Does having a "snappy" answer for the stupid questions exempt someone from the rules of this thread?
What rules? The subject says "no answers required"...but that is not an exclusive prohibition to someone posting answers, especially since the thread originator "broke" his own rule on the first page of the thread.
"Thread originator"? Why won't you type his name? What are you afraid of? (and shouldn't the answer to that be "Whaddya got?")
Does having a "snappy" answer for the stupid questions exempt someone from the rules of this thread?
What rules? The subject says "no answers required"...but that is not an exclusive prohibition to someone posting answers, especially since the thread originator "broke" his own rule on the first page of the thread.
Who, me?
(Please note that this IS in the form of a question, Ron. And most apologizings for not putting my reaction to Bratz in the form of a question either. I had such a visceral reaction that no question would likely suffice.)
Does having a "snappy" answer for the stupid questions exempt someone from the rules of this thread?
What rules? Does the subject not say "no answers required"? Is that an exclusive prohibition to someone posting answers, especially since the thread originator "broke" his own rule on the first page of the thread?
May I please be pardoned for my faux pas with the correction (above) of my earlier post?
Why does 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), set 33 years into the future, look more futuristic than Star Trek (1968), set 200 years into the future?
Only one man can answer this, so does anyone have Gary Lockwood's phone number?
Yeah, and while he's at it, Lockwood can give us his opinion of Earth II.
That 2001 looks more believably futuristic than Star Trek is obviously a function of their relative budgets; that it looks far more functional and brilliantly designed than 2010 says a lot about the pedestrian abilities of noted "futurist" Syd Mead compared to the talents and tastes of Kubrick ands production designers Ernie Archer, Harry Lange and Tony Masters, and art director John Hoesli.
But isn't it quite clear that the futuristic settings of "2001" totally missed the mark since it is now 2007 and nothing remotely looks as it does in the film?
Why does 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), set 33 years into the future, look more futuristic than Star Trek (1968), set 200 years into the future?
Only one man can answer this, so does anyone have Gary Lockwood's phone number?
Yeah, and while he's at it, Lockwood can give us his opinion of Earth II.
That 2001 looks more believably futuristic than Star Trek is obviously a function of their relative budgets; that it looks far more functional and brilliantly designed than 2010 says a lot about the pedestrian abilities of noted "futurist" Syd Mead compared to the talents and tastes of Kubrick ands production designers Ernie Archer, Harry Lange and Tony Masters, and art director John Hoesli.
But isn't it quite clear that the futuristic settings of "2001" totally missed the mark since it is now 2007 and nothing remotely looks as it does in the film?
Does having a "snappy" answer for the stupid questions exempt someone from the rules of this thread?
What rules? Does the subject not say "no answers required"? Is that an exclusive prohibition to someone posting answers, especially since the thread originator "broke" his own rule on the first page of the thread?
May I please be pardoned for my faux pas with the correction (above) of my earlier post?
Why can't my Sister-In-Law act superficially friendly with those she knows like she does with strangers, instead of reverting to being brittle, distant, and standoffish?