BrockSamson

Forum Members
  • Content count

    2,756
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

BrockSamson last won the day on October 17 2015

BrockSamson had the most liked content!

About BrockSamson

  • Rank
    Starting Lineup
  • Birthday 07/29/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,877 profile views
  1. They're all bad apples. My point being, many people say, "no need to condemn the justice system, it's just a few bad apples." The truth is those few bad apples are spoiling the lot, i.e., the justice system, because the farmers aren't weeding them out and ensuring they aren't able to thrive. Instead, the farmers and good apples rally around them, defend them, and at the last, generally let them off with hand slaps.
  2. So many good prospects, but Acuña and Soroka are f'in beasts. Did you see Soroka's line yesterday?
  3. It's not vilification of the whole, as in "every police officer is terrible." It is, however, vilification of a justice/police system that has a documented problem with systemic racism and, in particular, using the drug war as justification for significant bad behavior. A system in which bad cops receive much less punishment that non-cops for similar deeds. A system in which good cops frequently circle the wagons to protect bad ones and write them off as just "bad apples." That is not extrapolation of one to many, those are actually things that have happened and continue to happen.
  4. For some reason, that's the part the "one bad apple" crowd forget when using that idiom. The saying isn't that "one bad apple is no big deal," it's that "one bad apple spoils the bunch." You've got to excise that bad apple and all bad apples to fix the problem, which in this context means eliminating the culture that allows such bad apples to continue to thrive.
  5. I think there is something wrong with your thread title, BO. It implies that a police officer would do something untoward to a member of the public, which obviously can't be true. Please revise accordingly.
  6. I felt the same about the previews, but the reviews are great.
  7. I particularly liked his scenes in the most recent episode, particularly his riff on top buns and "There's no divine justice you dumb ****. If there was you'd be dead, and that girl would be alive."
  8. Well, at least you get to enjoy the whole series again. Red and purple weddings. Holding the door and wildfire. Cannibals and the nothing Jon Snow knows. Regal Ned Stark, made less regal. The Viper and the Mountain and yes I smashed her head in, like this. Dracarys. Just don't let her take 6 months to get through it all.
  9. Hey guys, just checking in to see what dumb **** the Trump fans are defending today. Can I get like a bullet-point list for easy reference?
  10. Why would it even require mimicry? There is some sort of magic that allows a person to use a dead face as their own, such that the face is again a living thing, imbued with the expressions and finest facial details of the person to whom it belonged. It is not a mere mask that allows the user to merely look like the dead person, but something magical and strange. Why could it not, when it latches to the face of the user in such a way that it practically brings the dead back from the grave, also be imbued with the ability to give the user other physical traits of the dead, like a voice? After all, the sounds must come through the magical mouth hole, right?
  11. +1 fishes +1 teachamantofish
  12. No, but the exceptional is possible, fantastic transformations are possible, and there's no rule that has specifically prohibited what Arya is doing. Also, interestingly, GRRM just recently talked about Beric is basically becoming a fire wight, the counter to the ice wight up north. I don't think any of us doubt that had Ned been killed North of the Wall, he would have come back in that form. So why not a fire wight? The larger point is that yes, there are internal rules, but they're not clearly defined, and even in his books, they seem muddy and mutable. So why worry about what would, at worst, be minor violations of those ambiguous internal rules?