T1B

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:05 pm**

How’s the process working out for ya Jay?

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:25 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:55 pm
Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:28 pm
Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:59 pm
His politics has nothing to do with his ability as a writer, nor the quality of his work.
Terry Goodkind's readers laugh.

Anyway, EAP, the auto accident changed him.
What's your point IB? What does Goodkind have to do with King?

Yes, the accident did change him. If anything, he became a BETTER writer. I've offered you his exact quotes for his dislike of the Kubrick film. You've backed up your opinion...with your opinion. Not facts. You've got nothing here, except ignorance. Not as bad as Stan, but still...

Stan, you douche nozzle, as I've stated over and over, I am not a leftist. Not even close. Do your homework. If King has made stupid remarks, go ahead and link those up. Prove yourself.

Jay.
I've been a cinema lover longer than you've been alive.

Stephen king called Shelly's performance crap, saying she was a scream queen.
He thought Jack's performance was trash.

AND you don't have any problems with king's opinions?

For starters, I thought Shelly's acting was PERFECT for the role of a woman slowly losing it, descending into sheer horror as her husband becomes more and more psychotic.
Her son?
Imagine a mother dealing with her son? THAT SON.
For Stephen king to make those absolutely stupid remarks about Kubrick's masterpiece, IS LAUGHABLE,
and shows just how short sighted and closed minded he was.
I can give you countless examples of left wingers like king, AND left wing film critics who TOTALLY missed the mark on really great films.

It happens WAY more than you may have thought.

The overlook hotel and grounds were MASSIVE, yet in the hands of a skilled director like stanley,
Thru much of the film, I Felt very uncomfortable and claustrophobic as things progressively deteriorated.

Yet today, the remarks of Stephen king come off as very low brow and reveal a lack of critical thinking on his part.

I'm going to start a new topic thread on a CLASSIC example of left wing film critics who massively missed the mark on a great film, while overly praising a very mediocre to poor film.

Trust me. THIS warrants it's own thread.

And I look forward to your rebuttal.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:30 pm**

Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:05 pm How’s the process working out for ya Jay?

Not my process bud. Not at all.

In retrospect...

Deflect and lie.
Dodge and weave.
Obfuscate the truth.

The process is nobody's friend.

Your point is well made.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:02 pm**

EAP wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:25 pm
Jay.
I've been a cinema lover longer than you've been alive.

Stephen king called Shelly's performance crap, saying she was a scream queen.
He thought Jack's performance was trash.

AND you don't have any problems with king's opinions?

For starters, I thought Shelly's acting was PERFECT for the role of a woman slowly losing it, descending into sheer horror as her husband becomes more and more psychotic.
Her son?
Imagine a mother dealing with her son? THAT SON.
For Stephen king to make those absolutely stupid remarks about Kubrick's masterpiece, IS LAUGHABLE,
and shows just how short sighted and closed minded he was.
I can give you countless examples of left wingers like king, AND left wing film critics who TOTALLY missed the mark on really great films.

You should really think before you mash submit.

I've been around for a long while. I grew up with a Hollywood background. I've worked in television, cinema and radio for three decades. I'm also a writer. I know more about cinema than you can possibly imagine. Which isn't saying much, as you are an idiot.

Shelly Duvall is and was one of the worst actresses of all time. The only role she came close to being good at was Olive in Robin Williams flop "Popeye". She looked the part, but that was about it. King's remarks are valid as it is his book. He can say what he wants and you are in no position to disagree. It's his story, he's knows it better than anyone. Kubrick is a brilliant film maker, one of the all time greats. His take on the Shining has a lot going from it from a technical standpoint, I've already stated this. But the heart and soul of King's book was lost in Kubrick's own self-important version. If you had read the novel, you would understand this. There was no evolving or deconstruction of the characters. Jack Torrence, in the film is already nuts. The wife is window dressing, who just becomes a screamer. The kid is nearly a non factor. Only Scatman Carruthers Dick Halloran character is fully fleshed out, which is odd as he's in it so shortly.

I grew up reading all of King's books. One of his best is his "On Writing", which explains his process (nudge nudge wink wink MS) and influences. You should really read it.

Now please stop your tedious noise. You don't know what you're talking about.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:14 pm**

Kubrick didn’t have to have Jack go mad because he had something King didn’t, film. Kubrick gets to show isolation which becomes the suspense. King can’t do that with words (to any great degree) so his suspense comes from Jack’s decent. King should understand that, but maybe he is just too close to the work.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:39 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:02 pm
EAP wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:25 pm
Jay.
I've been a cinema lover longer than you've been alive.

Stephen king called Shelly's performance crap, saying she was a scream queen.
He thought Jack's performance was trash.

AND you don't have any problems with king's opinions?

For starters, I thought Shelly's acting was PERFECT for the role of a woman slowly losing it, descending into sheer horror as her husband becomes more and more psychotic.
Her son?
Imagine a mother dealing with her son? THAT SON.
For Stephen king to make those absolutely stupid remarks about Kubrick's masterpiece, IS LAUGHABLE,
and shows just how short sighted and closed minded he was.
I can give you countless examples of left wingers like king, AND left wing film critics who TOTALLY missed the mark on really great films.

You should really think before you mash submit.

I've been around for a long while. I grew up with a Hollywood background. I've worked in television, cinema and radio for three decades. I'm also a writer. I know more about cinema than you can possibly imagine. Which isn't saying much, as you are an idiot.

Shelly Duvall is and was one of the worst actresses of all time. The only role she came close to being good at was Olive in Robin Williams flop "Popeye". She looked the part, but that was about it. King's remarks are valid as it is his book. He can say what he wants and you are in no position to disagree. It's his story, he's knows it better than anyone. Kubrick is a brilliant film maker, one of the all time greats. His take on the Shining has a lot going from it from a technical standpoint, I've already stated this. But the heart and soul of King's book was lost in Kubrick's own self-important version. If you had read the novel, you would understand this. There was no evolving or deconstruction of the characters. Jack Torrence, in the film is already nuts. The wife is window dressing, who just becomes a screamer. The kid is nearly a non factor. Only Scatman Carruthers Dick Halloran character is fully fleshed out, which is odd as he's in it so shortly.

I grew up reading all of King's books. One of his best is his "On Writing", which explains his process (nudge nudge wink wink MS) and influences. You should really read it.

Now please stop your tedious noise. You don't know what you're talking about.

In 77, Shelly won best actress
From the LA film critics.
Please don't embarrass yourself any further.

The film "the shining" is light years better than the book.

You don't impress anybody by stating that you worked in the film industry. Do you know how many low IQ'S work in that industry you moron?

Jesus you are an arrogant piece of work.

Shelly had bad roles. And stephen wrote some bad shit.
Your point?

Sorry.
The shining is listed as a bona- fide classic film.
The fact that you don't agree doesn't mean shit to anyone with half a brain.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:29 pm**

Idiot Pickle, where did I ever say the film was bad. Where did I say it wasn't considered a classic. That's right pickled brain, I didn't.

It's an iconic film for many reasons. All I said was that King doesn't like it and showed his reasons. I've seen the film many times, and my reaction is always the same. Great look, great suspense, great acting (except for Duvall and the kid). It just isn't true to the book. If you want a movie that perfectly exemplifies book to film perfection in horror, that would be The Exorcist. The film version of The Shining can stand on its own, but once again, the true spirit of the novel was lost.

MS, to your take, the novel captured isolation and ever increasing madness beautifully. The film, as I have stated, never gives you Jack Torrance as anything other than already devolving. The film captures isolation very well, but the written word is almost always going to capture that spirit better.
I respect your opinion as I did Phibes, I just don't agree with you. If you think King didn't "understand that" then you need to re-read the novel.

Back to the idiot. I am not trying to impress you or anybody else with my background. It's just fact. One you can't match. You seem to worship the industry on one hand and shit on in in the other, saying it is filled with morons. The business wouldn't be around as long and well as it has if that were true. You're just being pissy because you know I'm right and you have nothing to stand on.

Stop crying bitch. The board wants that sandwich.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:40 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:29 pm The board wants that sandwich.

Can some members of the board have a corned beef on light rye...a little salt and pepper...maybe some slaw on the side?

:?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:11 am**

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:28 pm
Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:59 pm
His politics has nothing to do with his ability as a writer, nor the quality of his work.
Terry Goodkind's readers laugh.

Anyway, EAP, the auto accident changed him.

Auto accident or no auto accident, unless he was kidnapped like James Caan in "misery", there's absolutely zero excuse for the psycho remarks he's made against G W Bush etc.

It shows how unhinged and mentally unstable he has always been.

Jay is 100% wrong on the shining.
I've proven that.

Jay defends his bullshit takes by telling us that he works in the film industry?
Buwahahaha!
Like there are no low IQ drug addicts in that line of work.
Buwahahaha

Mentally unstable people work in every field.
Especially the film industry.
Oh, and noted authors are no exception.
Stephen king is as batshit crazy as they come.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:12 am**

EAP wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:39 pmthe majority of film critics are left wing, jewish, gay and socialist.
And "pretentious" times a thousand.

In 77, Shelly won best actress
From the LA film critics.
Please don't embarrass yourself any further.

So which is it? The critics (ESPECIALLY those from LA) don't know what they're talking about, or they do? You can't have it both ways.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:20 am**

If Kubrick did not intend to create a cinematic facsimile of the book, then that is not a fair criticism to levy against the film. If he attempted to, and failed, then sure, you can hold that against the movie. But he was an artist first and foremost, chiefly concerned with leaving his own imprint on the film.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:35 am**

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:12 am You can't have it both ways.

Stan often has it "both ends"...

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:36 am**

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:35 am
Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:12 am You can't have it both ways.
Stan often has it "both ends"...

this is Slap, btw

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:45 am**

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:40 pm
Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:29 pm The board wants that sandwich.
Can some members of the board have a corned beef on light rye...a little salt and pepper...maybe some slaw on the side?

:?

Nah, I think Jay would prefer a rock hard kosher pickle, if you know what I mean.
But let me digress.....

My point was that Stephen king is a mentally unstable kinda guy.

You can scroll down a list of batshit crazy remarks from him,
Longer than the great wall.

It's a well known fact that his being the author of the book,
Played a huge part in his overall bias against the film before it even opened.

Kubrick's vision was beyond the scope or intelligence of king.
He in no way understood or appreciated Stanley's vision.

That's where I'm coming from.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:48 am**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:20 am If Kubrick did not intend to create a cinematic facsimile of the book, then that is not a fair criticism to levy against the film. If he attempted to, and failed, then sure, you can hold that against the movie. But he was an artist first and foremost, chiefly concerned with leaving his own imprint on the film.

OMG!!!
You and I are on the EXACT SAME PAGE!!!!

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:56 am**

So it begins, Mgo...expect some coffee grounds and a mix-tape CD in your mailbox soon.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:22 am**

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:12 am
EAP wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:39 pmthe majority of film critics are left wing, jewish, gay and socialist.
And "pretentious" times a thousand.

In 77, Shelly won best actress
From the LA film critics.
Please don't embarrass yourself any further.
So which is it? The critics (ESPECIALLY those from LA) don't know what they're talking about, or they do? You can't have it both ways.

You have never read page 23 line 15 of The Process.

“Take both sides of a minor argument if you must. Just say gay and socialist a lot. We are looking for noise and light, not proper logic. ”

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:22 am**

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:12 am
EAP wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:39 pmthe majority of film critics are left wing, jewish, gay and socialist.
And "pretentious" times a thousand.

In 77, Shelly won best actress
From the LA film critics.
Please don't embarrass yourself any further.
So which is it? The critics (ESPECIALLY those from LA) don't know what they're talking about, or they do? You can't have it both ways.

Oh really?
My point about her winning best actress at the LA film critics,
Was to refute Jay saying she's the worst of the absolute worst in her field.
Really? In a field of millions of actresses worldwide, only about less than .00000001% ever win a best actress award, and she's one of the few?
Yet according to genius film industry guru Jay, she's the absolute worst.

How longer do you wish to be undressed in debates?
Cause I can debate for weeks on end. Sometimes months.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:30 am**

Jay,
Isolation is in every shot of the movie. You just can’t do that in a book. You can set it up. You can remind people of it, but it doesn’t lurk on every page like it does every shot.

You just can’t do this on every page:
“It's a slang term for the claustrophobic reaction that can occur when people are shut in together over long periods of time. The feeling of claustrophobia is externalized as dislike for the people you happen to be shut in with. In extreme cases it can result in hallucinations and violence—murder […]."

“I don't intend to bring any alcohol up here, and I don't think there will be any opportunity to get any before the snow flies."

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:01 am**

EAP wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:22 am
Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:12 amSo which is it? The critics (ESPECIALLY those from LA) don't know what they're talking about, or they do? You can't have it both ways.
Oh really?
My point about her winning best actress at the LA film critics,
Was to refute Jay saying she's the worst of the absolute worst in her field.
Really? In a field of millions of actresses worldwide, only about less than .00000001% ever win a best actress award, and she's one of the few?
Yet according to genius film industry guru Jay, she's the absolute worst.

So when the critics disagree with you, it's because they're idiotic leftist liberal gay Jews. But those same critics are then used to defend a position with which you agree. Got it.

How longer do you wish to be undressed in debates?

Still waiting for the first time and not holding my breath. And your obsession with male genitalia and seeing me undressed is creepy.

Cause I can debate for weeks on end. Sometimes months.

Well sure you can. And lose for weeks and months on end. No shocking revelation there, Corky.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:08 am**

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:01 am
EAP wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:22 am
Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:12 amSo which is it? The critics (ESPECIALLY those from LA) don't know what they're talking about, or they do? You can't have it both ways.
Oh really?
My point about her winning best actress at the LA film critics,
Was to refute Jay saying she's the worst of the absolute worst in her field.
Really? In a field of millions of actresses worldwide, only about less than .00000001% ever win a best actress award, and she's one of the few?
Yet according to genius film industry guru Jay, she's the absolute worst.
So when the critics disagree with you, it's because they're idiotic leftist liberal gay Jews. But those same critics are then used to defend a position with which you agree. Got it.

How longer do you wish to be undressed in debates?
Still waiting for the first time and not holding my breath. And your obsession with male genitalia and seeing me undressed is creepy.
Cause I can debate for weeks on end. Sometimes months.
Well sure you can. And lose for weeks and months on end. No shocking revelation there, Corky.

Hey buddy?
The two points can co-exist.
In order words, they're not mutually exclusive.
Did you ever consider that in your small head?

Just because they are leftist socialist cocksuckers, doesn't mean they don't get it right every now and then.

You get undressed at a moments notice BTW.

See how easy that was?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:33 am**

EAP wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:08 amSee how easy that was?

Of course I can see how it easy it is for you to express your desire to see naked men, as well as fallaciously and ineptly debate a topic. No one's arguing that it's difficult.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:06 am**

Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:35 pm you sound like someone who has never actually read his work. He has written some pretty weak books, but his best novels are on par with anyone else. Few writers create realistic dialogue and conversation better than he does.

Honestly I've read three when I was a teenager and The Shining was one. Salem's Lot and another. Thought they were marvelous, proper spook stories. He always struck me as a bit of a pulp writer, or the English penny dreadful - massive audience with youth. It's what you do when you hone your craft,* you put the time in and get good or fall by the wayside.

It might be that he's moved on. I have no idea. That Kubrick's characters never evolved might be said of him as a writer. Kubrick reached the pinnacle of his field and while popular, King never/hasn't reached his. I'd think it would be an honour that Kubrick gave his book the treatment he did.

*think Beatles in Hamburg

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:17 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:I can see how it easy it is for you to express your desire to see naked men

He likes to camp out in the YMCA locker room and view the shriveled ballsacks on balding old white men.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:54 pm**

Dr_Phibes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:06 amHonestly I've read three when I was a teenager and The Shining was one. Salem's Lot and another. Thought they were marvelous, proper spook stories. He always struck me as a bit of a pulp writer, or the English penny dreadful - massive audience with youth. It's what you do when you hone your craft,* you put the time in and get good or fall by the wayside.

It might be that he's moved on. I have no idea. That Kubrick's characters never evolved might be said of him as a writer. Kubrick reached the pinnacle of his field and while popular, King never/hasn't reached his. I'd think it would be an honour that Kubrick gave his book the treatment he did.

*think Beatles in Hamburg

Fair assessment Phibes, in that at the beginning of King's career, he was writing pulp. Nothing wrong with that. Few first efforts are all-time classics, though The Shining has certainly stood the test of time. He has moved on, quite a bit. The topics that he hits on with his most recent effort, The Institute, show his maturation.

Look, I get that Kubrick's vision is a cinematic masterwork. Most, if not all, of his films are. On a personal level, it just doesn't work for me. My opinion. No more no less.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:55 pm**

Dr_Phibes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:06 am
Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:35 pm you sound like someone who has never actually read his work. He has written some pretty weak books, but his best novels are on par with anyone else. Few writers create realistic dialogue and conversation better than he does.
Honestly I've read three when I was a teenager and The Shining was one. Salem's Lot and another. Thought they were marvelous, proper spook stories. He always struck me as a bit of a pulp writer, or the English penny dreadful - massive audience with youth. It's what you do when you hone your craft,* you put the time in and get good or fall by the wayside.

It might be that he's moved on. I have no idea. That Kubrick's characters never evolved might be said of him as a writer. Kubrick reached the pinnacle of his field and while popular, King never/hasn't reached his. I'd think it would be an honour that Kubrick gave his book the treatment he did.

*think Beatles in Hamburg

Doctor,
You are 100% correct sir.
Anyone on this board would be honored to have one of your hot nurses administer a routine check of the prostate.
Provided they are over 50 of course.

Point being?

Stephen king is insignificant next to Kubrick.

King is nowhere near giants in his industry such as Grisham and Ludlum.
But Kubrick is a giant in his.

King has a long list of batshit crazy remarks thru the years that makes even a baffoon like Biden seem brilliant.

Jay grew up in Hollywood and worked in film and television,
Which means he's either HIV positive, queer as fuck, or both.
But in no way is he qualified to throw down with the board film connoisseurs such as IB and yours truly.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:59 pm**

EAP wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:45 amMy point was that Stephen king is a mentally unstable kinda guy.

You can scroll down a list of batshit crazy remarks from him,
Longer than the great wall.

Which you have yet to link up and prove. Until you do, you really need to stand down.

It's a well known fact that his being the author of the book,
Played a huge part in his overall bias against the film before it even opened.

Kubrick's vision was beyond the scope or intelligence of king.
He in no way understood or appreciated Stanley's vision.

Horseshit. His bias wasn't expressed until after he saw it. Prove otherwise.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:17 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:59 pm
EAP wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:45 amMy point was that Stephen king is a mentally unstable kinda guy.

You can scroll down a list of batshit crazy remarks from him,
Longer than the great wall.
Which you have yet to link up and prove. Until you do, you really need to stand down.

It's a well known fact that his being the author of the book,
Played a huge part in his overall bias against the film before it even opened.

Kubrick's vision was beyond the scope or intelligence of king.
He in no way understood or appreciated Stanley's vision.
Horseshit. His bias wasn't expressed until after he saw it. Prove otherwise.

During the fake corrupt kavanaugh hearings, king commented that kavanaugh's testimony was terrifying and proof that he raped Ford.

Anyone with a functioning brain and an ounce of objectivity, would completely disagree with the batshit crazy author Stephen king.

Christine ford's attorneys pressured her friend Leland kizer to commit felony perjury by changing her sworn statement.
Does Stephen king have the intelligence to understand the implications of this?
Do you Jay?

The corrupt media and press swayed millions of low IQ cocksuckers into believing that Ford was honest and kavanaugh was lying.

However, the noted prosecutor called in to question Ford proved otherwise.

In a stroke of sheer genius, McConnell calls in Rachel Mitchell, an expert on sex crimes and the victims thereof.

This very honorable expert found Ford to lack candor and be very shady and sketchy to say the least.
The left wing media tried to discredit this expert and downplayed the entire revealing exchange.
The media also hid the wall st. Journal report on Ford's attorneys trying to pressure her friend into perjury.

The fact that you deny that your hero Stephen king is nothing more than a batshit crazy leftist scum? Is proof of your complete lack of critical thinking and objectivity.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:08 pm**

So, King has an opinion just as you have yours. So what? Who cares?

Once again, his political views have nothing to do with his writing. Politics rarely makes a dent in his stories.

What has this little misdirection on your part have to do with the Shining?

Lighten up Francis.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:58 pm**

That is the process at work J.
Everything is political and the left are scum.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:53 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:08 pmSo, King has an opinion just as you have yours. So what? Who cares?

But you have to admire the phallus muncher's unparalleled debating skills. No one can do it quite like him. Just ask him. After all, he can do it for weeks & months on end. The fact that he's shitty at it is irrelevant.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:26 pm**

No doubt Smackie. The pickle polisher is an epic debater. If by epic you mean the worst of the worst.

MS, when you are right sir, you are right.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:34 pm**

EAP wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:55 pm nurses

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:44 pm**

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:34 pm
EAP wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:55 pm nurses

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:48 pm**

RIP ~ AP's Kooky Eye

:cry:

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:59 pm**

Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:26 pm
It is not.
2001: A Space Oddity
Paths of Glory
Dr. Strangelove*
Clockwork Orange
Full Metal Jacket

FTFY

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:59 pm**

Jayne not very bright lesbian. Lesbians not very bright anyway. Jayne argue with shit trolls. Not bright. Jayne WEAK.

Not STRONG like TONTO.

Jayne talk to herself lot. People never listen to Jayne. So Jayne talk to shit trolls and make her feel better. Jayne WEAK.

Jayne need be STRONG like TONTO and ignore shit trolls.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:02 pm**

BSmack wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:59 pm
Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:26 pm
It is not.
2001: A Space Oddity
Paths of Glory
Dr. Strangelove*
Clockwork Orange
Full Metal Jacket
FTFY

I would put Barry Lyndon above Full Metal Jacket.
Full Metal Jacket is grossly over-rated.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:26 pm**

TONTO wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:59 pm Jayne not very bright lesbian. Lesbians not very bright anyway. Jayne argue with shit trolls. Not bright. Jayne WEAK.

Not STRONG like TONTO.

Jayne talk to herself lot. People never listen to Jayne. So Jayne talk to shit trolls and make her feel better. Jayne WEAK.

Jayne need be STRONG like TONTO and ignore shit trolls.

poptart is TONTO????

Now I'm depressed...

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:48 pm**

Carson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:26 pm poptart is TONTO????

Now I'm depressed...

Hold up...I thought we CC'ed you on this, Carson?
Damn it. I told the IT guys this software upgrade would have "hiccups"...
Fucking nerds. Everything is an algorithm to those dorks. :x

T1B

Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's

Re: Barren Down the Hatches, Fukk-O's