After a good workout, I watched:

Taco Bell's NEW Secret Aardvark Nacho Fries Review!:
Taco Bell has just released their new Secret Aardvark Nacho Fries, featuring
a special Serrabanero Ranch sauce which features a blend of serrano and
habanero peppers. But the question remains - just how hot are these fries?
Are they too spicy to enjoy? Find out in today's review!
https://youtu.be/TWnEA2z3vXs?si=dP_V3Mz4_GTGe_hu

There's a BIG Problem With Fast Food:
Today I tried out McDonald's Bacon Cajun Ranch McCrispy Chicken Sandwich -
the non-deluxe version. Unfortunately there was a problem with the sandwich
that stems from an even bigger problem plaguing the entire fast food industry
- consistency, or lack thereof.
https://youtu.be/i2K7FftzwPQ?si=SzJlEt89k6sAOwcP

How BAD is Foodfight???:
https://youtu.be/I1Neqx1qv2E?si=pdC9P-_U2cTA-owp

This Is The CRINGIEST Thing I've Ever Seen From Drew Barrymore
Drew Barrymore and Kamala Harris combine forces for the cringiest moment of
2024 so far.
https://youtu.be/Jnztwe83q1Y?si=WssEXk2G7sCjhpV_

Donald Trump To ADDRESS Libertarian National Convention SHOCKING EVERYONE:
https://youtu.be/oPOiup5JERM?si=Kg25DteigsfkjLtx

Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
Birdemic Review - PART 2
https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5

What did you watch?

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

> After a good workout, I watched:
>
> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
> Birdemic Review - PART 2
> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5

If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it exists...

> What did you watch?

Another long workday, and I was so tired I went to bed early. So all I
got through was:

DOOL - Wed's ep. As predicted, Chanel is preggers, not radioactive - but
Kayla points out that Paulina irradiated an early first-trimester fetus
with her antics, so it's anyone's guess as to whether Chanel is
currently carrying a healthy fetus or a fish baby!... Who didn't see
this coming?! - Chad hires Eric to "freelance" for the paper, and
immediately assigns Eric and Nicole to work together. Leo gets a "Dear
John/Leo" letter from Dmitri, who has dumped Leo's ass for another!
(Thank Gawd! that means we will be spared a return engagement from
Dmitri!) Before that, Leo considers selling what he knows to EJ
(throwing Sloan under the bus, after she just pleaded with Leo to keep
his mouth shut!). EJ's assistant encourages him to bury the hatchet with
Paulina, but EJ is outraged when Paulina curtly blows him off (in her
defense, Paulina was in the hospital with Chanel at the time).

I saw the last half of "Wheel" - I easily got the final puzzle, but the
contestant choked (both in letter selection, and in solving it).

I then put L&O on as background - as Adam alluded to in the separate
thread, it involved the father of an adorable little deaf girl, that
Camryn Manheim's character took a shine to, being arrested for MUR-DER!
But I couldn't tell you what else was going on.

That was it.

What did you watch?

On 5/3/2024 6:06 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>> After a good workout, I watched:
>>
>> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
>> Birdemic Review - PART 2
>> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
>> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5
>
> If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it exists...
>
>> What did you watch?
>
> Another long workday, and I was so tired I went to bed early. So all I
> got through was:
>
> DOOL - Wed's ep. As predicted, Chanel is preggers, not radioactive - but
> Kayla points out that Paulina irradiated an early first-trimester fetus
> with her antics, so it's anyone's guess as to whether Chanel is
> currently carrying a healthy fetus or a fish baby!... Who didn't see
> this coming?! - Chad hires Eric to "freelance" for the paper, and
> immediately assigns Eric and Nicole to work together. Leo gets a "Dear
> John/Leo" letter from Dmitri, who has dumped Leo's ass for another!
> (Thank Gawd! that means we will be spared a return engagement from
> Dmitri!) Before that, Leo considers selling what he knows to EJ
> (throwing Sloan under the bus, after she just pleaded with Leo to keep
> his mouth shut!). EJ's assistant encourages him to bury the hatchet with
> Paulina, but EJ is outraged when Paulina curtly blows him off (in her
> defense, Paulina was in the hospital with Chanel at the time).
>
> I saw the last half of "Wheel" - I easily got the final puzzle, but the
> contestant choked (both in letter selection, and in solving it).
>
> I then put L&O on as background - as Adam alluded to in the separate
> thread, it involved the father of an adorable little deaf girl, that
> Camryn Manheim's character took a shine to, being arrested for MUR-DER!
> But I couldn't tell you what else was going on.
>
> That was it.
>
> What did you watch?
>
>

I watched:

Star Trek: Discovery (Paramount+) - "Whistlespeak" - I just don't know
what to say about this one. Filler I guess. This is a season long arc
to once again save the Federation. Destiny seems to do that every
season. Anyway with life as they know it at stake their mission takes
them to a pre-warp civilization, that conveniently all look human, so
they can beam down. Then they seamlessly blend in, then they figure
forget it, break the prime direction anyway. Honestly, I wouldn't mind
it if they just pulled a Kirk and straight up said screw the Prime
Direction from the start. That probably would have made a much better
episode anyway. I also have to mention David Cronenberg's character.
His character is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Dude wears *glasses*
and a tie. Keep in mind this is about 1,300 years in the future. Even
in Kirk's time glasses were odd. But this episode he pulls out a yellow
legal pad then makes a point to say it's not replicated, it's an
original from the 21st century because he likes the feel of real paper.
Wait, how in the world did that pad survive 1,300 yeas in *mint*
condition?!? If his character doesn't turn out to be a time traveler, I
want my money back!

Chucky - "Final Destination" - Season 3 (and maybe series?) finale.
They went out with a bang with this one! Where to even begin? At the
beginning...The episode opens with Jennifer Tilly (Tiffany) about to be
executed when she manages a prison break. A *lot* of bodies dropped
during that escape! Then moving on to the White House, I don't want to
get into spoilers, but let's say Chucky escape leaving a trail of bodies
behind him. This episode played out with just everything going Chucky's
way. If this is the end of the show, then it wrapped up with a win for
Chucky. If it comes back next season, they've dug a huge whole for the
heroes to get out of. But I did notice Andy hasn't been around for a
while. I'm pretty sure he's still alive, although I don't recall what
happened to him. So he should still be out there to save the day if the
show comes back for season 4.

Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man and his daughter are
squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he
winds up dead. Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self
defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of
time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order. Unfortunately for the man
the writers are on the DA's side so they concoct a convoluted way for
the guy to be convicted anyway. I was half rooting for the guy to not
be convicted.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit - "Prima Nocta" - Team SVU spring into
action when a string of women are raped on the night before their
weddings. And I guess Amanda Rollins is back on the show. I'm not at
all sure why she was temporarily written out in the first place. I'm
guessing something to do with the actress.

Welcome to Wrexham - "Welcome to the EFL" - Season 3 premier. Now that
the team is in a better league they have to go up against much better
teams. And it shows.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

>Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man and his daughter are
>squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he
>winds up dead.

Everybody gets this wrong, including Steve Lehto in his videos. Living
in a unit not yet sold in a mostly finished building is not squatting.
It's trespass. Squatting has to do with a hostile encroachment upon
ABANDONED land after a number of years which varies by state. Getting
the semantics right makes a huge difference in these discussions and who
can be arrested for what.

The fact that this guy was HIRED as a security guard to PREVENT trespass
is evidence that the property wasn't abandoned and that he cannot
convert it for his personal use.

>Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self
>defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of
>time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order.

I don't know if notice is required to assert self defense at trial.

>Unfortunately for the man
>the writers are on the DA's side so they concoct a convoluted way for
>the guy to be convicted anyway. I was half rooting for the guy to not
>be convicted.

Why? The victim did nothing wrong. The perpetrator was entirely in the
wrong.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 5/3/2024 6:06 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>> On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>> After a good workout, I watched:
>>>
>>> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
>>> Birdemic Review - PART 2
>>> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
>>> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5
>>
>> If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it exists...
>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>
>
> Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man

“Unhoused“
That was the whole point of the episode was that you’re supposed to use the
new terminology.

and his daughter are
> squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he
> winds up dead. Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self
> defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of
> time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order. Unfortunately for the man
> the writers are on the DA's side so they concoct a convoluted way for
> the guy to be convicted anyway. I was half rooting for the guy to not
> be convicted.

That’s exactly what they wanted.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>> After a good workout, I watched:
>>
>> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
>> Birdemic Review - PART 2
>> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
>> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5
>
> If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it exists...
>

I’ve seen it. In fact, I think I watched it with the peach.

Remember the spooge monkeys in those Quiznos commercials? Imagine they made
a movie starring those with that level of special effects and you’ve pretty
much got Birdemic.

>
M > What did you watch?

Hey, thanks for asking!

Law & Order “squatters rights“
Covered elsewhere

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>> Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man and his daughter are
>> squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he
>> winds up dead.
>
> Everybody gets this wrong, including Steve Lehto in his videos. Living
> in a unit not yet sold in a mostly finished building is not squatting.
> It's trespass.

It wasn’t unsold. The father gave it to the drug addict son, and the drug
addict son announced he was never going to live there. I think they may
have actually gotten “squatter“ right.

Squatting has to do with a hostile encroachment upon
> ABANDONED land after a number of years which varies by state. Getting
> the semantics right makes a huge difference in these discussions and who
> can be arrested for what.
>
> The fact that this guy was HIRED as a security guard to PREVENT trespass
> is evidence that the property wasn't abandoned and that he cannot
> convert it for his personal use.
>
>> Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self
>> defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of
>> time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order.
>
> I don't know if notice is required to assert self defense at trial.
>
>> Unfortunately for the man
>> the writers are on the DA's side so they concoct a convoluted way for
>> the guy to be convicted anyway. I was half rooting for the guy to not
>> be convicted.
>
> Why? The victim did nothing wrong. The perpetrator was entirely in the
> wrong.
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article <v132lu$klfe$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
> >Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man and his daughter are
> >squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he
> >winds up dead.
>
> Everybody gets this wrong, including Steve Lehto in his videos. Living
> in a unit not yet sold in a mostly finished building is not squatting.
> It's trespass. Squatting has to do with a hostile encroachment upon
> ABANDONED land after a number of years which varies by state. Getting
> the semantics right makes a huge difference in these discussions and who
> can be arrested for what.
>
> The fact that this guy was HIRED as a security guard to PREVENT trespass
> is evidence that the property wasn't abandoned and that he cannot
> convert it for his personal use.
>
> >Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self
> >defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of
> >time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order.
>
> I don't know if notice is required to assert self defense at trial.

Yes, it is. All affirmative defenses, of which self-defense is but one,
require advance notice to the prosecution because it changes the entire
nature of the case. When a defendant asserts an affirmative defense, he
is actually admitting to the crime and stipulating the basic facts. He's
basically saying, "I did it but here's why."

The burden of proof then shifts from the prosecution, who no longer must
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and onto the defendant who now
has the affirmative burden to prove his legal innocence by clear and
convincing evidence, which is an evidentiary standard less stringent
than reasonable doubt but more stringent than preponderance of the
evidence used in civil cases.

On 5/3/2024 9:17 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>> Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man and his daughter are
>> squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he
>> winds up dead.
>
> Everybody gets this wrong, including Steve Lehto in his videos. Living
> in a unit not yet sold in a mostly finished building is not squatting.
> It's trespass. Squatting has to do with a hostile encroachment upon
> ABANDONED land after a number of years which varies by state. Getting
> the semantics right makes a huge difference in these discussions and who
> can be arrested for what.
>
> The fact that this guy was HIRED as a security guard to PREVENT trespass
> is evidence that the property wasn't abandoned and that he cannot
> convert it for his personal use.
>
>> Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self
>> defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of
>> time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order.
>
> I don't know if notice is required to assert self defense at trial.
>
>> Unfortunately for the man
>> the writers are on the DA's side so they concoct a convoluted way for
>> the guy to be convicted anyway. I was half rooting for the guy to not
>> be convicted.
>
> Why? The victim did nothing wrong. The perpetrator was entirely in the
> wrong.

We didn't see the actual crime. So the self defense story the defendant
said was plausible. Then his daughter backed him up. So at that point
I'm thinking reasonable doubt. Then the whole nonsense where the
daughter just happens to be at Ellenor Frutt's house when she
conveniently confesses she lied on the stand. And the judge let her
testify, apparently without rebuttal. The guy the girl was talking too
clearly disputed what was said otherwise he'd be the testifying instead
of her.

In article <v1393j$luc5$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
> >>>Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man and his daughter are
> >>>squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he
> >>>winds up dead.
>
> >>Everybody gets this wrong, including Steve Lehto in his videos. Living
> >>in a unit not yet sold in a mostly finished building is not squatting.
> >>It's trespass. Squatting has to do with a hostile encroachment upon
> >>ABANDONED land after a number of years which varies by state. Getting
> >>the semantics right makes a huge difference in these discussions and who
> >>can be arrested for what.
>
> >>The fact that this guy was HIRED as a security guard to PREVENT trespass
> >>is evidence that the property wasn't abandoned and that he cannot
> >>convert it for his personal use.
>
> >>>Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self
> >>>defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of
> >>>time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order.
>
> >>I don't know if notice is required to assert self defense at trial.
>
> >Yes, it is. All affirmative defenses, of which self-defense is but one,
> >require advance notice to the prosecution because it changes the entire
> >nature of the case. When a defendant asserts an affirmative defense, he
> >is actually admitting to the crime and stipulating the basic facts. He's
> >basically saying, "I did it but here's why."
>
> >The burden of proof then shifts from the prosecution, who no longer must
> >prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and onto the defendant who now
> >has the affirmative burden to prove his legal innocence by clear and
> >convincing evidence, which is an evidentiary standard less stringent
> >than reasonable doubt but more stringent than preponderance of the
> >evidence used in civil cases.
>
> Thank you for explaining that. Notice is required because the burden of
> proof has shifted.
>
> For practical reasons, would this have halted the trial for a couple of
> days or even longer?

Yes, the prosecution would have needed time to re-orient its entire
trial strategy and line up a whole slew of new witnesses, arrange for
expert testimony, etc.

And the defense counsel better have a real good reason for the judge why
the plea suddenly changed mid-trial. It better not be because of
something the lawyer knew or reasonably should have known before trial
started or he's going to be looking at sanctions and a bar referral.
Non-Dick Wolf judges have very little patience for this sort of thing.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

>>>Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man and his daughter are
>>>squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he
>>>winds up dead.

>>Everybody gets this wrong, including Steve Lehto in his videos. Living
>>in a unit not yet sold in a mostly finished building is not squatting.
>>It's trespass. Squatting has to do with a hostile encroachment upon
>>ABANDONED land after a number of years which varies by state. Getting
>>the semantics right makes a huge difference in these discussions and who
>>can be arrested for what.

>>The fact that this guy was HIRED as a security guard to PREVENT trespass
>>is evidence that the property wasn't abandoned and that he cannot
>>convert it for his personal use.

>>>Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self
>>>defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of
>>>time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order.

>>I don't know if notice is required to assert self defense at trial.

>Yes, it is. All affirmative defenses, of which self-defense is but one,
>require advance notice to the prosecution because it changes the entire
>nature of the case. When a defendant asserts an affirmative defense, he
>is actually admitting to the crime and stipulating the basic facts. He's
>basically saying, "I did it but here's why."

>The burden of proof then shifts from the prosecution, who no longer must
>prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and onto the defendant who now
>has the affirmative burden to prove his legal innocence by clear and
>convincing evidence, which is an evidentiary standard less stringent
>than reasonable doubt but more stringent than preponderance of the
>evidence used in civil cases.

Thank you for explaining that. Notice is required because the burden of
proof has shifted.

For practical reasons, would this have halted the trial for a couple of
days or even longer?

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>On 5/3/2024 9:17 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man and his daughter are
>>> squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he
>>> winds up dead.
>>
>> Everybody gets this wrong, including Steve Lehto in his videos. Living
>> in a unit not yet sold in a mostly finished building is not squatting.
>> It's trespass. Squatting has to do with a hostile encroachment upon
>> ABANDONED land after a number of years which varies by state. Getting
>> the semantics right makes a huge difference in these discussions and who
>> can be arrested for what.
>>
>> The fact that this guy was HIRED as a security guard to PREVENT trespass
>> is evidence that the property wasn't abandoned and that he cannot
>> convert it for his personal use.
>>
>>> Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self
>>> defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of
>>> time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order.
>>
>> I don't know if notice is required to assert self defense at trial.
>>
>>> Unfortunately for the man
>>> the writers are on the DA's side so they concoct a convoluted way for
>>> the guy to be convicted anyway. I was half rooting for the guy to not
>>> be convicted.
>>
>> Why? The victim did nothing wrong. The perpetrator was entirely in the
>> wrong.
>
>
>We didn't see the actual crime. So the self defense story the defendant
>said was plausible. Then his daughter backed him up. So at that point
>I'm thinking reasonable doubt.

If he didn't have a right to live there temporarily and the victim had
every right to be there, I don't see how he had a self defense claim
even if the story were true. I understand the gun was pointed at both
him and his daughter, but they're the trespassers.

>Then the whole nonsense where the
>daughter just happens to be at Ellenor Frutt's house when she
>conveniently confesses she lied on the stand. And the judge let her
>testify, apparently without rebuttal. The guy the girl was talking too
>clearly disputed what was said otherwise he'd be the testifying instead
>of her.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> On 5/3/2024 9:17 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Law & Order - "Castle in the Sky" - A homeless man and his daughter are
>>>> squatting in a penthouse and when the real owner shows up one night he
>>>> winds up dead.
>>>
>>> Everybody gets this wrong, including Steve Lehto in his videos. Living
>>> in a unit not yet sold in a mostly finished building is not squatting.
>>> It's trespass. Squatting has to do with a hostile encroachment upon
>>> ABANDONED land after a number of years which varies by state. Getting
>>> the semantics right makes a huge difference in these discussions and who
>>> can be arrested for what.
>>>
>>> The fact that this guy was HIRED as a security guard to PREVENT trespass
>>> is evidence that the property wasn't abandoned and that he cannot
>>> convert it for his personal use.
>>>
>>>> Fortunately for the man his daughter can alibi his self
>>>> defense claim. Doesn't the defense have to reveal that defense ahead of
>>>> time? Doesn't matter, this is Law & Order.
>>>
>>> I don't know if notice is required to assert self defense at trial.
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately for the man
>>>> the writers are on the DA's side so they concoct a convoluted way for
>>>> the guy to be convicted anyway. I was half rooting for the guy to not
>>>> be convicted.
>>>
>>> Why? The victim did nothing wrong. The perpetrator was entirely in the
>>> wrong.
>>
>>
>> We didn't see the actual crime. So the self defense story the defendant
>> said was plausible. Then his daughter backed him up. So at that point
>> I'm thinking reasonable doubt.
>
> If he didn't have a right to live there temporarily and the victim had
> every right to be there, I don't see how he had a self defense claim
> even if the story were true. I understand the gun was pointed at both
> him and his daughter, but they're the trespassers.

But that was a lie anyway. The victim never had the gun, much less pointed
it at the daughter.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article <v1315q$kbjk$1@dont-email.me>, arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
>On 5/3/2024 6:06 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>> On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>>> After a good workout, I watched:
>>>
>>> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
>>> Birdemic Review - PART 2
>>> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
>>> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5
>>
>> If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it exists...
>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> Another long workday, and I was so tired I went to bed early. So all I
>> got through was:
>>
>> I saw the last half of "Wheel" - I easily got the final puzzle, but the
>> contestant choked (both in letter selection, and in solving it).
>
>I watched:
>
>Star Trek: Discovery (Paramount+) - "Whistlespeak" - I just don't know
>what to say about this one. Filler I guess. This is a season long arc
>to once again save the Federation. Destiny seems to do that every
>season. Anyway with life as they know it at stake their mission takes
>them to a pre-warp civilization, that conveniently all look human, so
>they can beam down. Then they seamlessly blend in, then they figure
>forget it, break the prime direction anyway. Honestly, I wouldn't mind
>it if they just pulled a Kirk and straight up said screw the Prime
>Direction from the start. That probably would have made a much better
>episode anyway. I also have to mention David Cronenberg's character.
>His character is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Dude wears *glasses*
>and a tie. Keep in mind this is about 1,300 years in the future. Even
>in Kirk's time glasses were odd. But this episode he pulls out a yellow
>legal pad then makes a point to say it's not replicated, it's an
>original from the 21st century because he likes the feel of real paper.

Umm, paper from a replicator *IS* real paper!

--
Let's go Brandon!

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>>> After a good workout, I watched:
>>>
>>> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
>>> Birdemic Review - PART 2
>>> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
>>> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5
>>
>> If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it exists...
>
>I've seen it. In fact, I think I watched it with the peach.

I've seen it on RiffTRax several times.

>Remember the spooge monkeys in those Quiznos commercials? Imagine they made
>a movie starring those with that level of special effects and you've pretty
>much got Birdemic.

But the Spoogemonkeys weren't sppsd to be realistic.

--
Let's go Brandon!

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>>>> After a good workout, I watched:
>>>>
>>>> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
>>>> Birdemic Review - PART 2
>>>> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
>>>> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5
>>>
>>> If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it exists...
>>
>> I've seen it. In fact, I think I watched it with the peach.
>
> I've seen it on RiffTRax several times.
>
>> Remember the spooge monkeys in those Quiznos commercials? Imagine they made
>> a movie starring those with that level of special effects and you've pretty
>> much got Birdemic.
>
> But the Spoogemonkeys weren't sppsd to be realistic.

The Quiznos workers putting their genitals on your food was though.

>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>>>>> After a good workout, I watched:
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
>>>>> Birdemic Review - PART 2
>>>>> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
>>>>> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5
>>>>
>>>> If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it
>>>> exists...
>>>
>>> I've seen it. In fact, I think I watched it with the peach.
>>
>> I've seen it on RiffTRax several times.
>>
>>> Remember the spooge monkeys in those Quiznos commercials? Imagine they
>>> made a movie starring those with that level of special effects and you've
>>> pretty much got Birdemic.
>>
>> But the Spoogemonkeys weren't sppsd to be realistic.
>
>The Quiznos workers putting their genitals on your food was though.

That technophile was putting his genitals on the toaster machine, not food.

--
Let's go Brandon!

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>>>>>> After a good workout, I watched:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
>>>>>> Birdemic Review - PART 2
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5
>>>>>
>>>>> If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it
>>>>> exists...
>>>>
>>>> I've seen it. In fact, I think I watched it with the peach.
>>>
>>> I've seen it on RiffTRax several times.
>>>
>>>> Remember the spooge monkeys in those Quiznos commercials? Imagine they
>>>> made a movie starring those with that level of special effects and you've
>>>> pretty much got Birdemic.
>>>
>>> But the Spoogemonkeys weren't sppsd to be realistic.
>>
>> The Quiznos workers putting their genitals on your food was though.
>
> That technophile was putting his genitals on the toaster machine, not food.
>

As I recall, it was both it was just that the machinery was what burned him

> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>>>>>>> After a good workout, I watched:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
>>>>>>> Birdemic Review - PART 2
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it
>>>>>> exists...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen it. In fact, I think I watched it with the peach.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen it on RiffTRax several times.
>>>>
>>>>> Remember the spooge monkeys in those Quiznos commercials? Imagine they
>>>>> made a movie starring those with that level of special effects and >>>>>
you've pretty much got Birdemic.
>>>>
>>>> But the Spoogemonkeys weren't sppsd to be realistic.
>>>
>>> The Quiznos workers putting their genitals on your food was though.
>>
>> That technophile was putting his genitals on the toaster machine, not food.
>
>As I recall, it was both it was just that the machinery was what burned him

https://youtu.be/7LQpRQh2KSQ

--
Let's go Brandon!

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>>>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/3/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> After a good workout, I watched:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you seen BIRDEMIC??? (PART 1):
>>>>>>>> Birdemic Review - PART 2
>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/m5cnlC_xmaQ?si=wwNUsk6FAGssKA5n
>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/zyFOtVl68Qg?si=CeG7FcXeJq3Mp0F5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they are talking about the original from 2010, I am aware it
>>>>>>> exists...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've seen it. In fact, I think I watched it with the peach.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen it on RiffTRax several times.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the spooge monkeys in those Quiznos commercials? Imagine they
>>>>>> made a movie starring those with that level of special effects and >>>>>
> you've pretty much got Birdemic.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the Spoogemonkeys weren't sppsd to be realistic.
>>>>
>>>> The Quiznos workers putting their genitals on your food was though.
>>>
>>> That technophile was putting his genitals on the toaster machine, not food.
>>
>> As I recall, it was both it was just that the machinery was what burned him
>
> https://youtu.be/7LQpRQh2KSQ

There was more than one commercial in that series, unfortunately.

This advertising campaign helped take them from almost 5000 restaurants to
less than 150.

>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:

>>>>>>> Remember the spooge monkeys in those Quiznos commercials? Imagine they
>>>>>>> made a movie starring those with that level of special effects and
>>>>>>> you've pretty much got Birdemic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the Spoogemonkeys weren't sppsd to be realistic.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Quiznos workers putting their genitals on your food was though.
>>>>
>>>> That technophile was putting his genitals on the toaster machine, not food.
>>>
>>> As I recall, it was both it was just that the machinery was what burned him
>>
>> https://youtu.be/7LQpRQh2KSQ
>
>There was more than one commercial in that series, unfortunately.
>
>This advertising campaign helped take them from almost 5000 restaurants to
>less than 150.

I blame the Spoogemonkies for that.

--
Let's go Brandon!