the explanation does sound at least plausible
No, it really doesn't. It sounds convoluted and unlikely.
An alleged guest was intent on watching an NFL game and was refused. Then any and all Vevo employees disappeared from the area. Then the guest went rogue, found a laptop connected to their feed and launched an illegal NFL stream.
I don't think so.
I believe the expression is "Michael Caine gotta eat!"
This may sound like a stupid question, but why don't we test this out on some asteroids that are not even going to come close to Earth?
The article doesn't actually mention what game inspired people to donate a million dollars.
(Yeah I figured out it was a graphic adventure after following one of the links but...)
Is there a special display describing the scandal that was Atari 2600 Pac-Man?
Oh. Um... Well.
Jolene Blalock. Yes.
How can you mention K.A.R.R. but not Garth???
Three Kindles for less than an iPad... that is a pretty amazing jab at Apple. I don't care how much better the iPad is - that's a damn good sales pitch!
A little less blatant and they could claim parody...
I think it is a pretty fascinating documentary that points out a lot of things that I never noticed nor heard anyone else point out. Kind of amazed how critical people are...
There isn't really a lot of substance to your issues with the doc other than your apparent distaste about the topic of the gold standard.
Fair enough but I think his photo comparisons of Wilson, his family and advisors is pretty spot on.
I do not think it's an exact photo of Woodrow Wilson, consider "Woodrow Wilson" by John Milton Cooper who writes Wilson only grew a large bushy mustache in the style of the times when he was young. Also, Wilson parted his hair on the left.
If you watched the entire documentary, you'd know that Kubrick added the mustache.
The evidence that there are subtexts to the film is overwhelming - both from the insights that part of the film is based on Jack's writing (the shot with the Wendy and Danny practically sprouting from the typewriter blew my mind) and the references to gold can't be described as "side jokes" when the room is called "the gold room," it's walls are gold, his drink is gold, his money is refused, the dates of the photograph, the location of the hotel...
You do know what a subtext is, right?
My bad.
I don't think you have a very good understanding of the legal system. The suspect in the case is of course free to follow your advice and file motions that he cannot receive a fair trial and/or was harmed by the publication of his information as creep of the week.
He will lose.
Hey wait a second. Why is everyone so horrified?
This isn't some doofus cranking out a remake. It is the original director. Ridley Scott directed Blade Runner, Alien, Jacob's Ladder, Black Hawk Down...
The guy has some serious credentials...
I didn't write "maybe his victim is a step closer to getting justice." Perhaps you are confusing my comment with someone else.
I disagree that posting him as a Creep of the Week is likely to taint his trial anymore than a newspaper article reporting on his status as a wanted fugitive accused of forcible rape.
Do you believe the television show America's Most Wanted - one of the most successful vehicles for apprehending fugitives in history - taints the future trials of the suspects? You might perhaps be correct but our system allows for the dissemination of information on the arrests of suspects and their accused crimes. Some countries do not; ours does. It is considered that the public's right to know is greater than the individual's right to privacy in most cases.
The accused has many opportunities to address these concerns in our legal system. He or she may ask for a change of venue or eliminate jurors that have been exposed to certain information. In addition, our system relies on the integrity of jurors to evaluate only pertinent facts and disregard information which does not relate to the defendant's guilt or innocence.
It's not perfect but it usually works pretty well. Most people take their obligation as jurors seriously.
Well, sure he may be an idiot, but maybe you should wait for a judge to declare him guilty and post his mugshot in your Creepy McCreepster Facebook page, Mr. Policeman, Sir.
Um... why?
1) It is the obligation of law enforcement to publicize and apprehend fugitives through various means. Their posting of his mugshot directly led to his capture.
2) They didn't declare him guilty. They publicized that he was a wanted fugitive.
3) While declaring him creepy is more than a responsible newspaper would do on reporting his fugitive status, this is a blog where way more colorful language is used in some stories to describe people and companies.
