That sounds pretty cruel.

On an unrelated note, does she have Werner's syndrome or something? She looks like she's 22 in that photo.

Loveless

Wanna be any more stereotypical, America?

>>4
how is it stereotypical, just out of curiosity...

>>5
Izid sum kined off /b/tard poined off onna naow dat, wen your fased wid a joyce bidwin a seerys of rite an rong spelins of wurdz - azin "their" / "they're", "your" / "you're" etc. - yu ALLWAYS NESSECERARURULLY HAV too chuze the RONG won, oddurwize yu loose faice orr sumthin?

Iff sow, cann wee trie too atleest bea a bitt moar cunsisstenent an SPEL EVRUTHIN RONG DAT POZZIBLEE CANN BEE SPELED RONG jus sow evriwon seas haoh fukin cool (note: the term "cool" is orthographically protected under the Third ("The Idea That Even a Total Retard Could Get THAT One Wrong Somehow Lacks Verisimilitude") Clause of the Constitution of the Interwebz Idiocracy) an awsum an eggy wee r?

Thnx guise.

>>6
Ridiculous names for everything, ridiculous motives for everything, OMG SO MUCH DRAMA, it's so, I can't find the right word but it's so overdone. It's like Carrie and we all know how hammed up that is.

>>7

Yup.

>>8
"Carrie", you film-illiterate, universally self-ingratiating, Americophobic bitch, actually stands out among 1970s "genre" movies for almost innumerably many reasons, including, in no particular order

(i) being far and away the best Stephen King adaptation in cinema history ("The Shining" is enormously over-rated, as indeed is Kubrick in general)

(ii) being the ONLY more or less great movie ever made by a director - Brian de Palma - who doubtless had it in him to leave behind him an oeuvre as impressive as Scorsese's or Coppola's but never realized this potential

(iii) featuring the career-best performances by Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie (I suppose it's just about possible to accuse the latter of "hamming it up", although it's difficult to see what else she might have done with the role of a carving-knife-wielding infanticidal religious maniac who, when she's not trying to stab her daughter to death, spends most of her time flinging her in and out of a cupboard full of spookily luminous religious relics; the performance of the former, in the title role, however, is a masterpiece of subtlety and human empathy that brings tears to one's eyes even on repeated viewings)

(iv)featuring a remarkable time-travelling cameo by none other than our own RavRav, who (a little-known fact even on Crackyhouse) appeared in several seminal 1970s horror movies under the screen-name P.J. Soles. No one who has observed Stephanie switching back and forth with dizzying rapidity between heart-melting winsomeness and undisguised contempt in her relations with her numerous cam-johns on Skype and MFC will fail to recognize instantly that it is indeed none other than she who takes on, in "Carrie", the role of "Norma Watson", the morally repellent lieutenant to the movie's bitch-queen villain whom - in sharp distinction from the latter - one somehow cannot help liking and feeling drawn to even as one flinches back from her in justified ethical condemnation and disgust.

>>10
sup alex

>>11
Shit, and there was I thinking I'd hidden myself so well under the Crackyhouse stage that I'd be able to drop a bucket of pig's blood on the Queen of Tinychat without anyone knowing it was me.

I was so close, so close. I would have shown them that no one takes my prom ticket away from ME and gets away with it.

>>10>>12

Blahblahblah bullet points blahblahblah anal bastard blahblahblah Queen of Tinychat? What the fuck?

Alex, your mad is showing, did you have a fight with a girl again?

PS I apologise for not liking what you like

>>13
Like the great majority of the people who use this board, Mousie, your sense of humour appears to become entirely inoperative as soon as you find yourself in relation to someone who isn't a tried-and-tested member of your mutual admiration society. The last and longest of my "bullet points" is, I would have thought, sufficiently obviously nonsensical for anyone with half a brain to grasp that the first three as well were intended to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. (It's pretty obvious also, I think - to anyone who's seen or read "Carrie" - as I presume you must have, as you express an opinion on it - and who isn't addled by vanity or paranoid over-defensiveness) that "Queen of Tinychat" was a reference to Carrie herself as the elected Prom Queen, not to you.

>>14

blahblahblah mutual appre

I didn't get any further. Sometimes I think you're angry because you DON'T have one of these circlejerking groups you claim to hate.

>>15
The imputation that you allow yourself there, Mousie, is "specious" in the archaic, pre-18th-century sense that one often still encounters in Gibbon. i.e. plausible and convincing on initial examination. (In modern English the meaning has shifted and the word has come to mean just "very likely false").

You'll be aware, after all, as an admirer and sympathizer of Dolly's and Camel's, that one could well hazard an exactly analogous imputation in respect, say of feminism: namely, that feminists only "claim to hate" men's tendency to turn women into one-dimensional sexual objects and commodities because they themselves DON'T get as many chances as they'd like to to objectify and commodify men.

Likewise, one could attempt the imputation in respect of socialism that socialists only oppose privilege and divisive, hierarchical social structures because they DON'T themselves enjoy the privileges and distinctions that they "claim to hate".

Or in respect of Christianity that Christians only "claim to hate" sin because they don't themselves get all the chances they'd like to to commit the acts that they condemn as sinful.

Or to put all that another way, Mousie: your specious (in the 18th-Century sense) imputation regarding my reasons for condemning "circle-jerks" and "mutual admiration societies" - phenomena marvellously exemplified by a recent post of yours, in which you ran through a list of just about everyone I had criticized in one of my posts and canonized them, just about one and all, as saints without fault or blemish, reaping as your reward for that a great effusion of typically fascistically unanimous "viva Mousie!"s among the habitués of the Tinychat - your specious imputation there, I say, must surely be one of the cheapest, most facile and most worn-out rhetorical tricks in the book: "Someone opposes something; plainly a case of sour grapes."

Personally, I prefer to take a stance in such matters that is "specious" neither in the pre-18th-Century nor in the modern sense and to assume that, most frequently, the reason and motive that people have for "claiming to hate" something is that they actually DO hate it and that they wouldn't engage in the practices that they condemn EVEN IF they were offered the chance to do so.

I'm far from irrecognizant of the many excellent lessons that are to be be drawn from Aesop's fables - the "sour grapes" imputation among them - but feel obliged to point out to users of the board that the most astute and exact characterization of their worth was surely John Locke's, who described them as "apt to delight and entertain a child."

Among adults, it very often happens that things are despised not because they are secretly desired, but simply because they are despicable.

It's almost as if he thinks I'm reading his posts.

I still think he's mad 'cos no one circlejerks with him.
And no matter how long his posts get, I'll think it forever~ :D XD :3 ;L

>>17
Daily reading of Gibbon, by the way, with assiduous note-taking whenever any interesting divergence from modern English usage comes to light, should in my view be compulsory for the Crackyhouse Crackyfag, to set us off from the .71-ers, who are more or less universally acknowledged to be a bunch of cunts.

Gibbon was not only a massive influence on the literary style of Jorge Luis Borges, several of whose books featured in Cracky's personal library. He has also, for some years, been the sole and exclusive reading matter of Iggy Pop, who has exerted an equally massive influence on my own good self, above all through the medium of his 1969 classic "I Wanna Be Your Dog".

I am also inclined to press - perhaps a tad less emphatically - for the introduction of compulsory thrice-weekly perusal of the website "The Word Detective", which offers this enlightening summary of the etymology and history of the term "specious":

There is a difference between "specious" and "spurious," although the distinction is gradually disappearing. What makes this slow-motion merger of the two words remarkable is that their meanings used to be nearly opposite.

"Spurious" comes from the Latin "spurius," meaning "illegitimate," and originally referred to a child born out of wedlock. "Spurious" broadened over the years to mean "of dubious origin," and more recently has come to mean "superficially resembling but not genuine."

"Specious," however, comes from the Latin "speciosus," meaning "fair or beautiful," and originally it was a compliment to call something "specious." The meaning of "specious" has shifted since the mid-17th century, however, and now it describes something which is deceptively attractive or superficially correct but is actually worthless.

Trying to pin down the difference between the two words is tricky. My sense is that a "specious" thing is more likely to be taken for genuine at first than is something "spurious." So a "specious" excuse may seem plausible and even convincing at first, while a "spurious" excuse would likely be dismissed as nonsensical or irrelevant right off the bat. In current use, "spurious" is a more flexible word than "specious," which, to answer your other question, is usually (but not always) applied to arguments.

Alex is about as smart as Bill Oreilly

silly old man thinks this is a substitute for social interaction

HA
HA
HA

silly old man thinks this is a substitute for social interaction

HA
HA
HA