How long til VEI gets 5% market share?

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:07 pm

Rufusharley wrote:
ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
Rufusharley wrote:
andrew wrote:i always find it amazing that the zephyrwashot-esque poster that is on each message board never gets tired of posting. i guess that's why they're there, though.
Wouldn't have it any other way.
Awwww...

Hugs?

Well it's either that or...err...nevermind.

There's a commercial on talk radio right now where this son (20's) and his dad are talking about the son buying his first home...

And the son says "yeah, this house is perfect for us!"

Dad: "what's the school system like?"

Son: "well, it's, uh, great!"

Dad: "what's the property tax in the area?"

Son: "Uh...high to, uh...low, to...uh middle high, I guess"

Dad: "how has the market performed in the last ten years"?

Son: "Uh....I got nothing. <pause>....Hugs?"

I love that commercial.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:08 pm

depluto wrote:
What's really amazing is it's actually the same guy on every board. He is four feet tall, lives in a condo in Idaho and does nothing but drink Jagermeister and post on the internet. All day, every day.

LIES!!!!

There ARE NO condos in Idaho!!!

depluto · Post by **depluto** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:11 pm

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

x-omatic · Post by **x-omatic** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:57 pm

I guess the bottom line is that a movie might make money if done right?

x-omatic · Post by **x-omatic** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:15 pm

How about this movie?

http://www.andysmithart.com/gpage3.html

slym2none · Post by **slym2none** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:16 pm

ManofTheAtom wrote:Ishtar is not as bad as people say it is

I agree - it's WORSE. Dustin Hoffman hangs his head in shame at the mention of that stinker, and I think he's the only one that even acknowledges it's existence.

-slym

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:21 pm

Are you sure?

Dustin Hoffman: I liked that film... just about everyone I've ever met that makes a face when the name is brought up has not seen it. ...I would do it again in a second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar_%28 ... _on_Ishtar

Warren Beatty: There was almost no review that didn't in the first paragraph deal with the cost of the movie. That was an eye-opener — about the business, and the relationship of the entertainment press to business. Ishtar is a very good, not very big, comedy, made by a brilliant woman. And I think it's funny.

Contrary to Ishtar's overwhelming infamy, Dustin Hoffman, Warren Beatty, Charles Grodin, and Elaine May continue to strongly defend the film's quality.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:52 pm

ManofTheAtom wrote:Are you sure?

Dustin Hoffman: I liked that film... just about everyone I've ever met that makes a face when the name is brought up has not seen it. ...I would do it again in a second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar_%28 ... _on_Ishtar

Warren Beatty: There was almost no review that didn't in the first paragraph deal with the cost of the movie. That was an eye-opener — about the business, and the relationship of the entertainment press to business. Ishtar is a very good, not very big, comedy, made by a brilliant woman. And I think it's funny.

Contrary to Ishtar's overwhelming infamy, Dustin Hoffman, Warren Beatty, Charles Grodin, and Elaine May continue to strongly defend the film's quality.

For the record...

Wikipedia is NOT a valid source to quote for ANYTHING.

Why?

Because Wikipedia can be, and has been, changed by anyone, anywhere, at any time, whether they know what the hell they're talking about or not.

I cleaned up some nonsense in several Brit History (one of my passions) entries, and it was CHANGED BACK by the idiot who didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

It's not as if the DATE OF DEATH of King Henry VIII is in DISPUTE.

Unblessed · Post by **Unblessed** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:41 am

I take the question of this thread as serious as I do research papers that quote Wikipedia as a reference source.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:25 am

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:For the record...

Wikipedia is NOT a valid source to quote for ANYTHING.

Why?

Because Wikipedia can be, and has been, changed by anyone, anywhere, at any time, whether they know what the hell they're talking about or not.

I cleaned up some nonsense in several Brit History (one of my passions) entries, and it was CHANGED BACK by the idiot who didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

It's not as if the DATE OF DEATH of King Henry VIII is in DISPUTE.

You could try following the links provided at the end of each quote to see the original source.

Just an idea...

Like for example.

Say you don't like that the Betty quote is at Wiki and you want to see where whoever posted it there got it from.

You just click the linked number at the end of the quote (or scroll down to the foot of the page) and click the link provided at the end of the same number, which takes you to the page where the original quote was taken from, like so.

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,3165 ... 0_,00.html

Beatty on Beatty: The actor looks back at his work. The most notable of the actor-director-writer-producer's 19 films, described in his own words

ISHTAR (1987)
A notorious financial bomb, directed by Elaine May and starring Beatty and Dustin Hoffman as two songwriters on the road in North Africa. ''There was almost no review that didn't in the first paragraph deal with the cost of the movie. That was an eye-opener — about the business, and the relationship of the entertainment press to business. Ishtar is a very good, not very big, comedy, made by a brilliant woman. And I think it's funny.''

I'm assuming you don't have a problem with Entertainment Weekly as the source of the quote...

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:51 am

ManofTheAtom wrote:
ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:For the record...

Wikipedia is NOT a valid source to quote for ANYTHING.

Why?

Because Wikipedia can be, and has been, changed by anyone, anywhere, at any time, whether they know what the hell they're talking about or not.

I cleaned up some nonsense in several Brit History (one of my passions) entries, and it was CHANGED BACK by the idiot who didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

It's not as if the DATE OF DEATH of King Henry VIII is in DISPUTE.
You could try following the links provided at the end of each quote to see the original source.

Just an idea...

Like for example.

You didn't cite them.

If you would like to cite them with credible sources, feel free.

Whether the quotes are accurate or not is irrelevant: wikipedia is not a valid source to cite.

Say you don't like that the Betty quote is at Wiki and you want to see where whoever posted it there got it from.

You just click the linked number at the end of the quote (or scroll down to the foot of the page) and click the link provided at the end of the same number, which takes you to the page where the original quote was taken from, like so.

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,3165 ... 0_,00.html

Beatty on Beatty: The actor looks back at his work. The most notable of the actor-director-writer-producer's 19 films, described in his own words

ISHTAR (1987)
A notorious financial bomb, directed by Elaine May and starring Beatty and Dustin Hoffman as two songwriters on the road in North Africa. ''There was almost no review that didn't in the first paragraph deal with the cost of the movie. That was an eye-opener — about the business, and the relationship of the entertainment press to business. Ishtar is a very good, not very big, comedy, made by a brilliant woman. And I think it's funny.''
I'm assuming you don't have a problem with Entertainment Weekly as the source of the quote...

Not at all.

But you didn't cite EW originally.

Now you know.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:53 am

I didn't have to cite EW since Wiki already did. You could have just clicked the link I originally provided.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:10 am

ManofTheAtom wrote:I didn't have to cite EW since Wiki already did. You could have just clicked the link I originally provided.

You fail to understand: Wikipedia is NOT A VALID SOURCE.

It doesn't matter if WIKIPEDIA cited a valid source.

Since they are NOT a valid source, you CANNOT "pass-cite" them simply because they may or may not have cited a valid source themselves. The data is CORRUPTED because it passed THROUGH an INVALID source (whether or not the data is still accurate is totally irrelevant.)

Ahhh....English Composition lessons on a Sunday morn.....

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:11 am

...

Wiki has a link to the original source, period.

You click the link to Wiki and once there you click the link to the original source.

Simple, isn't it?

BrianT · Post by **BrianT** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:36 am

Unblessed wrote:I take the question of this thread as serious as I do research papers that quote Wikipedia as a reference source.

It's not meant to be serious. Lighten up. Have some fun and take a guess. It won't kill you. I promise it won't go on your record if your guess turns out to be wrong.

BrianT · Post by **BrianT** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:39 am

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
Brian Thomer wrote:Nope, not the writer. Just a good book. How bout trades? You get those? With the discount Amazon and other places give you it cuts the per issue cost well below $3. There's also the "Fell" format, which I believe is $1.99 for 16 pages.
I have an issue with trades that cost more than the original comics cost.

That's just profiteering by the publisher.

If the original books cost $15, the trade shouldn't cost $20.

To give you an idea of how far behind I am on my reading....

I JUST finished, in the last two months or so, reading X-Men #174-193...

That's UNCANNY X-Men...

Certainly with you on the pricing of the trades. When you order from Amazon, that's not usually an issue with paperbacks. Most paperbacks are between $9-12. Some can be more, of course, if they contain 7 or more issues.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:48 am

ManofTheAtom wrote:...

Wiki has a link to the original source, period.

You click the link to Wiki and once there you click the link to the original source.

Simple, isn't it?

Logic, my friend, generally escapes you....

Next time, cite the ORIGINAL, CREDIBLE source, and we won't have a problem.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:49 am

Nah. Next time when I post a link just click it and do the work yourself, why should I do it for you?

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:58 am

ManofTheAtom wrote:Nah. Next time when I post a link just click it and do the work yourself, why should I do it for you?

One more attempt: when YOU make a claim, and then YOU cite a source to back up that claim, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure that source is valid....it is not the responsibility of your opponent to do YOUR work for YOU.

So, why should YOU do it for me? Because it's YOUR claim, and therefore YOUR work to DO.

That's debate 101.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:29 pm

And my source is valid, you just can't be bothered to click a link to see it.

You saw a link to Wiki and dismissed it WITHOUT CLICKING THE LINK that contains OTHER links to the ORIGINAL source.

That's lazyness 101.

slym2none · Post by **slym2none** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:47 pm

Folks, can we NOT feed the snake it's own tail???

-slym

Squirrel · Post by **Squirrel** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:49 pm

depluto wrote:I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

by chance a quote from "THE YOUNG ONES'?

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:15 pm

ManofTheAtom wrote:And my source is valid, you just can't be bothered to click a link to see it.

No, dear, this has nothing to do with whether or not I can be bothered to click a link. How many times are you going to make me hammer you over the head with this.....?

YOU CITED A BAD SOURCE.

PERIOD.

You saw a link to Wiki and dismissed it WITHOUT CLICKING THE LINK that contains OTHER links to the ORIGINAL source.

You don't have any CLUE what I did or did not click. None. The fact of the matter is:

YOU CITED A BAD SOURCE.

PERIOD.

That's lazyness 101.

Again...you haven't a CLUE what I DID or DID NOT click. I could have checked ALL your sources for all you know....but you don't, because I haven't TOLD you, and unless you didn't disable that spy camera in my bedroom like you PROMISED, then you can't SEE me, either.

Here's the only thing that matters:

YOU CITED A BAD SOURCE.

PERIOD.

I didn't invent the rules...they were invented CENTURIES before you or I were mere twinkles in our daddies' eyes....

Your source: WIKI...is not valid, regardless of what "other links" it may contain. It's not "lazyness {sic}"...it's YOU need to cite YOURSELF....not say "well, so what if I made the claim, YOU go find it!"

Doesn't work that way.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:24 pm

slym2none wrote:Folks, can we NOT feed the snake it's own tail???

-slym

Who, me?

I may be the only person on this board with the sheer force of will to outargue MOTA.

That's GOTTA count for SOMETHING!

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:38 pm

YOU CITED A BAD SOURCE.

PERIOD.

No I didn't, I cited a good source you were too lazy to see even after I provided a link for you.

You're the one who was too lazy to click that link because of your own prejudice against that website.

I can't be held responsible for your opinion of Wikipedia. It sucks that it hasn't worked for you in the past but it has for me.

Again...you haven't a CLUE what I DID or DID NOT click. I could have checked ALL your sources for all you know....but you don't, because I haven't TOLD you, and unless you didn't disable that spy camera in my bedroom like you PROMISED, then you can't SEE me, either.

I know you didn't click the link because if you had then you would have seen ALL the other links to the original sources.

Unless you're too stupid for that, but again, I can't be held responsible for that.

Your source: WIKI...is not valid, regardless of what "other links" it may contain. It's not "lazyness {sic}"...it's YOU need to cite YOURSELF....not say "well, so what if I made the claim, YOU go find it!"

I'm gonna make it so simple that even you can understand it.

Next time I post a link to another site, CLICK IT.

See? Simple.