Hurin

And after a rather lack-luster season last year, it's hitting on all cylinders again now.

That is 1st rate and shows real imagination! Congrats!

Hmmmm, it seems like you just wanna make this personal. Stalking you? You've been posting quite a bit over here despite several earlier pledges that you were taking your ball and going home. But I haven't bothered you and I've even kept my pledge not to join AP while you were under your self-imposed exile. But, you said something that I considered ill-informed and/or oddly reasoned, so I thought I'd point it out. Why not simply address what I said? But you seem to want to count how many votes I got for Admin (despite my never mentioning that I wanted to be one. . . again, odd). So, well, I'll save us both some time and just dust off this old gem. It still fits rather well: --------------------------------- Hi sweetie! Gosh, I'm glad you're back (again). And I'm glad you saw what I wrote even though you claim to have me on your ignore list. So, what's the difference? The difference is that nobody here except you has ever repeatedly called people "a-holes" for discussing the price of upcoming toys. Nobody here except you has ever gone nuts and bizarrely attacked a bunch of fellow members just for recommending VE and TMP as valk sellers (while you simultaneously advertised for your personal favorite in your signature). Nobody here except you has dropped in on several "for sale" threads and trashed them. . . and then gotten all "holier than thou" on others for doing the same for your threads when you overcharge (but it's okay when you do it since you were trying to get enough money for a bachelor party). Nobody here except you has ever dropped in on a thread where a police officer is trying to help people track down a scammer only to bash police officers. I could go on. . . oh man can I! So, really, the difference is that you do deserve it. Over the years, several other members have tried to point out to you that you have an unnerving habit of hypocritically lashing out at others and then acting all innocent and harmless a short time later. I'm not the only one that has confronted you on that score. You now say that you have been "proven wrong" in the past. All you had to do at the time of your initial tirade that started it all between us was say: "Yeah, that was pretty f-ed up of me to say that. Sorry guys. I think I was just having a bad day." And everything would have been forgotten. Yet, just a few days ago, you proudly stated that you stand by everything you said. So, well, as long as you stand by it, people are going to call you out on all that crap because you still behave in a way that reminds people of it. It takes a big person to admit when they are wrong or that something they did was f-ed up. You've never done so and gone well out of your way to avoid it. Yet now you like to allude to some fanciful apology you never made. If you could just stop looking through that mental prizm of yours that justifies, validates and rationalizes everything you do no matter how f'ed up, people wouldn't hassle you so much. ... I know you keep saying that you're leaving and that you don't read my posts. Yet clearly neither is true. So, I'm glad we had this final chance to clear the air. *smooch* ---------------------------------- But wait, you've done even better stuff over at AP lately. Some people recently brought your story "hero story" to my attention. The one about you bravely taking on fifty bottle-and-skateboard-wielding hooligans all at once in order to protect one young kid. Just because, you're like that and all. But wait, you've actually told two stories about that Thursday. Let's compare them! On Monday, Jan 23: On Thursday, Jan 26, haterist posts the following: Notice any similarities? They both take place on the same day: The prior Thursday (busy day!). Both involve fifty people (either assualting him or witnessing his bravery. But either way, he's a hero). Both make reference to skateboards being used as clubs to beat people over the head. Both refer to police officers. Yet, when the topic of police officers comes up on the 23rd, he mentions that he was harrassed by police and that there were fifty people witnessing it, and that they threatened to club him with his skateboard. . . yet he never mentions that later in that day, fifty people did club him with skateboards (and bottles) and the police were the ones who took him to the hospital. How could that not come up then, when it is both relevant to the thread on police and it seems like a story he was so proud to tell three days later? haterist, if you are telling the truth, I'm sorry. But as it stands, I'm calling BS. You've either totally invented the story or you have embellished it immensely. I can't prove that you're lying and it is barely conceivable that two such things could happen to you in the same day, share so many characteristics, and yet you only mentioned the more dramatic (and heroic) of the two days after the first. But, the story --even without the credibility-damaging earlier story-- doesn't easily pass the "sniff" test. Fifty attackers? That is a large gang to go looking for a sixteen year-old kid. That must clog the streets! Bottles and skateboards clubbing you over the head without the need for hospitalizaton for a fractured skull or even a concussion? You didn't even fall down? Posting three days later? Posting three days later about related things without even mentioning it!?! (though you're well known for using AP as your personal blog where you detail every minor event in your life. . . including very improbable sexual "conquests."). Yet it is mentioned (with so many aspects of the prior story repeated) a few days later unsolicited? The "awww shucks, I was just doing what's right" attitude? I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. And if you think everyone posting in that thread over there are buying it, you're deluding yourself. Now, about me: Yes, I probably have too long a memory and too low a tolerance for your bizarre and abusive antics from ages past. Yes, I argue my points past the point where anyone cares. But, in my defense, I'm not a 30 year-old adult (though reportedly tiny) guy who still skateboards, still apparently thinks it's cool to get in fights, and (apparently) makes up stories about my heroic deeds and (again, very unlikely) sexual conquests on internet discussion forums in order to impress strangers. H P.S. And lest you think I'm spending that much time on you. . . I actually try to forget about you and ignore you whenever possible. But there's an entire network of people over there on AP who take it upon themselves to notify me of your (unintentionally) hilarious little posts over there. And you might be surprised at who those people are.

They've never indicated on the box what edition the toy is. The presence or lack of velcro tabs was an imperfect means of determination between 1st and 2nd edition a long time ago. But, since then, no boxes have had velcro tabs. . . so it hasn't been applicable since the 2nd edition. H

Except we're talking about valk suppliers getting word from the distribution channels months in advance that Yamato is making another production run along with release dates for when Yamato will be releasing them. People aren't walking into their local store, seeing new valks and saying: "Hey! more valks! There must have been another run!" Also, on AP (where I can't join because I promised someone who left MW that I wouldn't. . . hey wait a minute!), you've just started a thread complaining about the (perceived) degradation of the molds. In it, you state: So, I'm just perplexed now. To your mind, are they doing these additional production runs or not? Or are they just hoarding them and letting them trickle out? Oh, and as pfunk mentioned, they can always just make more molds. This isn't 1972. H

Cory, I've got no problem with most of what you said. But I hope you can see that your original post was easily (mis?)interpreted. Saying that the Old Republic needed to be overhauled is far different than saying that the Old Republic was as bad (or no better) than the Empire. Saying that the Jedi had become too arrogant, dogmatic, and inflexible to effectively combat the resurgent evil of the Sith (or even recognize them in their midst) is not to say that they were as evil/bad as the Sith and deserved what happened to them. Those, and other things have been said in this overly long thread, however. So, forgive me if I lumped you in with those who had made those assertions before. H P.S. Am I the only one who doesn't see anything wrong with a Jedi saying: "Jedi business, return to your drinks" while acting as law enforcement? Are all police officers who try to disperse crowds that gather during arrests total c*cks?

(@ Togo) Oh, an image. I see. You're right then. I'm mistaken. It must be easy being you. You only need to come up with half-baked ideas. Then, you don't bother to express even your poorly formed ideas well. Then, when your points don't stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny, you just act like anyone who cares about the topic is a retard. That's quite a little safe-room you've built around your ego there. Togo, let me share with you a bit of wisdom that your fellow "piss on anyone who dares to criticize The Lucas" anti-fanboy crusader let slip a while back in a (now sadly deleted) thread. It's something I've been trying to get through to you for a long time. At least bsu now realizes it: Among the fanboys, the fanboy who calls others fanboys is king. H

I thought that's what the yellow text crawling up the screen was for! Part of the charm of the original movies was that so much of its history and background were only vaguely referred to and left to the imagination. Tolkien, of course, did this as well. And he too worried that to go back and fill in the details of the "far off mountains with deep roots, only barely glimpsed from afar" was to destroy the magic of them. Whereas I don't think The Silmarillion ruins the "magic" of The Lord of the Rings, I think the prequels did affect much of the "magic" that one sensed while watching the OT because they were handled so poorly. Heck, one could say Lucas even set out to consciously remove the magic from the series literally with his conversion of the Force into a semi-biological thing. Hmmm, that's odd. I thought they got "pasted" (I can't believe we're using Jar-Jar's favorite word) because the Lord of the Sith masterminded their downfall. How, exactly, did they cause their own downfall? By not giving in to the whims of an arrogant kid who clearly was dangerous? And, more importantly, how did they do "more harm than good?" Who were they harming? And please, please don't spout "Sith talking points" about how they would kidnap force-wielding children and withhold the secrets of the Force from the public. It's amazing to me how many people hear the villains of the story say things as an example of how "even the devil can quote scripture". . . and they just accept it at face value and think: "See, even the villains in this movie aren't really that bad. . . gosh I feel open-minded!" Which, finally, leads us to this post-modern pap: Hmmmm, old representative system of government that had gotten unwieldy and needed to be reformed vs a dictatorship and police state that enslaves other races, builds super-weapons and destroys any planet (that's trillions of people) that defies it, headed by The Lord of the Sith (synonymous with "evil" before the post-modernists interpretations started). You're right, they're both the same. It cracks me up how "post-modern Star Wars fans" love to cling to all the moral relativism spouted by the Sith in the modern movies. Apparently, even in Star Wars, twenty-five years later, we just can't have a "good" side and a "bad" side. Yet, even Lucas doesn't believe that the Jedi are bad and the Sith just misunderstood. Lucas wanted to provide you with an example of evil pretending to be good (again, Satan quoting scripture). He portrays Palpatine as being caring and compassionate towards Anakin in order seduce him. So, some in the audience think: "See, he's not all bad!" But are they forgetting that this guy just wants/needs a new apprentice and is trying to bring down the Jedi and the Republic? He portrays the Sith constantly describing the Jedi as arrogant and inflexible. The post-modernists lap it up, after all, they aren't giving the whiney kid main character what he wants! Forgetting, of coruse, that those saying these things about the Jedi are the friggin' villains who are attempting to turn people agains the Jedi in order to facilitate bringing down the Republic and installing themselves as the New Order. And, finally, we have people constantly describing the Republic as old, inefficient, and corrupt. And, once again, the post-modernists jump for glee because it reinforces their real-world belief that there are not Capital -T- Truths and that good and bad are relative terms. But, of course, the accute paralysis of the Republic was caused by the Sith. Whose Lord had infiltrated the highest levels of its government. The Old Republic was seen as accutely ineffective because Palpantine needed it to appear that way in order to accrue more power to himself. So, he caused the ineffectiveness. How many times do you hear Palpatine say that he will bring and end to the Clone Wars and peace will prevail. Well, by the end of the three prequels, it is clear that he orchestrated the Clone Wars as the instrument with which he would destroy the Republic and empower himself. And, of course, regarding the Jedi, they became resented, weakened, and spread out due to their duties as warriors during the Clone War that Palpatine orchestrated for the purpose of bringing down the Republic, destroying the Jedi, and installing himself and the Sith as rulers of the Galaxy. But, hey. . . the Sith told us that the Jedi and the Republic were no better. . . so it's all good.

I'm beginning to see what A1 sees in you.

Addressed. And you've ignored it and simply re-stated. Typical. You're thinking of someone else. Already did. All of it actually. And your points were as unsubstantial and incoherently argued as ever. You knew it then, and you know it now. . . which is why you are still making vague assertions with no logical support underpinning them to this day. Uh. Okay. But I never discussed actor ages or based any assertions on them. So, again, you're thinking of someone else. But it is merely fact that the chronology and the appearance of the characters between the OT and the PT has troubled nearly everyone. Yes, even fanboys like you who are desperate to dismiss anything that might seem odd while labeling anyone who notices such things as "fanboys" yourselves or "the tiny hands brigade." Of course, someone should point out to you that it is somewhat lame to use the ages of actors to guage the age of characters. Movies use these things called "makeup" and "lighting". . . and actors often play characters whose age is dramatically different than their own, often without the need for makeup or prosthetics. But, I don't want to be the one to point this out to you since you seem to think you have a point. And I think it's cute. H

Oh, you mean like Vader taking orders from Tarkin? Governor Tarkin, I should have expected to find you holding Vader's leash. 365637[/snapback] Being the Star Wars geek that you are, you should know that he was there to make sure Tarkin didn't go "off the reservation" with the Death Star. As for Leia's insult. . . it's just that, an insult. And I'm not sure how Vader not out-ranking Tarkin makes him a "flunky" and a "pathetic henchman." If you think that's the image he had in Empire Strikes Back then I can't help you. Here's Lucas himself on how he now sees Vader: Now, I realize that you're part of the "Lucas craps pure gold" crowd. But, if you really think that Lucas always intended us to view Vader this way, then you're just waaay too far gone into fanboyism for anyone to help you. Come to think of it, we've discussed this before. And it didn't go well for your point of view. Though, your one or two sentence attempts at blustering your way into a cogent argument were entertaining. Tell me, is this you "playing your Togo persona" again? Post after post from that point on make the argument for a "changed view" of Vader (to my mind) largely unassailable. And you yourself appeared to give up on your take on the issue. Having said that, this is as good a summary as any:

It's really very simple. Originally, Lucas had an entirely different vision of what took place before the Original Trilogy (OT). He had a totally different vision of who his characters were as well. He's now just squeezing and altering things to fit into the story he would rather tell (the Prequels) now, a quarter-century later. His tastes, sensibilities, and motivations have changed. And he apparently felt constricted by the characters, chronology, and fictional history he set down a long time ago as a much younger man. Things make a lot more sense when people just accept this rather than trying to make everything fit. Lucas tells different stories nowadays. My only problem is that he likes to try the Jedi Mind Trick on everyone and simply assert that this current vision is how he always intended things (Vader as a pathetic henchman rather than bad-ass villain, etc.).

Oh good! The "Hikaru is a loser! Whereas I am a perfect example of a charming, swingin' heterosexual male over whom all women swoon" thread! It's been a while! H

The more they do this and make money, the more likely they will be to invest in new products. Actually, it helps ensure that they will be around to invest in new products. Not that Yamato is as small as it used to be and is in any danger of going under (as far as I've ever heard). More valkyries is always a good thing. Even if they aren't new. Maybe the skulls won't be crooked on this release! H

Check out this thread. Not sure if they're translations or just summaries, but they get the point across. Though, to be honest, I was disappointed. H

Holy crap! They've really punched up the base in the 5.1 surround. I just watched the scene where Hikaru is "caught" while in the lingerie shop, and my subwoofer is drowning out the voices!

Ugh, watching the extra materials right now: The head translator just pronounced it as "MAH-cross" for most of the interview, and then clearly screws it up himself and goes back to the "classic" way of pronouncing it. I think someone else mentioned that there is some lack of consistency, but I was tickled that the guy who headed the translation himself sorta stumbled there and went back to the colloquial pronunciation that us plebians use. H P.S. Actually, I didn't notice it at first. My fiance who was listening from the other room first said: "Why the heck did you buy this if you knew they were going to say it that way." Then, a few seconds later, she yelled: "Hey! He just said it the old way!" I hadn't even noticed.

Yes, the whole song is there. And I think my Winamp was incorrect with the 5:35 length. I think the 4:28 is actually correct. H

Okay. . . thanks Valk1j for the mp3. Some notes first before the link: this MP3, while functional, appears to be a bit odd. It has a variable bit-rate and this may contribute to the fact that the MP3 reports as being 4:28 long but is actually nearly a minute longer when played back. Edit: Looks like it may just be my Winamp. I just tried it in WMP and some others and it looks fine now. Even Winamp isn't doing it anymore. I may try my hand at extracting (rather than just recording via analog) this song from my FlashBack DVD now that I've gotten minimally involved. Anyways, until then, here's the file. I also modified the tags so that it would come up as Mari and a Macross Soundtrack song. It *was* classified as "blues." Download

I'll buy it from you on disc if your game. 363544[/snapback] Actually I could e-mail it to you, if you can handle that size e-mail. 363747[/snapback] I can put it on my web host for a limited time if anyone can send it my way. PM if interested. H

Not while flying the VF-1S as Skull Leader (001). This is the case right after Hikaru and Misa are rescued on earth. . . during the Milia vs Max duel. If you look closely, Max outranks Hikaru at that time and is flying a VF-1S as flight team leader. Look even more closely and it is apparent that Hikaru is flying behind both Max and Kakizaki and they both refer to Max as "Captain." Which begs the question, if Milia hadn't waxed Kakizaki, might he have been Skull Leader after Max went "missing" with the Meltrandi instead of Hikaru? The mind boggles. Edit: Just looked again, Hikaru is definitely behind Max, but is slightly ahead of Kakizaki in the delta formation (Max in lead, Hikaru behind Max to Max's left, Kakizaki behind Max to Max's right. . . slightly farther back than Hikaru. I don't know air formations or what a subtle positioning means.

Were there plans to build a second (or even more) Grand Cannons (in the southern hemisphere, for example) as there were in RT? H

Windows XP has the built-in ability to unzip ZIP files. If you aren't on XP, you need winzip (from winzip.com). The evaluation version should work fine. Make sure you unzip/extract to C:\ and nothing more. . . otherwise the file paths will not be correct. As for DVD Decrypter, it's still available here (at least for now). H

Nothing. . . now. While we could still nit-pick a thing or two and keep this going indefinitely, I think this is the closest Jemstone and I will ever come to seeing eye to eye. Thanks for the detailed reply, Jem. Best Regards, H

Jem, I appreciate the more cordial tone of (most of) your last post. I'll endeavor to likewise improve mine: Logically, this does not flow. Nothing about you conceding that you can't possibly know what being kicked in the testicles feels like suddenly gives you the power to essentially decree by fiat that the opinions of some women who have experienced both kidney stones and childbirth cannot be relayed by me (because I'm a man!). You can say that it is hearsay, undocumented, or attack their opinions on the merits (as you do below), but nothing about your analogy, or my being a man destroys the statements that these women (allegedly) made on the face of them. And really, I take issue with the characterization that I came into this wishing to prove that kidney stones are more painful than chilbirth in all cases and then used these women's opinions to merely back that up after the fact. Indeed, the reverse is ture. I merely posted some anecdotal evidence that some women had found kindey stones more painful than childbrith (and then even posted some reasons why I doubt it). I had no axe to grind or agenda to push. Indeed, the real point was that kidney stones can be excruciating. My goal was not to supplant noble motherly suffering to bring life into this world with a guy drinking a lot of water and peeing through a strainer. Agreed. But I even recently heard this from my doctor who warned me not to take calcium pills while my broken wrist healed lest I get stones. When I asked how bad they can be, he told me the "some women. . ." anecdote by way of emphasis. But it wasn't the first time I'd heard it. Regardless, though. Does everyone involved in the discussion deserve to be called idiots and retards for mulling over something like this? Even if we haven't gotten our information from the Mayo clinic? Well, of course not. We assume that the kidney stone is big enough to cause distress. And the bigger it is, the more it will probably hurt. Nobody is arguing that all kidney stones hurt more than childbirth. Indeed, most kidney stones pass without us even knowing it. I believe that the requisite kidney stone being substantial in these comparisons was implied. I think we just disagree here. I don't think many people think that female anatomy and pre-birth changes in a woman's anatomy somehow make giving birth a relative piece of cake when compared to passing a kidney stone. So, I don't think most people say: "I'll take the child birth, those stones sound too painful." I know that I'd take a kidney stone over the tearing (or pre-slicing), 'roids, and overall contraction pains (among other things) inherent to childbirth any day of the week no matter how much people have said kidney stones can hurt. Agreed. But you very clearly went out of your way to characterize everyone else and the comparison itself as stupid as well. But since I was the one making the comparison and you evidentally loathe me so, I guess that's acceptable. I'd just like more backup for why I'm stupid in the future. Actually, there was quite a bit introduced by me and others to pooh-pooh the idea that it is a truly apples-to-apples comparison (differences in length of urethra, lack of epidurals for kidney stones, possible "nerve wiring" differences between men and women in that region, etc.). But that's not to say that you can simply dismiss the comparison out-of-hand (especially in the manner in which you did above which I have already addressed). But what truly vexes me is how you would dismiss hearsay stories about kidney stones, but would apparently whole-heartedly embrace hearsay stories about burst appendices. Yes, but as you have said (twice), your stone was relatively small. So, it's not terribly relevant to describing how a substantial stone would feel compared to childbirth. And again, I believe the substantial nature of the hypothetical stone was implied, otherwise, what's the point? I believe that (in that deleted thread. . . which I think I still have a local copy of, BTW), I did repeatedly state that I would host it on my website and remove the names of third parties to "protect the innocent." You never "called me on it" but rather ignored my repeated requests for your permission to post them. Something you continue to do. Any "threat" you perceived was based in my frustration at you repeatedly and insistantly mischaracterizing what had taken place in thost PMs. Best Regards, H