mike carey

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.

Brian, you are an amazing guy, I wish you all the best as you move out across the country!

Jesus H Christ guys retract your claws and give these guys a break. Not only does Hunter Lee post on this site but he has been well reviewed by jawjateck who is well known for having impeccable taste in escorts. So maybe these guys aren’t your types but why the need to beat them to death with all sorts of mean assumptions

I know you weren't asking me, and from your careful phrasing of the question you clearly understand the range of contexts in which this can occur. Brian touched on this too.
 
I could easily say I love an escort and in my mind I know that I mean I love him in the context of this hour/night I am with him. If I had said it and you didn't hear me that way, I would hope that you would have pushed back gently to see what I really meant. If you thought I meant I really loved you, run away as fast as you can. If you figured out that I meant I love you right now, but I can walk away, and that if we met again in two months (and if that were the case, I would want to meet you) I will love you again and will be able to walk away again, then there would be nothing to worry about.
 
Work out what the guy means and react accordingly. If you think he really loves you try to ease him out of it gently, he should understand. If he clearly does not, then 'run away' applies again!

PETA doesn't represent vegans, just saying.