modcat5

Raf here. Not long ago I decided to abandon the "agnostic atheist" label because it caused more arguments than it resolved. Here's how I answer now: YOUR god is a fictional character whose non-existence is his ONLY redeeming quality. When it comes to YOUR god, I am an atheist with the certainty of a typist hitting the A key and expecting the letter A to show up on the page. I can't speak about any other hypothetical gods, but they are irrelevant anyway because you only care if I believe in YOUR God. I don't. He's made up.

We're well past cheat time so: Below Deck

I'm asha... embarrassed at my behavior

I'll give the answer if George promises to take the turn

Does the avenger of the future have a complete memory of it?

no. this is a movie that was remade. a movie of particular interest to those of us gathered together on this site. released to video first. then theaters. two sequels were straight to video. the remake had a much bigger budget and a genuine movie star at the helm, to mix a metaphor. the upcoming sequel has a herculean task ahead, but the new lead has some experience in that area. that last clue won't help you much, but you probably figured it out with the "particular interest" clue.

No...

There are bad movies. And there are movies that are so bad that they set new bars for awful. This movie is an example of the former. Its "remake" is an example of the latter. [They have the same name]. Both are based on the sane source material, but the first takes some significant liberties with a main character, while the remake dispenses with the minor plot point of the unmasking of the main villain and the story's climax. The original produced two direct-to-video sequels with the dame cast. The remake tried to crowdfund a sequel but fell short by roughly 85 percent. Nonetheless, such is the subject matter that the sequel has been made [though not released as of yet, and don't expect it in theaters]. Looks like none of the actors are reprising their roles for the upcoming sequel. The original was unapologetic about its genre. The remake sold itself as a thriller and downplayed the underlying genre, but no one was fooled. The authors of the book on which both movies were based thought highly of both versions.

better if you don't know

By "at least one," you mean two, not counting the cartoon series, right?

T-Bonè, Please be aware that I wasn't seeking to argue with you. It's my fault that it looks like I was. I was merely using your post as a springboard for my own thoughts on the subject, which are not scholarly or vetted. Just my thoughts. I presumed you know full well that the writing of the epistles preceded the writing of the gospels. My point was that I believe the Christology of the epistles circulated more broadly than any biography of Jesus until the gospels were written. I hold myself responsible for any lack of clarity on that point. Raf.

I'll make sure to read that, but I don't want to go off topic.

I have a purpose for everything I say, why I say it, how come I say it, for what reason I say it, my motive in saying it and what I want to accomplish by saying it.

19 years and 11 months between posts. I wonder if that's a record.

We are not together. We hardly see each other. And we are most certainly distinctly independent. We're down to two active moderators [modgellan and myself]. I am Raf. I know it's confusing, but whether I post as Raf or modcat5 now depends almost ENTIRELY on which device I'm using. If it's Raf, I'm using my laptop. If it's Modcat5, I'm using my phone. Modgellan is safely anonymous. Pawtucket still runs the show and pays the bills and can run us out of town on a whim. GreasyTech, who has mod authority, is always on call to fix things up when the site goes down. So that makes 4 of us. Modgellan and I do not have a system. We check on reports when we check on them; whoever logs in first. He moved this thread. I just saw it. Excellent, thoughtful work by everyone.

FYI: Adam Baldwin was the main character in D.C. Cab. from Star Trek Nemesis: Ron Perlman Hellboy Jeffrey Tambor

too late for a penalty flag, but this was just a few entries away from another judge reinhold/fast times entry. just fyi.

it is indeed

Maybe I wasn't clear. We don't pay respect to alchemy in honor of Isaac Newton's contributions to understanding the laws of motion and dynamics. We don't pay respect to anti-Semitism because Henry Ford revolutionized automobile manufacture. Why should we opt for B.C. over B.C.E. just because religious people used scientific methods to calculate an accurate calendar? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other! Now, if he were to say "I don't feel any more need to change B.C. to B.C.E. than Christians feel to change the names of Wednesday, Thursday and Friday -- all named for Norse gods," THAT would make sense. But clinging to B.C. because religious people figured out we need a leap year in 2000 is rather arbitrary. Does that make more sense?

They all sounded naggingly famililiar. I got it at pre-atomic submarines. Then you had to go and give it away. BATMAN

The Princess Bride, Though you are going to have to explain the Max and Valerie reference. I believe the director's father's name was Carl

Well THAT clue couldn't be bigger

I figured you had it with the Bruce Lee reference, but I wasn't sure. And I figured someone would connect "pity" and "fool."

"Did Albert ever discuss his political convictions with you?" "Albert don't have no political convictions. He's an American!" *** "I don't work on Jan. 8. Because it's Elvis' birthday."

Jekyll and Hyde? Prejudice and Pride? Boys on the Side?