Twist ending. He is a reverse merman.InfraRedBucket wrote:Latest gender swapping remake in the pipeline:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/a ... ash-remakeChanning Tatum is set to star in Disney’s remake of the 1984 romantic comedy Splash that boasts one very enticing catch: this new version will reverse the sexes of the two leads, with the Magic Mike actor embodying the mermaid, played by Daryl Hannah in the original.
The idea is usually to follow a successful formula. There's a reason we didn't get a bunch of Heaven's Gate or Dune rip-offs.CommanderTuvok wrote:Sounds like a typical Hollywood fad of producing movies on a theme.InfraRedBucket wrote:Latest gender swapping remake in the pipeline:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/a ... ash-remakeChanning Tatum is set to star in Disney’s remake of the 1984 romantic comedy Splash that boasts one very enticing catch: this new version will reverse the sexes of the two leads, with the Magic Mike actor embodying the mermaid, played by Daryl Hannah in the original.
K9, Turner and Hooch....
Big, Vice Versa....
Armageddon, Deep Impact
It will pass.
I wouldn't hold my breath.jimhabegger wrote:Thank you. Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.Hunt wrote:Carrier's case is very similar to the one against Shermer, as noted on Carrier's own blog by Bill Ligertwood. Carrier has been spared some of the more overt accusations of rape, probably because he's still considered quasi-in group, isn't Libertarian, is somewhat younger than Shermer, and hasn't had an accuser seriously hint that she was raped. But Carrier's newfound commitment to due process, investigation, the presumption of innocence...etc., was entirely absent in his attitude toward Shermer. As far as I can tell, his new position is a sea change for him.jimhabegger wrote:I have a question about Carrier, just out of curiosity. I suspect that Carrier has never raised any of the questions and objections about men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, but I don't know enough about his history, to say that with confidence. I'd like to know if he can point to any examples, himself, of when he has raised *any* of these questions and objections, when other men were being denounced by Myers' faction. I might ask him myself, if I can find some way to do that and get a response. Is there anyone who can ask him directly, and possibly get an answer? I'm curious to know what he might say to that.
Yup. Seems I'm not the only one noticing this. As I tweeted a little while ago:CommanderTuvok wrote: No doubt, although I was not even in my teens when Militant was dominant. But, when you get the infestation of the trots and SWP types, you can't help but think of Militant. The main difference is, is that Corbyn's lot are more metropolitan, whereas Militant was more of a working class socialist thing. I think.
Bless you. Not a subtle trolling but you're on your way.jimhabegger wrote:Thank you. Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.Hunt wrote:Carrier's case is very similar to the one against Shermer, as noted on Carrier's own blog by Bill Ligertwood. Carrier has been spared some of the more overt accusations of rape, probably because he's still considered quasi-in group, isn't Libertarian, is somewhat younger than Shermer, and hasn't had an accuser seriously hint that she was raped. But Carrier's newfound commitment to due process, investigation, the presumption of innocence...etc., was entirely absent in his attitude toward Shermer. As far as I can tell, his new position is a sea change for him.jimhabegger wrote:I have a question about Carrier, just out of curiosity. I suspect that Carrier has never raised any of the questions and objections about men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, but I don't know enough about his history, to say that with confidence. I'd like to know if he can point to any examples, himself, of when he has raised *any* of these questions and objections, when other men were being denounced by Myers' faction. I might ask him myself, if I can find some way to do that and get a response. Is there anyone who can ask him directly, and possibly get an answer? I'm curious to know what he might say to that.
:lol: I'm not.Hunt wrote:I wouldn't hold my breath.jimhabegger wrote:Thank you. Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.Hunt wrote:... But Carrier's newfound commitment to due process, investigation, the presumption of innocence...etc., was entirely absent in his attitude toward Shermer. As far as I can tell, his new position is a sea change for him.
I meant it very sincerely. I really don't know whether or not Carrier has ever raised any of those questions and objections before, or made any of those suggestions, and I really would like to know.Brive1987 wrote:Bless you. Not a subtle trolling but you're on your way.jimhabegger wrote:Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.
Bwahhaha. Of course he hasn't. He was SJ clear until they fried him.jimhabegger wrote:I meant it very sincerely. I really don't know whether or not Carrier has ever raised any of those questions and objections before, or made any of those suggestions, and I really would like to know.Brive1987 wrote:Bless you. Not a subtle trolling but you're on your way.jimhabegger wrote:Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.
So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?jimhabegger wrote:Going strictly by the declaration of faith, that there's only one God and that Muhammad was one of His prophets, would make me a Muslim, but that would be an empty and meaningless academic exercise. In actual practice, "Muslim" always means more than that. For example, I don't think anyone would consider anyone a Muslim who believes in a prophet after Muhammad, and in a revelation that supersedes the Quran, as I do. In fact in 1925 the highest religious court in Egypt confirmed the decision of a lower court that no Baha'i can be regarded a Muslim or vice versa.Malky wrote:Yes but to my mind that would make you a Muslim - why would you not call yourself one?jimhabegger wrote: In case it matters to anyone, I'm not the one saying that I'm a Muslim. I say that I'm not.
Do you mean, as a person who calls Muhammad an authentic prophet of God, and the Quran the word of God?
The best kinds of uncomfortable questions are the ones asked by sincere, if naive, people. That's why children are so good at unintentionally embarrassing hypocrites.jimhabegger wrote:I meant it very sincerely. I really don't know whether or not Carrier has ever raised any of those questions and objections before, or made any of those suggestions, and I really would like to know.Brive1987 wrote:Bless you. Not a subtle trolling but you're on your way.jimhabegger wrote:Just now I sent him an email, asking him if he's ever raised any of the questions and objections to men being accused of improper behavior with women, that he's raising now, to the allegations against him, or made any of the suggestions he's making now, about how to respond to such allegations. I asked him to please post some examples somewhere, of when he's done that, if he ever has.
Only if they have a doctorate in psychology.CommanderTuvok wrote:The Commander just had a shave. When I first applied some foam to my face, I reflexively jumped and yelled out "fuck off, Carrier".
Should I see the doctor.....?
More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.Dave wrote:So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?jimhabegger wrote:Going strictly by the declaration of faith, that there's only one God and that Muhammad was one of His prophets, would make me a Muslim, but that would be an empty and meaningless academic exercise. In actual practice, "Muslim" always means more than that. For example, I don't think anyone would consider anyone a Muslim who believes in a prophet after Muhammad, and in a revelation that supersedes the Quran, as I do. In fact in 1925 the highest religious court in Egypt confirmed the decision of a lower court that no Baha'i can be regarded a Muslim or vice versa.Malky wrote:[.quote="jimhabegger"]
In case it matters to anyone, I'm not the one saying that I'm a Muslim. I say that I'm not.
Do you mean, as a person who calls Muhammad an authentic prophet of God, and the Quran the word of God?[./quote]
Yes but to my mind that would make you a Muslim - why would you not call yourself one?
I feel very bad for world-famous historian Richard Carrier PhD, an Assistant Professor of History at the Royal Military College of Canada.jet_lagg wrote:The first page of google results for Carrier are looking pretty good.
http://i.imgur.com/1y9QFtK.png
Ahhh, but in my experience manyJan Steen wrote:More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.Dave wrote: So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?
Yeah, two kinds of idiocy are rarely isomorphic.Dave wrote:Ahhh, but in my experience manyJan Steen wrote:More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.Dave wrote: So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?MoronsMormons do believe they are Christians.
Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.
http://archive.is/GBsPwDr. Richard Carrier is being defamed, deliberately and viciously, by a woman who, in my opinion, has behaved in a way very much like that of a prudish, tempestuous child.
A child-raping mass-murdering psycho?Dave wrote:Ahhh, but in my experience manyJan Steen wrote:More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.Dave wrote: So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?MoronsMormons do believe they are Christians.
Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.
Ogvorbis?Git wrote:A child-raping mass-murdering psycho?Dave wrote:Ahhh, but in my experience manyJan Steen wrote:[.quote="Dave"]
So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?[./quote]
More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.MoronsMormons do believe they are Christians.
Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.
Clearly that's Sacha Baron Cohen.Shatterface wrote:Don't know if we've had this already:
One day a Muslim fanatic will criticise Ghostbusters and the worm will finally turn.
His site says "Comment, please. No offence taken ever." So I left a comment. Which promptly disappeared. So this Sidney Winston is not only a fanboy of Carrier's, but apparently just as dishonest.Really? wrote:Sidney Winston, a Carrier fanboy, supports Richard Carrier.
http://archive.is/GBsPwDr. Richard Carrier is being defamed, deliberately and viciously, by a woman who, in my opinion, has behaved in a way very much like that of a prudish, tempestuous child.
Yes. Baha'is recognize two revelations after the Quran and superseding it, starting in 1944.Dave wrote:So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?jimhabegger wrote:Going strictly by the declaration of faith, that there's only one God and that Muhammad was one of His prophets, would make me a Muslim, but that would be an empty and meaningless academic exercise. In actual practice, "Muslim" always means more than that. For example, I don't think anyone would consider anyone a Muslim who believes in a prophet after Muhammad, and in a revelation that supersedes the Quran, as I do. In fact in 1925 the highest religious court in Egypt confirmed the decision of a lower court that no Baha'i can be regarded a Muslim or vice versa.
If someone says they are a Muslim, then as far as I am concerned that person is a Muslim. I am in agreement with the Murjites on this and unlike the arrogant such as the Salafi/Wahhabi and others I do not make takfir on anyone.jimhabegger wrote: Going strictly by the declaration of faith, that there's only one God and that Muhammad was one of His prophets, would make me a Muslim, but that would be an empty and meaningless academic exercise. In actual practice, "Muslim" always means more than that. For example, I don't think anyone would consider anyone a Muslim who believes in a prophet after Muhammad, and in a revelation that supersedes the Quran, as I do. In fact in 1925 the highest religious court in Egypt confirmed the decision of a lower court that no Baha'i can be regarded a Muslim or vice versa.
And you are one of the idiots who believe in that rubbish, right? There's a sucker born every minute. Some become Baha'is, some don't.jimhabegger wrote:Yes. Baha'is recognize two revelations after the Quran and superseding it, starting in 1944.Dave wrote:So you are saying the Baha'i are to a Muslim much the same as a Muslim is to a Jew or a Christian?jimhabegger wrote:Going strictly by the declaration of faith, that there's only one God and that Muhammad was one of His prophets, would make me a Muslim, but that would be an empty and meaningless academic exercise. In actual practice, "Muslim" always means more than that. For example, I don't think anyone would consider anyone a Muslim who believes in a prophet after Muhammad, and in a revelation that supersedes the Quran, as I do. In fact in 1925 the highest religious court in Egypt confirmed the decision of a lower court that no Baha'i can be regarded a Muslim or vice versa.
My understanding is that they were written down within a few years of his death. (First complete copy within 20 IIRC.) As a skeptic, Im sure they were tampered with and modified both intentionally and unintentionally, because that is how people do things. Im sure a believer would claim that the process was divinely guided to prevent such errors occurring. Shrug, that someone or many someones may have twiddled the edges doesnt cause me to doubt that the major part of it is due to a particular deluded paedophile.Jan Steen wrote:Yeah, two kinds of idiocy are rarely isomorphic.Dave wrote:Ahhh, but in my experience manyJan Steen wrote:
More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.MoronsMormons do believe they are Christians.
Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.
But as for your last statement, I wouldn't be so certain. Apparently, Mo's deluded rantings were only written down a century or so after his death. Are we to believe that they were accurately remembered after all that time, and not tampered with or added to? Only a religious person would be gullible enough to fall for that. Someone like jimhabeggar.
When I use identity labels, I'm usually referring to people who label themselves that way, with some possible exceptions like Muscato for example. Even with him, I would probably call him a woman, and use feminine pronouns, in conversations with him or with other people who prefer that.AndrewV69 wrote:If someone says they are a Muslim, then as far as I am concerned that person is a Muslim. ... Likewise if someone says they are not a Muslim I am fine with that also.
"Male tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the frothing was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He lovedJan Steen wrote:His site says "Comment, please. No offence taken ever." So I left a comment. Which promptly disappeared. So this Sidney Winston is not only a fanboy of Carrier's, but apparently just as dishonest.Really? wrote:Sidney Winston, a Carrier fanboy, supports Richard Carrier.
http://archive.is/GBsPwDr. Richard Carrier is being defamed, deliberately and viciously, by a woman who, in my opinion, has behaved in a way very much like that of a prudish, tempestuous child.
That the rantings were written down that early may well be Muslim propaganda. It is probably not healthy for a scholar to apply skepticism to this claim. Even a fucking BBC website states that the Q'uran was revealed to Muhammad by God. So much for trustworthy reporting. The cowardly fuckers.Dave wrote:My understanding is that they were written down within a few years of his death. (First complete copy within 20 IIRC.) As a skeptic, Im sure they were tampered with and modified both intentionally and unintentionally, because that is how people do things. Im sure a believer would claim that the process was divinely guided to prevent such errors occurring. Shrug, that someone or many someones may have twiddled the edges doesnt cause me to doubt that the major part of it is due to a particular deluded paedophile.Jan Steen wrote:Yeah, two kinds of idiocy are rarely isomorphic.Dave wrote:[.quote="Jan Steen"]
More like, as a Mormon is to a Christian. Jimbo believes the kind of nonsense where we still know who made it up.[./quote]
Ahhh, but in my experience manyMoronsMormons do believe they are Christians.
Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.
But as for your last statement, I wouldn't be so certain. Apparently, Mo's deluded rantings were only written down a century or so after his death. Are we to believe that they were accurately remembered after all that time, and not tampered with or added to? Only a religious person would be gullible enough to fall for that. Someone like jimhabeggar.
I'm intrigued by the hypothesis of Robert Eisenman and others, who trace the origins of Islam back through the Sabeans and Mandeans of the Tigris-Euprates delta, to the radical, 1st century AD Ebionite sect of judaism. That would explain the rabid moslem obsession with dietary restrictions, ritual purification, and taking on the entire rest of the world with a view to killing them all as infidels.Dave wrote:My understanding is that they were written down within a few years of his death. (First complete copy within 20 IIRC.) As a skeptic, Im sure they were tampered with and modified both intentionally and unintentionally, because that is how people do things.Jan Steen wrote:But as for your last statement, I wouldn't be so certain. Apparently, Mo's deluded rantings were only written down a century or so after his death.Dave wrote: Besides, we do know who made the muslim shit up.
I know this is a joke but can some one soellmit out for me?ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Fucking glorious.Ape+lust wrote:
From the article:Shatterface wrote:Don't know if we've had this already:
One day a Muslim fanatic will criticise Ghostbusters and the worm will finally turn.
There is nothing "radical" and Hammuda is entirely correct:A hardline Cardiff imam suspected of radicalising three young men, has told teenage worshippers that having sex slaves is "permissible in Islam". An undercover reporter recorded Ali Hammuda, a cleric who organises halaqas (religious study circles) at the Al-Manar mosque was recorded telling children as young as 13 that the world is "close to the end of time".
I believe that when the Koran was finally codified (by the Ummayads I think) they burnt 1200 false copies so there is no doubt that what we gave has been tampered with.Dave wrote: My understanding is that they were written down within a few years of his death. (First complete copy within 20 IIRC.) As a skeptic, Im sure they were tampered with and modified both intentionally and unintentionally, because that is how people do things. Im sure a believer would claim that the process was divinely guided to prevent such errors occurring. Shrug, that someone or many someones may have twiddled the edges doesnt cause me to doubt that the major part of it is due to a particular deluded paedophile.
I believe that when the Koran was finally codified (by the Ummayads I think) they burnt 1200 false copies so there is no doubt that what we gave has been tampered with.Dave wrote: My understanding is that they were written down within a few years of his death. (First complete copy within 20 IIRC.) As a skeptic, Im sure they were tampered with and modified both intentionally and unintentionally, because that is how people do things. Im sure a believer would claim that the process was divinely guided to prevent such errors occurring. Shrug, that someone or many someones may have twiddled the edges doesnt cause me to doubt that the major part of it is due to a particular deluded paedophile.
Spell it out!Malky wrote:I know this is a joke but can some one soellmit out for me?ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Fucking glorious.Ape+lust wrote:
And then dictate such mind-boggling nonsense as this:Tigzy wrote:It really does take a god as unknowable and unfathomable as allah to choose someone who couldn't write as the seal of his prophets.
Have you been inoculated against Teh Gay in the last 5 years?CommanderTuvok wrote:The Commander just had a shave. When I first applied some foam to my face, I reflexively jumped and yelled out "fuck off, Carrier".
Should I see the doctor.....?
Is my pattern recognition lobe working overtime or is 'Sidney Winston' a reference to the 'Siege of Sydney Street' and Winston Churchill's involvement in it?Jan Steen wrote:His site says "Comment, please. No offence taken ever." So I left a comment. Which promptly disappeared. So this Sidney Winston is not only a fanboy of Carrier's, but apparently just as dishonest.Really? wrote:Sidney Winston, a Carrier fanboy, supports Richard Carrier.
http://archive.is/GBsPwDr. Richard Carrier is being defamed, deliberately and viciously, by a woman who, in my opinion, has behaved in a way very much like that of a prudish, tempestuous child.
Looks like Neil is on the spectrum too (I mean, besides Sticky Dicky).Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I'd earlier mentioned that Neil Godfrey had stabbed his erstwhile Bayesian Butt Buddy, Dicky Carrier, nine times in the back. It was only six:
http://vridar.org/2016/08/02/questionin ... ectations/
So it turns out a judge in the UK has said that the NHS can pay for a preventative HIV aimed mainly at gay men. It apparently prevents HIV from multiplying, and costs around UKL400 per month.free thoughtpolice wrote:Have you been inoculated against Teh Gay in the last 5 years?CommanderTuvok wrote:The Commander just had a shave. When I first applied some foam to my face, I reflexively jumped and yelled out "fuck off, Carrier".
Should I see the doctor.....?
And then those prayer times, based on sunset and sunrise... pricelessTigzy wrote:It really does take a god as unknowable and unfathomable as allah to choose someone who couldn't write as the seal of his prophets.
And the circumcision of boys.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I'm intrigued by the hypothesis of Robert Eisenman and others, who trace the origins of Islam back through the Sabeans and Mandeans of the Tigris-Euprates delta, to the radical, 1st century AD Ebionite sect of judaism. That would explain the rabid moslem obsession with dietary restrictions, ritual purification, and taking on the entire rest of the world with a view to killing them all as infidels.
What's that about violence against women on HBO?katamari Damassi wrote:Ugh. Just heard an NPR critic rake some HBO executive over the coals about their shows depictions of violence against women. SJW cant was heavily featured. I really wish the executive had said something like: "If you don't like the show, then don't watch it." All indications are that they'll kowtow.
Fuck, what a shitty summer for movies.Tigzy wrote:Well, if early reviews are anything to go by, looks like Suicide Squad hasn't broken the trend of shitty DC adaptations (Nolan's Bats excepted). Bah!
