Posts by Matthew Anderson4

14.
action movies

action movies
action movies
action movies

Carol Stewart35 said:not gonna lie, I'm feeling this one too—it's wild how they shot just 10 minutes of it at once. Props to Michael Fassbender. unknown - Steve McQueen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq0SETWIO8U

You actually watched it? 😁
If I’m counting right, the dialogue goes on for about 22 minutes, while the actual continuous shot lasts a solid 17 minutes. 🙏

1. Hard Target
2. Crying Freeman
3. Better Tomorrow

I'm pretty late to the party, so no worries if you don't want to deal with my reply 🙂

11

1. Sylvester Stallone
2. Clint Eastwood
3. Arnold Schwarzenegger
4. Bruce Willis
5. Wesley Snipes
6. Sho Kosugi
7. Kurt Russell
8. Jason Statham
9. Chuck Norris
10. Dolph Lundgren
11. Jackie Chan
12. Steven Seagal
13. Chow Yun Fat
14. Jet Li
15. Marc Dacascos
16. Jean-Claude Van Damme

12

The Peacekeeper

1 - D
2 - E
3 - F
4 - G
5 - A
6 - H
7 - B
8 - C

hiddenhound3 said:yeah... but honestly, the whole movie feels like that 🙏🙏🙏

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj57-Do-O1Q

but man, my favorite parts are when that little girl starts messing with the cat 😢

Gonna have to suck it up and finally watch this one day 😁 Need to decide if I tackle it in chunks or just power through in one go 🤷

Are we talking about a trip like, an actual trip?

If so, then just the full two hours of Fear and Horizon in Las Vegas 😁

8.

1. Action movie list
2. Universal Soldier
3. Action movie list

9.

Action movie list

5.

1. Chuck Norris
2. Jason Statham
3. Vin Diesel
4. Bruce Willis
5. JCVD
6. Arnold Schwarzenegger
7. Dolph Lundgren

6.

a) Raw Deal
b) Last Action Hero
c) The Specialist
d) Last Man Standing
e) The Last Boy Scout
f) Showdown in Little Tokyo

7.

10 differences

edit: just realized I wasn't supposed to edit this (added my answer to question seven) damn. Pretty sure mods can see what was added after an edit, so if they could just confirm I didn't touch my old answers and only added the seventh one, I'd appreciate it. 🙂

Why did FOX even bother with a dubbed version, seriously? 🤦

3.

1. movie list
2. movie list
3. movie list
4. movie list
5. movie list
6. movie list
7. movie list
8. movie list
9. movie list
10. movie list
11. movie list
12. movie list

4.

Jet Li in Lethal Weapon 4

Demolition Man and its 7 differences🙂

Kevin Williams56 said:Who says it sucks? Like I said, it’s just you guys whining for seven or eight pages straight. For the rest of us—the actual majority here—the rules work just fine.

Again—don't earn a strike and you won't have point issues. 😁

Wow, what a way to "improve" the quality of this forum. 😁

So you think helping trolls dodge bans is a solid investment. Great idea.🤷

If you ask me, strikes should be permanent. That would be the only real upgrade to this current system. Hit 1,000 and you're out. But hey, that might be bad news for you and the other "strike collectors."🙂

The fact that you feel the need to end every sentence with '😁'
shows how seriously you take this stuff.
And we're only "outraged" because the rules actually hit us. It's like saying only certain religious groups care about specific dress code bans. Makes zero sense.🙄

Sandra Brown said:Exactly. 👍

🙂

As far as I'm concerned, I'm stepping back.

Jacob Foster11 said:So who actually benefits from this?

Like I said, someone needs to design and code a better system. I doubt the forum owners can pull that off themselves—they probably don't have the technical chops (not that anyone expects them to). And if they hire an outside dev to do it, that costs money. Honestly, since everything seems to be running fine as is, why would they bother spending cash on something that doesn't change much?

Basically, they aren't interested in investing in making the forum better. Just say it. This rule basically implies it's better to get a Ban at 150 points than at 100. Truly brilliant logic.

Jacob Foster11 said:They aren't idiots, though.

Stop dangling the carrot in front of me. One of these days I might actually bite.🙂

Jacob Foster11 said:People have talked about this before. Look, the current setup isn't perfect, but it gets the job done. If we tried to build something totally "fair," it’d be a massive headache. Half the users don't even get how things work now. Make it more complex and you'll just have a million more people whining because they "don't understand why they got a Ban."

Plus, the current system is basically just a plug-and-play module dropped into vBulletin. Building a better one would actually require some real coding work.

It’s not perfectly fair, sure, but that's the trade-off for keeping it simple.

Fair enough. If simplicity is the goal, let it be. No way I want the mods working overtime just to fix something that isn't broken.

Kevin Williams56 said:Sometimes 10 is plenty.

The fix is easy... just stop racking up points. 😉

If you aren't hunting for points, then warnings, point totals, durations, Bans, all that stuff doesn't matter. You can spend that time doing something actually useful instead of arguing over stupid rules.

I haven't seen anyone complaining about the rules unless they're already sitting on seven or eight pages of warnings. Usually, it's the ones with ten pages of strikes who start crying. 😁

Right, but what does that have to do with whether the rule itself sucks?
Nothing.

It could even be Collateral, if a wolf (or a coyote) happens to dart right in front of the taxi

The abuse department is basically just a medieval torture device, right? They track you online and troll you—literally "abusing" you. It’s a brilliant idea 🙏

Jacob Foster11 said:Or, if your card expires and your score drops below 100, then you get another one and it pushes you back over 100, you just get hit with a Ban again.

Not an expert or anything, but this rule is pretty idiotic. By this logic, you could get banned right after a suspension just by picking up, say, 30 points. Fix it.

rustyscout34 said:I guess that sounds pretty hypocritical to me. Anyway, are you a vegan, or do you also eat innocent pigs and chickens and stuff?

That’s his thing, I don't see a problem with it. I actually think along similar lines; to me, a human life is worth just as much as an animal's life. I don't see why it would be any different.

Maybe you watched a little too much Tarzan. 🤣
Besides, a human life and an animal life aren't equal, not even in a crazy world, because we have this thing called self-awareness. 😉

Not eating.

rustyscout34 said:I guess that sounds pretty hypocritical to me. Anyway, are you a vegan, or do you also eat innocent pigs and chickens and stuff?

That’s his thing, I don't see a problem with it. I actually think along similar lines; to me, a human life is worth just as much as an animal's life. I don't see why it would be any different.

Maybe you watched a little too much Tarzan. 🤣
Besides, a human life and an animal life aren't equal, not even in a crazy world, because we have this thing called self-awareness. 😉

Once we figure out how to actually use it, maybe I'll finally agree with this. 🙂