DyePack said:dog428 said:DyePack said:dog428 said:DyePack said:dog428 said:DyePack said:dog428 said:HoopsMcCann said:there are these people, perhaps you've heard of them, who work at these things called newspapers and they go to movies and tell their readers if the movie sucked. you know, maybe you should look into 'em
(and i'm not talking about dog)
The truly sad thing here is that me and polo have had this discussion before, back when dude went completely ape-**** crazy over the Wedding Crashers. Dumb, an asshole and forgetful -- not a good combo there, polo.
For the record, I haven't paid to see a movie in years. And if I had a choice, I wouldn't have stuck around for more than 30 minutes of this ****ty film.
Well, now that you've gone on the record ...
I don't know a lot of what you're talking about, but I did go back and get some of the details. From what I gather, you seem to be a little off. Apparently you didn't like an innocuous comment or two, so you decided to start some bull****, and it escalated from there.
I "assumed" you had not paid to see this movie, but the response to your idiotic post was so good that I couldn't pass it up.
Basically I don't give a **** if you are the greatest movie expert on the face of the planet. To me, you're simply an ass-clenching, ultraliberal ****tard who cries out to be smacked down repeatedly. The second post here accomplished that.
You "assumed" huh? But yet you went ahead and posted your usual dumb ****, asshole spiel and in the process made yourself, once again, look like a dip****. Well done, dickhead.
And keep posting that you've smacked me down. Maybe if you post it enough, you'll convince yourself it's true.
You seem to be doing a good job of making yourself the dip****.
Did you say you were reviewing it? No.
Did I say I smacked you down? No.
What I did say: The second post of the thread was simply too good to ignore. Within minutes, someone else who assumed you had paid to see the movie figuratively cut out your guts with one slash.
And it was priceless.
But you again, you "assumed" I didn't pay to see the movie because you knew from an earlier thread in which you made an ass out of yourself that I review movies. And even though you knew this, the extra large portion of your small brain that controls your asshole tendencies took over, and ignoring all of those facts, you replied with an asshole comment.
But all of that is OK, because Ifilus, who didn't know I didn't pay to see the movie made what would have been a cutting comment.
This is your idiotic argument? And you're calling someone else a dip****?
Um, no. Your reading comprehension seems to be off.
Someone else mentioned offhand in a whole other thread that you reviewed movies. I did some of my own homework after that.
Since I didn't know if the reviewer part was common knowledge or not, I steered clear of it.
Regardless, the second comment was priceless. There's simply no escaping that, or the fact that like a real dog, you have just squeezed out a pile of **** and just keep rolling around in it.
I apologize for continuing to post on this thread. It's late and I completely forgot that polo doesn't need any help in making himself look like an asshole.
Continue on, dip****.
Enjoy that sugar cookie, ass-clencher.
Ace said:I must respectfully disagree with Mr. DyePack that liberals are assclenchers.
With our acceptance of gays, eating of fibers, enjoyment of high colonics and such, our asses tend to be relaxed, as opposed to our red-meat eating, uptight conservative friends.
Please do carry on, though.
Mr. EkoARG said:I figured that was poloponies in disguise. Now I know.
Ace said:As far as the movie goes, dog. Was it supposed to be a metaphor for the futility of the United States Postal Service? I don't quite get it.
Usually, when I want good acting I go to a Keanu Reeves movie, so this is perplexing.
In "The Lake House," it works like this. A woman (Sandra Bullock) lives in a glass house built on stilts over a lake north of Chicago. She is moving out and leaves a note for the next tenant (Keanu Reeves). He reads the note and sends a strange response to the address she supplies: He thinks she has the wrong house, because "no one has lived in this house for years." She writes back to disagree. It develops that he thinks it is 2004 and she thinks it is 2006, and perhaps she moved in after he left, instead of moving out before he arrived, although that wouldn't fit with -- but never mind.
This correspondence continues. They both leave their letters in the mailbox beside the sidewalk that leads to the bridge that leads to the glass house. The mailbox eventually gets into the act by raising and lowering its own little red flag. The two people come to love each other, and this process involves the movie's second impossibility. We hear them having voice-over conversations that are ostensibly based on the words in their letters, but unless these letters are one sentence long and are exchanged instantaneously (which would mean crossing time travel crossed with chat rooms), they could not possibly be conversational.
Never mind. They also have the same dog. Never mind, I tell you, never mind! I think, actually, that I have the answer to how the same dog could belong to two people separated by two years, but if I told you, I would have to shoot the dog.
If I were going to whack it, it'd be gone.shotglass said:Oh, Modaho, DO let this go on. It's uncovering an important truth.
dog428 said:You guys honestly didn't know that Dyepack is Polo?
With all the unprovoked asshole-ish outbursts, how could you miss it?
Ace said:dog428 said:You guys honestly didn't know that Dyepack is Polo?
With all the unprovoked asshole-ish outbursts, how could you miss it?
Well, he isn't exactly alone in that regard.
And polo liked to take shots at sports writers stuffing their faces in press boxes, etc.
DyePack specializes in designer flambe.