy.

I'm not sure exactly how games are liscenced, but do WB (and various other companies) pay the video game companies to make the games, or do the video game companies have to buy the rights to make the game from WB (or whoever else)? I thought it was the latter, though I'm not really sure.

I suppose it depends on how mundane they want to make them...like, if all it takes is walking your character into the store every so often, that's not so bad. If you have to walk in, and actually watch him physically sit and eat, that's something else, methinks.

Never heard of 'em. According to Gamerankings.com they were though - all over 80%. And 4.5 stars on Amazon. I assume that's pretty good. I was trying to find out what the games were, but failed - all I learned is that I can buy them if I so choose. Damned interweb. That said, I'm well aware that extremely free roaming games would only be fun if the game itself was, you know, fun - free-roamingness wouldn't be fun in and of itself if there was nothing to do. But since GTA gives you things to do, I'm all for it.

Strong point. I may need to re-think this one...

Actually, I've only ever played the game for like, 10 minutes. I was unaware of what exactly Game Rankings is...now I see that they'll be using a fair sorce to rate the games, but I still figure that if Atari is making them money, they shouldn't be punishing them for it. I dunno, it just seems to me that this would easily lead to people (by which I mean people who make such products) getting pissed off at WB, and not wanting to market their products, leaving WB in a bit of a lurch. Of course, they probably have enough stuff to liscence that that'd never become a problem, but hey.

I like the eating idea...not because I think it'd be fun to be a fat bastard but, as it says in the article, it's another step towards games where you can do ANYTHING.