"Am I the only one who thinks..."

[cognitofalcon]

Am I the only one who doesn't find touchscreen phones to be all that great? Last year I replaced a phone I had with a touchscreen phone, and it seemed nice when I tried it out in the store. Then after I left the store with it and started trying it out, it froze up on me a lot. Then I learned that it's rather common with touchscreen phones, so I had to go back and try finding a new phone that's too my liking which isn't of the touchscreen variety. So until touchscreens start improving without freezing up so much, I might want to hold off on them.

Who told you it was coming? Some phones have bad touch screens. But not all phones are created equal, same for touch screens. I use a Motorola DROID 2 and the touch screen is fantastic. I used to have the Motorola leave, which had an absolutely terrible touch screen.

 

[Classic Speedy]

Am I the only one who gets a little annoyed at the whole attitude that the only people who create unique ideas are apparently on drugs? Whenever a show or film comes along that defies conventions, whether it be in the visuals, writing, or storyline, you'll inevitably have somebody say: "Wow what were they smoking when they came up with this?" The insinuation being that ideas can't come to people who abstain from drugs is not only incorrect but narrow-minded. I mean, some of these are probably said partially in jest or facetiously, but the underlying idea (i.e. that creative ideas only come from druggies) is what bothers me.

The other side of this: Am I the only one who finds it unfair to say anybody who enjoys something weird must be on drugs? Richard Roeper did this when he reviewed the SpongeBob SquarePants Movie; he was convinced that teens/young adults who enjoy the show must be on drugs. And of course, there was the stereotype that anybody who enjoyed Aqua Teen Hunger Force is a stoner. Why does it immediately have to come to that? Maybe we just laugh at different things than you?

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

Am I the only one who gets a little annoyed at the whole attitude that the only people who create unique ideas are apparently on drugs? Whenever a show or film comes along that defies conventions, whether it be in the visuals, writing, or storyline, you'll inevitably have somebody say: "Wow what were they smoking when they came up with this?" The insinuation being that ideas can't come to people who abstain from drugs is not only incorrect but narrow-minded. I mean, some of these are probably said partially in jest or facetiously, but the underlying idea (i.e. that creative ideas only come from druggies) is what bothers me.

The other side of this: Am I the only one who finds it unfair to say anybody who enjoys something weird must be on drugs? Richard Roeper did this when he reviewed the SpongeBob SquarePants Movie; he was convinced that teens/young adults who enjoy the show must be on drugs. And of course, there was the stereotype that anybody who enjoyed Aqua Teen Hunger Force is a stoner. Why does it immediately have to come to that? Maybe we just laugh at different things than you?

I was with you up until ATHF. So many Adult Swim shows are clearly targeted at people who enjoy the weed. It's like their niche, late night stoner TV. The DVDs should come with a free pack of Zig-Zags.

 

[Classic Speedy]

I was with you up until ATHF. So many Adult Swim shows are clearly targeted at people who enjoy the weed. It's like their niche, late night stoner TV. The DVDs should come with a free pack of Zig-Zags.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt there are some stoners who also watch AS. But it's a broad stroke and certainly doesn't characterize the entire audience.

I've never smoked pot in my life and have laughed at various episodes of ATHF. Again, mind-altering substances aren't necessarily necessary to enjoy something. If your sense of humor lines up with a show, you laugh. And I can have an odd sense of humor sometimes.

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt there are some stoners who also watch AS. But it's a broad stroke and certainly doesn't characterize the entire audience.

I've never smoked pot in my life and have laughed at various episodes of ATHF. Again, mind-altering substances aren't necessarily necessary to enjoy something. If your sense of humor lines up with a show, you laugh. And I can have an odd sense of humor sometimes.

Certainly not the whole audience, I agree. I haven't gotten high in years and I still like it. But there's no way to look at something like Xavier Renegade Angel and deny that people who might just be high are a big part of the "intended" audience. Getting high late at night is just something a lot of people in the Adult Swim age demo do, and Adult Swim provides something for them to watch.

Also, have you heard MC Chris? Have you seen their Hemp Tycoon game?

Anyway, I agree, you don't have to be a stoner to enjoy stoner humor.

 

[Storm Eagle]

Who told you it was coming? Some phones have bad touch screens. But not all phones are created equal, same for touch screens. I use a Motorola DROID 2 and the touch screen is fantastic. I used to have the Motorola leave, which had an absolutely terrible touch screen.

When I brought the phone back to the store and told them about its freezing problem, they're the ones who told me that it's common for touchscreen phones to freeze up. (They weren't the only ones to tell me that either.) I thought that could prove to be very inconvenient at times, specifically if you might have to dial 911. I could do that sort of thing on the texting keyboard, but still, I figured what's the point in having a touchscreen phone if the screen won't even work right at times. Besides, when I talked about the freezing problem on my Facebook page, one of my friends there responded and said she thought she was the only one who disliked touchscreen phones. Anyway my current phone may not be that of the touchscreen variety, but I'm still happy with it.

Am I the only one who gets a little annoyed at the whole attitude that the only people who create unique ideas are apparently on drugs? Whenever a show or film comes along that defies conventions, whether it be in the visuals, writing, or storyline, you'll inevitably have somebody say: "Wow what were they smoking when they came up with this?" The insinuation being that ideas can't come to people who abstain from drugs is not only incorrect but narrow-minded. I mean, some of these are probably said partially in jest or facetiously, but the underlying idea (i.e. that creative ideas only come from druggies) is what bothers me.

The other side of this: Am I the only one who finds it unfair to say anybody who enjoys something weird must be on drugs? Richard Roeper did this when he reviewed the SpongeBob SquarePants Movie; he was convinced that teens/young adults who enjoy the show must be on drugs. And of course, there was the stereotype that anybody who enjoyed Aqua Teen Hunger Force is a stoner. Why does it immediately have to come to that? Maybe we just laugh at different things than you?

That reminds me of how some guy thought I might be retarded, and asked me if I was, and that's because I'm a black person who listens to rock music. Before that, I mentioned that I listened to it, and he just got it in his head that I don't listen to rap. You know, because it's just not humanly possible for a person to be able to enjoy multiple types of music. Anyway, that's the kind of mentality people generally have about others whose tastes don't adhere to the norm of society. That one might be mentally challenged, gay, or whatever. So yeah, it sucks.

Okay so that scenario may not be identical to what you're talking about, but it just seemed like I could relate to it somehow.

 

[cognitofalcon]

When I brought the phone back to the store and told them about its freezing problem, they're the ones who told me that it's common for touchscreen phones to freeze up. (They weren't the only ones to tell me that either.) I thought that could prove to be very inconvenient at times, specifically if you might have to dial 911. I could do that sort of thing on the texting keyboard, but still, I figured what's the point in having a touchscreen phone if the screen won't even work right at times. Besides, when I talked about the freezing problem on my Facebook page, one of my friends there responded and said she thought she was the only one who disliked touchscreen phones. Anyway my current phone may not be that of the touchscreen variety, but I'm still happy with it.

That reminds me of how some guy thought I might be retarded, and asked me if I was, and that's because I'm a black person who listens to rock music. Before that, I mentioned that I listened to it, and he just got it in his head that I don't listen to rap. You know, because it's just not humanly possible for a person to be able to enjoy multiple types of music. Anyway, that's the kind of mentality people generally have about others whose tastes don't adhere to the norm of society. That one might be mentally challenged, gay, or whatever. So yeah, it sucks.

Okay so that scenario may not be identical to what you're talking about, but it just seemed like I could relate to it somehow.

Egg, I guess I see what you're saying. I never had problems with good touch screens.

You hit the nail on the head about society! I don't listen to a whole lot of rap (none really) I listen mostly to jazz, movie scores, show tunes, classical music, classic rock etc... and everyone thinks I'm stupid because of that.

 

[Leviathan]

This is a niche one for those who have played it;

Am I the only person who thinks the Atari 2600 port of Pac-Man isn't THAT bad?

It's usually singled right alongside the 2600 E.T. game as causing the Video Game Crash of 1983, and tops a bunch of "worst games ever" lists.

Yes, the graphics are pretty bad, even by Atari standards (and the flickering of the ghosts is unpleasant to look at). But I've played it, and I must say that it captures the spirit of the gameplay pretty well. And aside from the flickering ghosts, it has few bugs, glitches or other game-breakers.

I just don't see why it should be singled out as particularly awful when some of the other Atari 2600 arcade ports are much worse (Donkey Kong, anyone?)

 

[Storm Eagle]

You hit the nail on the head about society! I don't listen to a whole lot of rap (none really) I listen mostly to jazz, movie scores, show tunes, classical music, classic rock etc... and everyone thinks I'm stupid because of that.

I actually listen to a large variety of music myself. I guess I tend to lean more towards rock, but I can get down with anything as long as it jives well with my ears. The aforementioned guy also thought I might be mentally challenged because I wasn't socializing with any of the girls who worked where we did that summer. He was going to say some other stuff, but I just walked away before he could because he obviously pulled all of that out of his you-know-what. I'm not sure why I never felt compelled to talk to those girls, but it's not like they couldn't talk to me either.

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

Egg, I guess I see what you're saying. I never had problems with good touch screens.

You hit the nail on the head about society! I don't listen to a whole lot of rap (none really) I listen mostly to jazz, movie scores, show tunes, classical music, classic rock etc... and everyone thinks I'm stupid because of that.

I'd think people would call you gay. That's the stereotype for guys who like showtunes and classical music and anthing that's not dripping with testosterone like Nickelback. It's not true, of course, but people can be cruel about what they don't understand. Personally, I love showtunes and I like women, it's not incompatible.

This is a niche one for those who have played it;

Am I the only person who thinks the Atari 2600 port of Pac-Man isn't THAT bad?

It's usually singled right alongside the 2600 E.T. game as causing the Video Game Crash of 1983, and tops a bunch of "worst games ever" lists.

Yes, the graphics are pretty bad, even by Atari standards (and the flickering of the ghosts is unpleasant to look at). But I've played it, and I must say that it captures the spirit of the gameplay pretty well. And aside from the flickering ghosts, it has few bugs, glitches or other game-breakers.

I just don't see why it should be singled out as particularly awful when some of the other Atari 2600 arcade ports are much worse (Donkey Kong, anyone?)

The 2600 Pac-Man port isn't as bad as people say. It's not really good, but it's fun to play.

ET is not terribly programmed and it actually has impressive graphics for the time (I was wowed by the title screen and the sprites are big), but the gameplay consists too largely of falling down and getting out of holes and that's just not fun. It's also really hard to figure out what to do without the manual, so anyone who emulates it or bought it used is going to have a worse impression of it than the people who bought it new. Anyway, yeah, there are worse games.

I don't see what's so bad about the Donkey Kong port, though. It's missing screens, but the ones that are there are the more iconic ones and they work well.

This is worth checking out to see games that are worse than ET.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdqaJIeE0Q&feature=related

 

[The Talon]

I actually listen to a large variety of music myself. I guess I tend to lean more towards rock, but I can get down with anything as long as it jives well with my ears. The aforementioned guy also thought I might be mentally challenged because I wasn't socializing with any of the girls who worked where we did that summer. He was going to say some other stuff, but I just walked away before he could because he obviously pulled all of that out of his you-know-what. I'm not sure why I never felt compelled to talk to those girls, but it's not like they couldn't talk to me either.

Harsh. Also, fellow black guy here that listens to multiple genres. Honestly, I've always considered people who only like one genre of music as the weird ones. I just find it impossible to only be interested in one genre. That being said I do veer towards rap a lil' bit, but for the most part, I listen to all music pretty much the same amount (rap, rock, pop, country, metal, orchestral, etc..)

 

[Philip Thompson]

The more common situation is that the wishes of the people, began to shrink, and when he found that his efforts to deal with the anger of his wife, is never quite good enough. Continue her anger.

 

[Storm Eagle]

Harsh. Also, fellow black guy here that listens to multiple genres. Honestly, I've always considered people who only like one genre of music as the weird ones. I just find it impossible to only be interested in one genre. That being said I do veer towards rap a lil' bit, but for the most part, I listen to all music pretty much the same amount (rap, rock, pop, country, metal, orchestral, etc..)

Apparently the guy never heard of Jimi Hendrix. There was also Living Colour, which was a rock group where all the members were black, and there are also rock bands with black members. Dave Matthews Band, Spin Doctors, and Sevendust to name a few. The latter actually has an African-American lead singer. Rappers like Jay-Z even listen to rock, and I heard Snoop Dogg say himself that he's a fan of The Doors. Since you live in New York City, you might even remember K-ROCK, which had a black DJ who after the demise of the station, went on to work for WXRP-101.9 FM for a time. As far as minorities go, you're more likely to run into Hispanics who are rock fans than those who are black, although I've met enough black rock fans to satisfy me. Even my best guy friend is one of them. If you're the kind of person who just isn't grabbed by other types of music, that's fine. It's the ones who turn their noses up at certain types of music based on their own race or age group that need a serious reality check in my opinion.

Anyway, I've got two more:

1. Am I the only one who never fussed over pimples as a teenager? I did my best to prevent them, but if I saw one on my face, I wouldn't care too much as long as it wasn't near an embarrassing place such as on my lip. Anyway I'd just pop them.

2. Am I the only one who isn't really impressed by the way newborn babies look? I just think they're more pleasing to the eye when the get a few months older and their faces are a bit more developed.

 

[Aquadementia]

The Matthew Broderick Ferris Bueller Honda Super Bowl ad (which Honda apparently couldn't keep hidden before the Super Bowl) sparked this:

Am I the only wanted who watched Ferris Bueller's Day Off hoping that Ferris would actually get caught? Nothing against Matthew Broderick, he's a decent enough actor, but I found his character to be such a smug, arrogant little creep that I couldn't root for him. I actually wanted to see Ferris fail so he could be taken down a peg.

He is way too smug. Talking to the camera doesn't help in his case.
See him fail though?
I like to encurage trouble makers, but he had almost too good a handle on things. I think I come out as indifferent.

Am I the only one who gets a little annoyed at the whole attitude that the only people who create unique ideas are apparently on drugs? Whenever a show or film comes along that defies conventions, whether it be in the visuals, writing, or storyline, you'll inevitably have somebody say: "Wow what were they smoking when they came up with this?" The insinuation being that ideas can't come to people who abstain from drugs is not only incorrect but narrow-minded. I mean, some of these are probably said partially in jest or facetiously, but the underlying idea (i.e. that creative ideas only come from druggies) is what bothers me.

The other side of this: Am I the only one who finds it unfair to say anybody who enjoys something weird must be on drugs? Richard Roeper did this when he reviewed the SpongeBob SquarePants Movie; he was convinced that teens/young adults who enjoy the show must be on drugs. And of course, there was the stereotype that anybody who enjoyed Aqua Teen Hunger Force is a stoner. Why does it immediately have to come to that? Maybe we just laugh at different things than you?

Another complicated question.
My short answer is:

I think there may be some cartoons directly influenced by drug hallucinations, particularly from the 60's and 70's.

Drugs have been an influence on art, even among people who don't take them.
Once it's seen by everyone it becomes part of the common whatever you call it.

It is an insult to say only stoners could like something, because stoned people are not reliable judges of what's funny.

That's the stereotype for guys who like showtunes and classical music and anthing that's not dripping with testosterone like Nickelback.

Oh, I hope Nickleback isn't today's standard bearer.

I figure if Sinatra was fine singing show tunes, who's to say otherwise?

2. Am I the only one who isn't really impressed by the way newborn babies look? I just think they're more pleasing to the eye when the get a few months older and their faces are a bit more developed.

At best they're more interesting then cute, but you can't possibly say anything or your name is mud.

Edit: Actually, the longer you spend with one the cuter they become. But having to come up with something off the top of your head the first time you see one, I'm no good at that. I'm just glad it's only babies you have to fawn over the first time you meet.

On a similar note, am I the only one who thinks fathers are the most useless people to have in a delivery room?
They try to find little jobs for them to do, but if those jobs were important someone who is competent and experienced could be found to do them.
Everyone has to say how life changing, amazing and miraculous it is, but really, isn't the only reason they have the father there is because he's just as much to blame for the baby and it would be going much to easy on him to have him sit out in a comfortable waiting room passing time with the other fathers to be?

 

[Kindness King]

Am I the only one who doesn't think the Y2K's (2000s) were horrible? Yeah, there were bad things like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 Tsunami, and the economy going bad; but there was lot of good in it too.


Like the creations of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhones, the That Guy with the Glasses crew (plus the Angry Video Game Nerd), movies like the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Inception. The list goes on, yet looking back on a couple old threads, people were hashing on the last decade way too much. And not to mention the 90s had it's fair share of utter garbage (Columbine, Woodstock '99, Pauly Shore, and the over saturation of EXTREME anyone?)


I can't be the only one who feels this way, right?

 

[suss2it]

On a similar note, am I the only one who thinks fathers are the most useless people to have in a delivery room?
They try to find little jobs for them to do, but if those jobs were important someone who is competent and experienced could be found to do them.
Everyone has to say how life changing, amazing and miraculous it is, but really, isn't the only reason they have the father there is because he's just as much to blame for the baby and it would be going much to easy on him to have him sit out in a comfortable waiting room passing time with the other fathers to be?

They're there to support their wife/girlfriend/baby mama and to witness the birth of their children. They aren't really there to help with the actual birth or anything.

Am I the only one who doesn't think the Y2K's (2000s) were horrible? Yeah, there were bad things like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 Tsunami, and the economy going bad; but there was lot of good in it too.


Like the creations of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhones, the That Guy with the Glasses crew (plus the Angry Video Game Nerd), movies like the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Inception. The list goes on, yet looking back on a couple old threads, people were hashing on the last decade way too much. And not to mention the 90s had it's fair share of utter garbage (Columbine, Woodstock '99, Pauly Shore, and the over saturation of EXTREME anyone?)


I can't be the only one who feels this way, right?

Every decade has its ups and downs, and are looked back on with fond memories given enough time.

 

[Classic Speedy]

Am I the only one who doesn't think the Y2K's (2000s) were horrible? Yeah, there were bad things like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 Tsunami, and the economy going bad; but there was lot of good in it too.


Like the creations of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhones, the That Guy with the Glasses crew (plus the Angry Video Game Nerd), movies like the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Inception. The list goes on, yet looking back on a couple old threads, people were hashing on the last decade way too much. And not to mention the 90s had it's fair share of utter garbage (Columbine, Woodstock '99, Pauly Shore, and the over saturation of EXTREME anyone?)


I can't be the only one who feels this way, right?

In terms of world events, yes, the 2000s (and it looks like the 2010s based on the last couple years) really were that bad. Although moreso in the later half of the decade when the economy went south, which just added onto all the problems already there (e.g. wars, terrorism and threats of terrorism, corruption, famine, gas prices, natural disasters).

In terms of entertainment, I would agree that there was some good stuff in the 2000s. Although, I'm not sure everyone would classify Facebook and Twitter to be good creations from the decade.

 

[Kindness King]

In terms of world events, yes, the 2000s (and it looks like the 2010s based on the last couple years) really were that bad. Although moreso in the later half of the decade when the economy went south, which just added onto all the problems already there (e.g. wars, terrorism and threats of terrorism, corruption, famine, gas prices, natural disasters).

In terms of entertainment, I would agree that there was some good stuff in the 2000s. Although, I'm not sure everyone would classify Facebook and Twitter to be good creations from the decade.

There have been good events as well though. And of course people who don't have Facebook or Twitter don't care about them, but that does not mean they don't count as good creations.

 

[Storm Eagle]

At best they're more interesting then cute, but you can't possibly say anything or your name is mud.

Edit: Actually, the longer you spend with one the cuter they become. But having to come up with something off the top of your head the first time you see one, I'm no good at that. I'm just glad it's only babies you have to fawn over the first time you meet.

On a similar note, am I the only one who thinks fathers are the most useless people to have in a delivery room?
They try to find little jobs for them to do, but if those jobs were important someone who is competent and experienced could be found to do them.
Everyone has to say how life changing, amazing and miraculous it is, but really, isn't the only reason they have the father there is because he's just as much to blame for the baby and it would be going much too easy on him to have him sit out in a comfortable waiting room passing time with the other fathers to be?

I think you may have missed my point. I was just thinking about how yesterday, a co-worker came in to show us all pictures of a baby she had a couple of weeks ago, and everyone is just oohing and ahhing about how cute it is. Everyone seems to do that and I personally just don't see it. I'm also not even impressed by the birth of a new life as it is, since the novelty of it has just simply worn off on me, but I just think that they look much better after four months or so when their faces have developed a bit more. Plus after they get a little older, they can do much more than just cry.

As for the thing about the father being in the delivery room, I might be restating the obvious here, but most women seem to want him there to take out her frustrations on him.

 

[Michael24]

Babies are just cute*, which is why practically everyone "oohs and aahs" over them.

*Okay, except for maybe the "Freddy Krueger Baby" and the one from It's Alive!

As for the thing about the father being in the delivery room, I might be restating the obvious here, but most women seem to want him there to take out her frustrations on him.

At least, that's what movies and TV want people to believe. But honestly, I've never known anyone who's actually done that or experienced it in real life. Like suss2it said, the fathers are in there to support the mother and see the birth of their child.

I once jokingly asked my dad if my mom was screaming at him, yelling things like "I hate you!" or "Damn you for doing this to me!" when I was born, and he just laughed and said, "No, it was real life, not a movie."

Am I the only person who thinks the Atari 2600 port of Pac-Man isn't THAT bad?

It's usually singled right alongside the 2600 E.T. game as causing the Video Game Crash of 1983, and tops a bunch of "worst games ever" lists.

I don't think I ever played the Pac-Man port, but on a similar note, am I the only one who actually liked the E.T. Atari game? I used to play it all the time when I was a kid, and it was probably one of my favorite 2600 titles. I never knew how utterly despised it was until many years later when I began using the Internet and would find it topping "Worst Games Ever" lists. I was like, "No way! I loved that game."