mike carey

But they are all Christianists who are straight as the driven snow (or some other analogy) so why would they possibly hire some gay whore?

Is it just me, or are there other posters who are in the process of wiping their coffee off their screens and keyboards at the idea of this event being held at the Gaylord convention centre?

Is it just me, or are there other posters who are in the process of wiping their coffee off their screens and keyboards at the idea of this event being held at the Gaylord convention centre?

But they are all Christianists who are straight as the driven snow (or some other analogy) so why would they possibly hire some gay whore?

But they are all Christianists who are straight as the driven snow (or some other analogy) so why would they possibly hire some gay whore?

Is it just me, or are there other posters who are in the process of wiping their coffee off their screens and keyboards at the idea of this event being held at the Gaylord convention centre?

Is it just me, or are there other posters who are in the process of wiping their coffee off their screens and keyboards at the idea of this event being held at the Gaylord convention centre?

They are still a thing! Not that I fly enough to use them.

Having read a number of reviews but not seen the film, an observation. Mr Emmerich seems to have made a fundamental error in making an historical movie, and that is you can't change the basic story of what happened. The way he characterised the white boy from Kansas or Indiana (depending which review at the top or the thread you believe, and that is an indictment of one of the reviewers, but that's a separate discussion) does just that, it didn't happen that way and there are plenty of people still around who know that it didn't happen.
 
There are two ways you can inject fiction into an historical film that will work. One is what Peter Weir did in The Year of Living Dangerously where a fictional story was wrapped around a depiction of the Soeharto coup in 1965. The other is the way Costa-Gavras made Z and State of Siege that respectively told the stories of the colonels' coup in Greece in 1967 and the kidnapping of a US Embassy officer by the Tupamaros in Uruguay in the 1970s. He didn't misprepresent what happened, rather he told a story that fitted into a realistic protrayal of what had happened. Emmerich could have set his story against the background of what really happened but instead chose to change the history. I wish he hadn't.

Good summary Tristan, some great points for new visitors to Singapore. I haven't been there for years and years. You're right that eating at US branded restaurants will be expensive, people may find it cheaper to eat in local restaurants serving western cuisine so they don't pay for the cachet of a US brand. I always found street food to be cheap and delicious, but then I love Chinese and Nonya food (and Malay and Indian curries). Times I visited Penang in Malaysia on work trips (years ago) the consensus always was that if you were going to get a bait [food poisoning] it would be in a hotel restaurant and not at a street food market.
 
I can't speak to gay culture but homosexuality is illegal in Singapore and Malaysia, although the degree of enforcement of the law is variable.
 
Air fares are variable and if you are prepared to buy non-refundable tickets you can get good deals. Fares from Australia tend to be expensive. Clearly you pay more for refundable tickets. (I can't remember all the details but I paid about AUD3400 [uSD2300 at the time] for a fully flexible Canberra to DC and return ticket with a stopover in LA: I could have bought a roundtrip Sydney- LA non-refundable ticket for about AUD1100 [uSD750].)

Good summary Tristan, some great points for new visitors to Singapore. I haven't been there for years and years. You're right that eating at US branded restaurants will be expensive, people may find it cheaper to eat in local restaurants serving western cuisine so they don't pay for the cachet of a US brand. I always found street food to be cheap and delicious, but then I love Chinese and Nonya food (and Malay and Indian curries). Times I visited Penang in Malaysia on work trips (years ago) the consensus always was that if you were going to get a bait [food poisoning] it would be in a hotel restaurant and not at a street food market.
 
I can't speak to gay culture but homosexuality is illegal in Singapore and Malaysia, although the degree of enforcement of the law is variable.
 
Air fares are variable and if you are prepared to buy non-refundable tickets you can get good deals. Fares from Australia tend to be expensive. Clearly you pay more for refundable tickets. (I can't remember all the details but I paid about AUD3400 [uSD2300 at the time] for a fully flexible Canberra to DC and return ticket with a stopover in LA: I could have bought a roundtrip Sydney- LA non-refundable ticket for about AUD1100 [uSD750].)

Having read a number of reviews but not seen the film, an observation. Mr Emmerich seems to have made a fundamental error in making an historical movie, and that is you can't change the basic story of what happened. The way he characterised the white boy from Kansas or Indiana (depending which review at the top or the thread you believe, and that is an indictment of one of the reviewers, but that's a separate discussion) does just that, it didn't happen that way and there are plenty of people still around who know that it didn't happen.
 
There are two ways you can inject fiction into an historical film that will work. One is what Peter Weir did in The Year of Living Dangerously where a fictional story was wrapped around a depiction of the Soeharto coup in 1965. The other is the way Costa-Gavras made Z and State of Siege that respectively told the stories of the colonels' coup in Greece in 1967 and the kidnapping of a US Embassy officer by the Tupamaros in Uruguay in the 1970s. He didn't misprepresent what happened, rather he told a story that fitted into a realistic protrayal of what had happened. Emmerich could have set his story against the background of what really happened but instead chose to change the history. I wish he hadn't.

Mattr, you have identified my dilemmas in this choice! Still Kurtis for me, and Austin (noting issues identified). That said, I am not on my way there and if I were I would contact them directly not just talk about it in here.

TruHart1

Two years ago before reading this site and Dan Savage's I would have been similarly oblivious to what this 'cat toy' was. Yes, I'm embarrassed by that admission!

Two years ago before reading this site and Dan Savage's I would have been similarly oblivious to what this 'cat toy' was. Yes, I'm embarrassed by that admission!

Two years ago before reading this site and Dan Savage's I would have been similarly oblivious to what this 'cat toy' was. Yes, I'm embarrassed by that admission!

Not really a funny, but I think I will adopt this as my logo:

(Also, sea otters are adorable, sleep in "rafts," and hold hands so as not to drift away while sleeping.)

Wolfer, it's all going to be about you, what anyone else has done may not be relevant! That said, I'll talk about it anyway. However you are cleaning yourself out, experiment with it. Do it even if you are not meeting someone, to see what happens. Think about your diet, fibre may help (metameucil perhaps). I thought I knew about douching but I bought a new shower attachment. It left water in my arse for longer than I expected (potentially embarrassing leaks) but after I'd used it I didn't have a number two for well over 24 hours. I haven't repeated the experiment, I hasten to add. How it all works for you is the best guide.