Spaz The Great

Sir, she simply made a nice suggestion and even called you sir and such out of respect. YOU blew up on her. It's not our fault you can criticize the hell out of movies/games/people/etc. and yet you can't take a single ounce of it yourself.

That topic was posted LAST YEAR. IN AUGUST. And as stated IN THE TOPIC, the description of the game is so completely wrong. Also, it would ruin the fun of picking up the game for the first time and seeing everything, playing the first missions, getting use to the new stuff, etc. GTA demo = FAIL.

Um, didn't Rockstar buy DMA DESIGN, not the series? Which would mean DMA Design = Rockstar North.

I'm not even responding because there is no way you read my post. PS1 games? That you can play on PSP? I have Crash WARPED! on my PSP and as fun as it is, the controls suck balls for the simple fact that there is a missing analog nub and the R2 and L2 buttons. Dude, you WERE wrong. Because I NEVER SAID THE PS3 CONTROLLER COPIED THE 360'S DESIGN. I said the TRIGGERS..... Again.... TRIGGERS..... Could be considered COPIED because both the 360 and Xbox had them FIRST. If you guys PAID ATTENTION and took your fanboy heads out of your asses for a minute you'd probably not sound so stupid. And Rockstar hasn't exactly turned down Nintendo on the GTA Wii idea yet. Who knows? Big compared to other consoles? Try BIGGEST CONSOLE IN THE PAST 17 YEARS? And what I find hilariously ironic is all the Sony-cock-riders made fun of the original Xbox and had nothing better to say than "LOLZ ITZ HUGE!!!!". Now they cream their pants over the PS3 which is BIGGER than BOTH the 360 AND Xbox. Go. Figure.

Um, PS3 controller = copied 360. Not the other way around. Er, no. The PS3 controller is almost excatly the same as the PS2 controller, Sony said themselves they wanted to stick with the PS2 design. So if your actually saying PS2 controller = copied 360, then you sir, are an idiot. When, ever, did I say the controller's DESIGN copied the 360? Show me, if you will, where the triggers on the PS2 controller are. Oh, that's right, they aren't there. So if you're not intelligent enough to realize that the PS3 controller is not an exact clone of the PS2 controller, then YOU sir, are an idiot. Your not intelligent enough to admit for once your wrong, you even said the PS3 controller is the same as 360 but the PS3 controller was just an UPDATED version of the PS2 controller No, AGAIN, I said it COPIED THE 360. How does "COPIED" mean "LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE"? They ADDED TRIGGERS. There WERE NO TRIGGERS ON PS2. There WERE, however, triggers on both the 360 and Xbox. Now, fanboys love claiming people copied Sony((when Sony hasn't released any type of feature first)), so I'm simply pointing out how Sony changes their stuff after other companies release theirs(("motion sensing" much?)). I find it humorous how the only thing you can ever tell us about the PS3 and it's "greatness" is the home feature. What else does it have? More power? Yeah, list EVERY little component that is "more powerful". Then you'd have a little list. But not otherwise. Does the PS3 have an entire library of games properly utilizing the motion sensing? Nope, didn't think so. Can you check the temperature in Antarctica with your PS3? Also, didn't think so. Can you LEGALLY download and play a decent library of old school games on your PS3? Didn't. Think. So.((pointless features? Yeah, and to a lot of people, so is "Home")). Now, would you care to share you're gigantic list of features the PS3 has that the Wii and 360 don't?

He never said HE had connections, he played it at a FRIEND'S house. You have no room to comment on this, as you were praising the console before it was released ANYWHERE. Japan had the console first((as is usually the outcome with Sony's systems)), and Japan is in Asia. BTW, coincidence isn't the word you wanted. Um, PS3 controller = copied 360. Not the other way around. Er, no. The PS3 controller is almost excatly the same as the PS2 controller, Sony said themselves they wanted to stick with the PS2 design. So if your actually saying PS2 controller = copied 360, then you sir, are an idiot. When, ever, did I say the controller's DESIGN copied the 360? Show me, if you will, where the triggers on the PS2 controller are. Oh, that's right, they aren't there. So if you're not intelligent enough to realize that the PS3 controller is not an exact clone of the PS2 controller, then YOU sir, are an idiot.

i didnt read YOUR post spaz YOUR post Aaannd, you were saying, ma'am? ok, well, i never said i didnt see the first pirates i saw it and loved it heres a thought for all of you shut up, calm down, get the hell over it and once your calm i will answer any questions you have I'm sorry, ma'am, but we are not the ones getting worked up. We are only proving our points, something you are obviously not capable of doing. Until YOU calm down, we will not back down. Instead of us asking for basic reasoning behind your otherwise pointless ratings, why not simply give them to us to begin with? That's what normal people do. Or, at least, ones with a basic level of intellect.

Stop calling you sir? My pleasure. Alright, MA'AM. We aren't arguing your opinion because it sucks, we're arguing it because the basis of it sucks. On top of that, I'm not attempting to change your opinion, I'm simply discrediting it. That comes as more fulfilling, in my opinion. Furthermore, I don't believe we are yelling, ma'am. No where did I say great acting makes a great movie. What I DID suggest, however, was that great acting HELPS a movie. No, what MAKES the movie is the STORYLINE. And again, ma'am, I care not whether the movie bored you, but tell us WHY IT BORED YOU. Oh, that's right, because you don't yet((and possibly won't, from the way things are looking)) have the mental capacity to understand anything past stupid-humor and gore. AGAIN, no one is yelling. Just because you interpret our words as yelling, doesn't mean it's true. Y'know, just like your interpretation of a "good movie" isn't always right. You are only further making yourself look ignorant. So, I must repeat this question, if you did not read her post, how did you respond to her points? Mighty fine skill you have there, not even I can respond to correct points when I haven't yet read the post. Ma'am, I assure you are attempts are not aimed at "scaring" you. But your blatant disregard for the rules looks like enough reason for at least a suspension. You clearly stated that you did not care if you double posted, which means you do not care if you break rules that you are well aware of. Ma'am, I suggest you not get testy with me.

I must say, you further prove your utter stupidity, Jezz. Why yes, critics have opinions. Why yes, they do suck a lot of the time. But guess what? Their opinion is not about whether a movie entertained them or not. It's about how good the movie is, as a whole. Plot, acting, effects, believability, score, etc. What is your opinion? "lolz it sukd cuz it didnt entertain me!" Nice way to sound credible. Now, you say you judge on entertainment value alone, and not the story. Sir, the part of the movie that is suppose to "entertain" you the most is the story. That's the point of the movie. Kind of like books, or tv shows. The point is the story, always. If you want just pointless retardation to make your tiny brain tick, then please stay out of more complex films and leave those ratings to the people who can actually comprehend basic thought process. The visuals are only there to further expand the story, and your understanding of it. It is much easier to decipher between things when there are visuals involved. One of my biggest things with your ratings is the simple fact that you ONLY "rate". You do not explain why you rated it as such. It didn't entertain you? Great! I'm intrigued now, do tell me WHY. Anyone with half a brain will not acknowledge a "opinion" that has absolutely no backing to it, what-so-ever. People will actually believe your opinion without even knowing why you hold that opinion. This bothers me. At least if you said, "Spiderman 3 sucked to me because I didn't find it entertaining. It wasn't entertaining because I don't really like Spiderman", someone will be able to think, "Well, I DO like Spiderman, so maybe I WILL like Spiderman 3". As stated before, back up your claims, because without support opinions fall flat. Now, unless you have another "intelligent"((in quotations so you'll able to understand it's sarcasm, I do so hope it entertains you enough for you to pay attention)) thing to say, I suggest you back down.

You should tell Keruri your Wii number or whatever.

Both this topic and Godfather's sucks.....

The link wasn't working for me at first. I can't even hardly tell there is a gun in that picture.....

For some reason I can't see it in your post, although I see the coding. Um, all your pictures are pretty much the same thing...

You compared masturbation and sex. You described sex as "special". You'd kind of have to experience something to know what it's like. My point was, I doubt you had. I get what you mean now but you're saying masturbation is better than sex O.o . But I was mostly saying special as the masturbation wasn't great like some people say, unlike sex.....but again, I understand what you mean now. No, I'm saying it isn't bad. That is, if you know what you're doing. Sex, just like masturbation, isn't great either unless you know what you're doing. Or if you just don't work with the person you're with((don't ask me to explain that, it's past midnight, my mind is blurry, and I'm trying to help a friend through a REALLY ODD love problem, you'll figure out what I mean, more than likely)). No, I want to, though. It's a great song. Great beat to f*** to, I'd assume. Lol, the," I wanna f*** you like an animal----" song? That song is kickass, but idk about sex, well rough sex maybe . Personally, well I don't know actually since I never have had sex but I would prefer not to have music on :/ , dunno why. BTW NIN rocks, Trent(I think that's his name)kics ass. Doesn't have to be rough sex. Infact, even on the faster parts you could be at a rather medium pace. Hell, slow, even. It would be more about how you move, and how fast you move((as in, synching correctly to the music)), not how hard you f***... It would definitely be a fun sex song. And yes, Trent Reznor.

I take offense to this statement. No it doesn't..... Unless you're that big of a loser...... Why the hell not? Why is porn only for the single people out there? This is totally true. Even so, with decent virus protection you have nothing to worry about. Not really, last time I watched some porn was a few weeks ago after months of not watching... This one`s gonna make some waves Porn prepares you for sex, you can learn positions and other stuff from it ... and IMO you can`t have some great sex without watching some porn ... Exactly. Nothing like video-learning((especially putting together complicated shit, f*** reading something, just show me how! )). You're definitely not watching the right stuff. I'll back up her claim. My collection is no where near as big as hers Dude, honestly, I'm tired of you talking about things that you have NO CLUE about. Seriously.

You compared masturbation and sex. You described sex as "special". You'd kind of have to experience something to know what it's like. My point was, I doubt you had.

Funny, am I the only one who gets a "[name] has added you to as a friend" and no "Approve friend?"?

Looks black to me. Bad picture quality.

Let me f***ing quote you buddy..... That says, quite bluntly, that there is NO SUCH THING AS WITCHES. Now, a considering how a lot of people who partake in Paganism are considered witches. A lot a people who partake in Christianity are called Christians. Now, do you f***ing see the similarity? Of course you don't share their beliefs, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

There is no believing or not believing. That's like saying, "Oh, Muslims have a different morality and belief system than I do, so I'm not going to believe they exist". It's heavily part of a RELIGION, BUDDY.

Yeah, sorry, but I still find you a bit of a jerk-off for your ratings. You go and rate a THIRD movie a 0 when you never saw the second. How the HELL do you expect to enjoy/understand/etc. anything in it if there's a whole movie full of things you didn't see. I'm sorry, but it pisses me off that you do this, and then people actually take your ratings into consideration.

On the PS3? I didn't actually have a problem with them. Felt weird, of course, because I'm use to them being buttons.

PS3 controller = PS2 controller without the things that people liked about it. And added triggers.... Y'know, like the 360 AND original Xbox had.

Um, PS3 controller = copied 360. Not the other way around. No it isn't. It has no shock in it, at all. It isn't the DualShock 3 and if they claim it to be they are stupid. And in that same argument, the 360's controller is just an updated Xbox controller. The triggers have always been there, unlike the Playstation controller. No, sir, they are actually rather equal in popularity. And regardless of how known they are, the console released A YEAR AFTER THE OTHER would be the one copying. Especially considering they had the boomerang controller until AFTER the 360 was released, if I'm not mistaken. Same with the Wii, but on both instances, it sort of requires buying the keyboard, no? I'm talking about use straight out of the box.

A lot of people seem to mistake the friends system for the same style used on MySpace. It's more like LiveJournal((for those that have used it)). You can add all the people in the world without their consent or them ever adding you back.