jmicha

^I'm sorry you had to sit through that. I made the mistake of spending money on seeing that when it came out. You've pretty much described the movie's character pretty well. I've never seen ordinary people survive so many impossible situations in a movie. The visual effects are absolutely gorgeous, but nothing about the movie other than that had any long-lasting appeal. Heck, I was uninterested about twenty minutes into it. On another note, I saw Shutter Island last weekend. I really enjoyed it despite figuring the 'twist' out about thirteen seconds into the movie. Regardless, it was still a good movie. The ending still has me questioning his...state of mind...but I think that was the point. Hopefully that makes sense to the people that have seen it as I don't want to give anything away. I'd give it a solid 7.5/10.

Although I'm not that big of a fan of Harry Potter, I did enjoy the books I read (the first four. That's all that was out when I read them) and the movies are mostly entertaining. I miss the old Lost Continent since it was my favorite of all the islands, but this change is happening, so I might as well embrace it for what it is, a pretty sweet looking remodel of the land. It looks absolutely amazing in terms of quality and I'm excited to see how everything plays out. Hogwarts looks pretty crazy and I can't wait to hear first hand reports of how the land looks once it opens. I'm hoping I can get back to Orlando next Christmas break. Hopefully.

Since I've never posted in this thread I figured I might as well to put a face on my posts. So yep, here I am. In my studio a year or so ago. I hate my old glasses. So massive :/ Pretty on par for my group of friends lol. Me and one of the coolest people on earth, my best friend in Cincy. We're at The Dock downtown which is such an awesome place. I love it there.

I, like most of you, enjoyed the Google commercial, despite its excessive corniness. The Doritos and E Trade commercials made me chuckle, as did the Megan Fox commercial, although that last one was only because of one part. When the very obviously gay guys slap each other was hysterical to me, regardless of its use of an extreme stereotype that I generally don't appreciate. But it was harmless in that setting and I laughed my toosh off at that part. But other than those, I can't really remember many of them. I thought the people bridge one was awful, as was the Clydesdales commercial. Overall I'd say it was a decent year, pretty on par with how they've been going in recent years.

^^I see where you are coming from, but all those distracting things listed can cause accidents. And one of those things is texting. I don't see why that can't be the cause of the accident. Yes, she was inexperienced and that certainly led to her not paying enough attention, remembering the lights, etc. as the texting was probably far more important to her than being a safe driver was. But at the same time, it was still because of texting that she let her stupidity get in the way. If I read a billboard and get in an accident because of it, it's because I was looking at the billboard. I feel it's as simple as that. I'm not trying to say your viewpoint doesn't mean anything to me, but I still feel the accident more than likely would have been avoided if she wasn't texting. And no, there is not a lawsuit. My dad and brother were involved in a lawsuit stemming from my brother getting in an accident after sliding on ice when we were on the way home from school. It was a pain to deal with but thankfully it was thrown out of court as no evidence could be provided for any of the guy's claims. But it was still something that my family would not want to put someone through at such a young age over a car that's almost as old as she is. It's not worth it, she's alright, and I was nowhere near the car (thankfully I decided to leave it in the street since I didn't want to go out in the rain as that was around the time that I usually brought it back into my driveway and if I went to move it at that time I wouldn't be a happy camper right now). And this is somewhat unrelated but I actually kind of laughed at most of the things you typed, not because they aren't things that people do, but because they're things my old car couldn't do lol. No CD player, no place to hook up an ipod, I don't let ANYONE eat in my car (I'm a neat freak lol) etc. Which is why losing my car wasn't that huge of a deal really. It upset me, yes, but at the time I was far more worried about the girl's safety and the car was getting tired as it was. It was a good car, but it was a 1994 Accord. It was getting to the end of its life. Which is why I'm happy I get to drive my dad's former car as it actually has all of these things and is done in such a manner to not distract you when driving. It has a direct connection for the iPod (which is all I ever use in the car now. No more radio and I never had CDs since they were pointless in my old car) and there are buttons right on the back of the steering wheel to change the volume, bass, etc. as well as changing songs and even scrolling through playlists, which is fantastic. Oh yeah, and I only check out hot guys on the sidewalk

^^Few things. One. If you get in a car and plan on going anywhere you will have to turn on the car, that's obvious. So no matter how distracted you are, you're going to get the car on, so the proximity means nothing. Second, if she was texting from the time she left the house to the time she started driving, it's very possible to forget something as simple as turning the headlights on. Third, if she was honest enough to tell the officers that she was texting and that's why she got in an accident, what good would it do to lie about the reasoning behind forgetting her headlights? They knew she forgot them which was obvious, so why lie about why she forgot them considering that it was a secondary fine at the time meaning lying about the whole thing and just blaming it on inexperience would have been more beneficial to her. Fourth, just because someone is a 16 year old does not mean they will get in an accident. I've never been in an accident when I was driving and I made it all the way from 15.5 to 21 so far so that argument is bull crap. Unless you're trying to imply that all girls get in accidents at a young age... Fifth, her inexperience definitely did have something to do with it. I'm not denying that. She was inexperienced in the sense that she didn't realize how hazardous distracted driving is. But she found her way around several other parked cars and proceeded to answer a text and not notice mine. Obviously regardless of any outside conditions, such as the dark, or the rain, etc., she was still capable of driving around parked cars. So something else must've caused the accident, and hey guess what? Texting at the precise time she hit my car. She looked down to see what the text said after driving around one car and because of this didn't see mine. End of story. Sixth, don't try to come back at me with questions such as, "She probably didn't have her wipers on either, did she?" It's immature and doesn't make for good discussions. When I went outside to help her out after I heard the accident, the phone was in her hand still. She had very obviously just been in the process of texting. Trying to argue with me about a subject that I experienced first hand is ridiculous considering I was there when it happened and saw the after effects. Texting is extremely distracting. That's it. I see no reason why it shouldn't be against the law while driving. Nothing is that important that it can't wait until you are out of the car or even stopped at the next stoplight.

^I'm not saying that it's the end-all-be-all of regulations to stop accidents. But she literally drove from the end of my street to my house before hitting my car. She was texting as she left my neighbor's house and forgot to turn her headlights on as a result. That's from her own mouth. And I said "and if she followed it" for the reasons you stated. It's not going to stop everyone, but a 16 year old girl may be a little less likely to use her cell phone to text if she was worried about breaking the law. She hadn't had enough time to be distracted by anything else since she was in the car alone for only 30 seconds. Stupidity is stupidity and will still find its way into the car, but still, trying to stop people from using EXTREMELY distracting things, such as a phone to text, is an attempt to stop people from having the means to cause such problems. The examples people always use such as putting on makeup, reading the newspaper, etc. happen far less often than using a cell phone. People use cell phones constantly these days. They don't put makeup on every ten minutes. They don't read the newspaper every ten minutes. But young people do use their phones that often. I still don't see why people get so upset when they ban things that help create a safer place for them. And places that enforce the law strictly and result in less people using their phones are safer places to drive. I've almost been run into by multiple people talking or texting on their phones, yet I've never been almost run into by people doing all the countless other things people use as example to argue against cell phone bans.

^Regardless of what that study says, I have personal proof that texting can lead to serious accidents. My car was parked on my street, a small side street with only 55 houses and a 25mph speed limit, and a girl, texting, plowed into my car at 50mph. Her headlights were off and it was raining outside and when they police asked her how she managed to forget to turn them on she said she was distracted by texting and since she couldn't see the road, she didn't realize how fast she was going. If the cell phone ban my city put in place had already been put in place and she followed it, I would still have my car. And I'm not the only person that's had similar experiences. I have several friends that have been either the victim or cause of accidents that resulted from texting while driving. If some study says that people will still be distracted so it doesn't do anything, I'm not sure I believe it. Someone distracted by looking down at their phone is more of a hazard than someone distracted by something that's on the road with them. Still distracted like the study says, but their eyes are still looking out the windows, which is closer to where they are supposed to be looking. Using a cell phone to talk is one thing, but the bans are mostly because of texting. You can't look at the road and the cars around you when texting, but you can when you are talking. So to argue and say it's just a money ploy for the government is quite a ways off from the truth. I'm without a car because of texting, and that's proof enough that people shouldn't be able to text while driving. This is because of texting.

I'm really upset at how NBC treated Conan. He has always been my favorite late night talkshow host. His skits have always had that goofy sense of humor and he's not afraid to make some edgy jokes. His interviews are also a lot more fun and have personality to them whereas Leno was really only good for his Headlines in my opinion. I'm glad Conan is going out with a bang with skits such as the Veyron mouse. Hopefully wherever he ends up will let him continue his style of hosting and will treat him right.

^Like me Seriously though, I can see this working out great for the market. I can see many families with small both boys and girls going to Disney for a week and taking one of those days to make a side trip to Legoland. I know if I was a young boy again and had to deal with going to Disney (sorry to all Disney fans out there, but I really don't like Disney and would gladly visit Universal Studios any day before going back to DisneyWorld) I would be fine if I got to have a day at Legoland.

^Lol, that's too bad, that would've been a funny story. Funny I never would've thought there'd be that many cases of two Matt's dating each other. What do I know

^^Soooo, this is a completely random, somewhat strange/awkward question. But I'm going to ask it anyway. Aren't you the one that said they were dating someone named Matt, meaning you are both named Matt? I also see your location mentions TTD, and this makes me wonder if you are possibly a hall director at the University of Toledo. My best friend is an RA there and his hall director (at least I think it's his hall director...) is named Matthew and has a boyfriend named Matthew. If none of this applies to you, pretend I never asked

^Yachts can be, but like private planes they are ABSURDLY expensive to use and maintain. Exactly the reason many yacht owners sell their yachts shortly after buying them. Cars can be a good investment if you keep them long enough for them to become classics (if they ever achieve this status that is).

^Just as a correction, I wasn't saying they were never gay, I'm saying they're still gay, just living the life of a straight person. But I don't think we should be discussing this in this forum, as it is just going to end with people possibly being offended and some upsets, so I think we should just agree to completely disagree on the matter and let it be. I hope at no time I offended you, as that's not productive or how I like to discuss matters, but it's a very personal subject (obviously) but if you want to believe what you believe, that's fine, and we should go our separate ways on the matter.

^All of that But Crazy4Coasters!, to say you think (with absolutely no personal experience since you are not gay) that it is mostly by choice is so far from the truth. After I came out to my family last year, I talked with my mom about it, and she said she had always known. Asking her what she meant, she told me even from around the time I was four, she could tell that I was gay. And all I know is that ever since around the time of preschool, I've always liked being around boys/men a lot more and once puberty hit, this turned into being physically attracted to men. No part of my body gets excited when I see a woman naked. In fact (no offense to any women on this board of course) I find it quite displeasing whenever I see any woman exposed in movies, TV, etc. We aren't made that way. It's as simple as that. There is absolutely NO choice in the matter. I can tell you the countless nights of crying myself to sleep and hating myself in my early teen years up until the first time I came out to someone two years ago wouldn't have happened if I could have chosen to be straight. I wanted to be straight and wished for it every day, but it was just wishful thinking, as it wasn't going to happen. And frankly, I'm happy it wasn't possible since I've come to terms with my sexuality and am extremely happy with who I am and happy I have friends that support who I am as a person. Being gay isn't a choice. If it was, the evidence of homosexual activity and relations within the animal kingdom outside of humanity wouldn't exist. People don't like to be put through the stress of being gay, coming out, fighting for our rights, etc. I'm sorry if I was offensive in how I replied to your post, but I think that you need to step away from your religious beliefs if just to research the matter. I'm not saying you have to support gay marriage, or even gays in general, that's completely up to you, but resisting facts because of religion isn't a good way of viewing the world. You should be embracing the great variety of people out there, and support human beings as the way they were created rather than trying to tell them that changing to follow a book written an eternity ago is how they should be living.

^Depends on what they are considering gay. If they are now dating women and want a relationship with a female because that's what their religion tells them to do, and therefore consider themselves straight after 'finding god' (which I'm not quite sure how this causes one to change sexuality...) then sure, they've changed in their eyes. But I can guarantee you, that's not what their body tells them they want. You can't change what you are attracted to. The people that say they changed who they are physically attracted to are just lying to everyone else to cover it up. Can you honestly say you could change yourself to start liking men in a physical manner? Because that's the exact same thing. It doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work. And the whole idea of finding god to change oneself makes absolutely no sense to me. If god is responsible for how we are all made, then why exactly would he make some of us gay if he didn't want us to be? Sorry if I'm sounding a bit defensive, but by saying one can change their orientation is also saying that's its a choice who one is attracted to. And this is not right and is extremely offensive to me and I'm sure others. Every other gay person on this board WILL tell you that they never chose to like the same gender, it has just always been that way. It's who we are, and as far as I'm concerned, attempting to change that is denying oneself happiness and for religious folk would be going against who god made you.

^^Yeah, it's just a sacrifice you make going in the off season. With the exception of not getting night rides though, the experience is so much better when the park isn't busy. I've been there and never had to wait more than five minutes for anything. It is sad though you won't be able to see HRRR all lit up in person. I know next time I go I won't be able to either and that's one of the most interesting things about its appearance. Oh well, I'd gladly take being able to ride Revenge of the Mummy, MIB, Hulk, Dueling Dragons, and Jurassic Park more than five times each amongst pretty much every other big ride in a day than seeing HRRR lit up at night.

Cre-e-e-py CRAWLERS!!! I loved those things. My brother and I would play with those for hours on end. I know I grew up with a lot of those toys since my older brother was younger when quite a few of those were still popular and were passed on to me. I miss the toys of those years. So much simpler, so much better. Toys today are all electronic and overdone. For example, I was at...Target...I think...whatever, and there was this dragon toy that was literally two and half feet long or so, and when activated, it walked moved its head, neck, legs, tail, mouth, etc. and made growling noises and stomped. It was insane. But not as insane as the price. Three hundred dollars. I asked my friend how spoiled kids must be these days if these are the gifts that they are getting. Right then, a girl, maybe three years old, pushed the button, giggled, and the dad grabbed a box and bought it for her. I was amazed at this, I would never have gotten anything that expensive as a gift when I was little, heck, even today. Whatever happened to the simple LEGO sets, or the Fisher Price train sets, or the Fisher Price town sets? They were incredibly simple, but you needed imagination to make them fun. Which is what I think the problem is. Kids these days don't need their imagination to have fun, so these simple toys just don't cut it. And that saddens me greatly. Edit: My bad, it's a dinosaur, not a dragon. But here is a video of it in action.

^^I'd say Uncharted 2 is quite a bit better than Uncharted 1, which is saying a LOT since I freaking loved Uncharted 1. Uncharted 2 has a very different feel and has a nice variety of different styles of environments. I haven't gotten to finish it yet, but hopefully I will before I go back to school Saturday. Oh yeah, have fun with Uncharted 1, I think you'll be...surprised...by the game

^It's funny, I had never heard of it either until one day I received texts from both my brothers about how awesome it was. My family all watched it when I was at school and I was sad I missed it. They loved how poorly done everything was and couldn't stop raving about the insanely ridiculous scene where the shark jumps out of the ocean, climbs up to 30,000+ feet somehow and takes down a commercial jet in mid-flight lol. Such a strange movie.

I would, but unfortunately I don't live in Cincy, I just go to school there, and when I'm there, I don't have my car (parking is much too expensive there). And my major doesn't really allow for weekends off. In fact, I've never had a weekend off in the 2.5 years I've been there. This is my predicament. It took me until this summer to finally get to Kings Island after being in Cincy for two years. That's another thing though, I don't have summers off anymore and I co-op every other quarter, so a a lot of times I'm away from anywhere interesting coaster-wise. I was in Orange, Texas last quarter, but unfortunately didn't have the time to leave for an entire weekend to visit a park. I did get to ride the Boardwalk Bullet though which was a nice time. I think the biggest problem though is the fact that I literally have zero coaster enthusiast friends, or friends that want to go anywhere other than Cedar Point. I like Cedar Point as much as the next guy, but in terms of wood coasters, it's pretty mediocre. Blue Streak is fun, but not world-class and Mean Streak...well, I don't even need to go into that. At least one of the best friends I've met in Cincinnati likes amusement parks more than average, and hopefully we'll be able to get to some during coming vacations. But I need to find some roller coaster lovers at UC. There are quite a few parks within a relatively short drive from there that I've never visited and would like to.

It saddens me greatly that I've ridden zero of the top 20 wooden coasters. At some point, I'm going to need to save up money and go on a trip throughout the U.S. to get to some of the parks I've been longing to visit. College is a real hobby killer sometimes

^Lol, I didn't think of it, but I can tell from now on that's all I'll be able to picture when I hear about this ride.

I'm currently playing through Uncharted 2. In simplest terms, the game is absolutely amazing. I'm almost finished with the game and am thoroughly impressed by absolutely everything in the game. I'm also playing Need for Speed Shift, which is quite good and a good departure from the craptastic Need for Speed gams of late.

^^It could also possibly just be problems with the camera. Maybe getting the entire ride on video within one ride was proving impossible, so they just edited together what they had? I wouldn't worry about it that much until we have first hand accounts of how the ride runs. Also, about the brakes, I think the front spike uses those tires to lift the train further up the spike then pushes it backwards once it reaches the end. That could be why it's so sudden, or again, could just be camera problems and the result of editing together multiple segments of video.