Magnus

I bet Kurtle's girlfriend was a Krawk.

Dyson got so much tail back when he was playing Neopets.

Good luck, Dyson. Try not to get fired!

Well, you knew it wasn't going to end well when you met her on a Neopets forum.

For a second there, I thought you were doing one of these:

If you're on a dating website, I imagine people hope/expect other people to message them, so I think you're worrying too much about it, Kurtle. Just say hi and ask a harmless question about something in their profile ("you said you like reading, what's your favorite.../have you read.../what did you think of...?"). Questions are always good, because it shows interest and they don't need to worry about what they're going to write when they message you back. Hey, at least it wasn't a Red Dwarf forum. [/QINC reference]

Haha, no. It's a Japanese thing. (See also: this.)

They shot themselves in the foot right from the start when they made winning Nationals the ultimate goal for the characters. We knew they wouldn't win in season one and we knew again that they wouldn't win in season two. We know they're going to win next season, and then that's that. But I don't think introducing new characters will actually help with the fatigue. We'll just have a bunch of new kids joining the glee club and then their ultimate goal will be to win Nationals. Been there, done that - new characters notwithstanding. Unless they find something new for them to aim for, but then there's only so much they can do with high school kids.

Resident Evil 5 wins because it has co-op. I've never played it alone (and don't want to), but it was a lot of fun with another person.

Or alternatively again, they were a waste of space and dragged down every episode they were in. The songs were fine and so was the singing (Blaine overload aside), but if I wanted to watch people I have no emotional investment in sing songs that have nothing to do with any storylines, I could just go to YouTube. I saw someone say that Ryan Murphy is to Glee what Tim Kring was to Heroes. That made me laugh. :p The fact that they've been struggling to find storylines for their current cast has nothing to do with the characters - it's because the writers are hacks. Wasn't the first two seasons mostly written by just three people? It truly amazes me that you think that bringing in new characters will suddenly fix the inconsistency and lack of character development and storylines, like that's somehow the characters' fault. You don't think the writers could have come up with one actual storyline for Tina in two seasons? If anything's going to fix Glee, it's the fact that they're bringing in some new writers for season three.

Jay set the bar pretty low, so I'll just wish you a regular old happy birthday without anything fancy.

The Warblers were annoying because they just took time away from the main characters. They Blaine also had way too many songs for someone who wasn't even a main character. There's been some news on cast upgrades/non-upgrades. Blaine will be a series regular next season, which isn't surprising, but meh. He's been dull as dishwater so far. Mike will also be a series regular now, which... I mean, he has been in pretty much every episode, but he's never had a storyline and he can't act at all. Sam will not be upgraded to a series regular, which is a bit surprising. He could still be in most episodes, of course, but it doesn't exactly bode well.

Should have been "main weight-loser", to be fair. Happy birthday.

Yes, Resident Evil 4 and 5 are a lot easier to save in. They also play very differently.

Aww. At least he had a long life.

I recently played the Enslaved DLC, where you need to use L3 to crouch, and it was awful. I hate having to use the buttons on the analogue sticks for pretty much anything.

I hate The Warblers. They should have called them The Blaines. I'm fine with them returning as long as it doesn't mean Blaine's going to sing at least one song every episode. Because he seems like a pretty flaky writer. See: Sam being gay. I know there are more examples, but I can't think of any right now. I think there's a reason every high school show moves over to college once the kids graduate. Before Glee turned into 'cover of the week' in season two, it was about the characters. So we spend three seasons getting to know these characters and then, what - we start all over again with a bunch of new characers? Haven't you ever watched a TV show where an actor leaves and you find yourself thinking, "man, I wish he/she was still around"? Imagine having half the cast disappear overnight. It's not like they've exhausted the storyline possibilities for their current characters. A whole bunch of them still haven't had a storyline that has lasted for more than an episode. The only way I can see it not being a total disaster is if people really do just care abut the music. But in that case, they should just drop the pretense of having a story and actual characters and just do forty minutes of covers every week.

Kind of defeats the purpose of 3D trailers, doesn't it?

"Then what's the point in 100%?" was exactly my point, so I think you've got the gist of the discussion. Kurtle, if you still haven't watched a movie that you think deserves a 10, then either you need to lower your standards for what constitutes a 10, or you need to watch better movies. I can think of a bunch of games (I'm not a big movie buff, so I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about movies) that I would give 10s if I reviewed them. Not a single one of them is perfect, of course, but I don't think that really matters. And I say this as someone who's been accused on several occasions of being an overly negative reviewer. :p

It may as well not exist if you never use it. If I make a game with ten levels, but the tenth level is completely inaccessible, the game still has ten levels. Ten. End. If I judge a competition and hand out a special platinum prize to perfect performances but no one can ever get it because no performance is perfect, it still exists. The platinum prize still exists. End. My whole issue was with you saying that you would never give a movie 100%, so if you're willing to do so, rate away. Though it seems a bit strange to say that 100% is reserved for perfect films and then say you'd be willing to give a film a perfect score even if it wasn't perfect. Round up from what? 99%? 98%? We both agreed that rating out of a hundred is stupid, so what - you'd be rounding up from 9? There's always going to be a 'but' when you're reviewing something. "This movie was amazing/it was touching/it had a deep meaning/whatever... but... that one extra looked out of place/there was one scene that felt redundant/the lighting was off occasionally/whatever." If you're looking for reasons to give a nine, you're always going to find something that makes the movie not perfect. But when it's deserved (and it sometimes is), you shouldn't be afraid to give a movie a 10. Not all flaws are made equal. The whole notion that 10 means perfect needs to go away. Otherwise, 9 is going to mean less because you give it to every great movie and 10 is going to mean even less because no movie can ever get it. My movie idea is awesome, by the way. Edit: I think my point is that either 10 means perfect, in which case no movie can ever get a 10, or it's just the highest score and you give it to movies that deserve it. I think the latter is preferable.

I'm sorry to hear that, Captain Falcon.

Yes, giving something 10/10 makes you as easily pleased as a child. Clearly. The thing is, nothing can ever be perfect. If God himself came down from the heavens and made a romantic action-comedy starring Julia Roberts and Arnold Schwarzenegger as wise-cracking vampires, people would still find flaws in it. So you'll never give a film 100%. Ever. So the score may as well not even exist. If 90% is the highest attainable score, then that's essentially your 'perfect score'. Because there isn't a higher score. 10s should be reserved for the very best movies/games/whatever, but there's no point in making them unattainable. I agree that rating out of a hundred is stupid and needs to go away forever, but you just said that you'd give a perfect film 99% not two seconds ago, so...

I hear people in prison enter relationships with people of the same sex because there isn't anyone of the opposite sex around. That might worth looking into, Kurtle!

If you never give any movie 100%, you're essentially just shifting the 'perfect score' to 90% and rating on a 1-9 scale. That seems unnecessarily complicated. It might help to look at it as a 10 rather than 100%. Seems less... perfect that way.