Then stop using the services.


Which services are you using currently?


Just stop using the roads.

Interesting. If you didn't bother reading it, how do you qualify it as a rant? There really was no rant in my statement. And if you didn't bother reading it, then I'm not sure why you're even replying here.


Frankly, you have answered my question by indicating that you lack any real understanding of the topic. Really, wasn't your question just a meme that originated from someone else? It's hardly your question, and I doubt you have anything original to say about the subject.


It doesn't tell you anything. In response to the question that really isn't yours, I'd have to say the answer is, in a sense, 'Yes'. But I in no way expect you to answer my question directly (which isn't a meme), even though I have now answered the question you copy and pasted, because, frankly, you haven't thought it through with any form of individual thought - instead, you're just a meme repeater.

Good day, sir!

For the same reason that if own an island that is sovereign, it is my choice as to whether I sell parcels to others where their property is then sovereign to them, or instead, I choose to grant them rights instead. Can you tell me that I am required to do the former, as opposed to the latter?

You didn't ask me that question. You asked someone else that question.

However, I directly asked you a question which you are now avoiding.

Just because you insist that the government doesn't provide any services to you, others believe the government should. And so the government does provide services to others. And, those services are then used by you (think roads, fire protection, etc.).

Now, there are two things here:

- You can't tell others that they can't have the services the government provides in exchange for payment of taxes.
- I suspect that you will never stop helping yourself to the services the government provides.

Where does that leave you?

Do any of you feel as deficient as I when it comes to having properly explored the various essential and desirable film canons and film movements out there? I mean, I'll admit that I'm not even aware of the some of the correct labels to apply to the various canons, sadly.

I certainly haven't done a decent job of exploring the French New Wave, the Czech New Wave, Bergman's works (if that could be considered a canon unto itself). I very definitely have developed an affinity for the Japanese New Wave, post WWII Japanese melodrama, a smattering of the Taiwan New Wave, some modern Korean cinema, Hong Kong cinema (through the lens of Wong Kar-Wai's lenses), and some modern films from mainland China. So much to explore, though.

You broke the rules. You're supposed to only say one word. With that said, this thread has the following qualities:

- No theme
- No meaning
- Nothing in it is interesting
- No real chain of thought
- Nothing memorable
- Nothing worthwhile
- No requirement for cerebral thought
- Is not stimulating to readers
- Is not stimulating to contributors

done

stop

The iPhone is for people who aren't into computers for computer's sake, but are into computers for productivity. The Android is for people who are into computers for the sake of experimenting with computers.

The iPhone is for people who want quality apps that do things useful in a wide variety of niche applications. The Android is for people who want junky apps that aren't polished, but they can point to the app and say: "Look, we have an app too, and we don't have to abide by Apple's rules."

For the record, I have an Android.

I'm the only one who mentioned Easter eggs here. Your post followed mine, both sequentially, and soon after mine in time. Your ambiguous response invited my retort. Maybe instead you could explain your take on the matter? I'm sure it would be interesting.

Now that you have clarified your stance, what I suspect you meant, in a nutshell, is this:

Easter eggs are just that, Easter eggs. They are not to be construed as some type of indication of continuity within a shared universe.

uninteresting

That would be you?

meaningless

I'm not convinced. If the directors and creative powers at Pixar say it's the case, then I will be convinced.

It's a known fact that beginning with the founding of Pixar, their goal was to animate, and one of their tenets or principles is to imbue life into things which are not necessarily living, or human, anyway. Hence the cars, the robots, the toys, and so forth. Talking animals are popular due to the uncanny valley. Pixar has avoided humans, but slowly has been working towards human animation in more recent features.

Furthermore, Pixar loves easter eggs, hence the books and posters and other objects that are references to other Pixar movies.

And finally, Pixar is a company where the production of props is an expensive process. Reusing 3d models here and there is a win, both in terms of labor savings and in terms of easter eggs.

Not only did I have to look up the title of the movie, but I also had to look up the meaning of the acronym.

Now, if there's a place in your heart for this movie, then that's what is important. You simply can't argue with that. That being said, I have noted that it isn't exactly a film that gets many stars. Maybe you should watch Sansho the Bailiff to counteract the low star rating, and it should counteract any warm and fuzzy feeling you may have gotten from Harry and the Hendersons as well.

Here's a clip (despite the hiss, turn the volume up to hear the ghostly lyrics): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9quT-m7Sk

A clip from one of the most emotionally devastating films you will ever watch (and one of the most essential films that one should watch): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9quT-m7Sk

One of my favorites: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBqHAPgB494

Try this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRfPF3tLIGQ

Or this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqhLDTxODhY

So?

I have posted about twenty other clips, most or none from Hulu.