Jump to content

George Parr

Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


1 Follower

About George Parr

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Good to see this up and running again. Could you stay away from that yellow colour you used for Rebels though? It is very hard to read.
  2. Does it though? These things aren't necessarily linked. There's also stuff that spreads fast and is extremely deadly, though in most cases they tend to be too deadly even for their high speed of spreading. Mutations that make a virus spread more easily don't need to have an impact on how dangerous it is.
  3. Sounds like theaters are allowed to show some hit movies from the past to get them going again. E.g. Disney allows them to show Empire strikes Back (in English), as well as TFA, TLJ and Rogue One. I've also seen the third Hobbit and fourth Harry Potter scheduled at Cinemaxx.
  4. Okay, so I did make a list, but much of it could change even by the next day. The first three are interchangeable, I ended up putting ANH first due to it causing everything that followed. Apart from the top 4, maybe top 5, it really just depends on what piques my interest on that specific day. I haven't seen or played some of the stuff for quite some time, which makes direct comparisons almost impossible. There's a reason why I don't really rank any of that stuff 1. A New Hope 2. Empire strikes Back 3. Return of the Jedi 4. Knights of the Old Republic 5. Rogue One 6. Revenge of the Sith 7. Knights of the Old Republic 2 8. The Last Jedi 9. TIE-Fighter 10. The Mandalorian 11. Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast 12. The Force Awakens 13. The Phantom Menace 14. Attack of the Clones 15. Solo 16. Jedi Knight 17. Jedi: Fallen Order 18. Republic Commando 19. Rise of Skywalker 20. Galactic Battlegrounds 21. Battlefront 2 (2005) 22. Jedi Academy 23. X-Wing 24. LEGO Star Wars 25. Star Wars Episode I: Racer
  5. Your comment would make sense if there were any people who state that the WHO has been perfect and that any criticism of it is not warranted, but that isn't the case at all. Why do you ask "why does everything have to be so binary?" when the position you speak of isn't held by anyone? That's simply entering strawman territory. Absolutely no one has given the WHO a pass. There have been those who ignore the good stuff the WHO has done and blow the bad stuff way out of proportion, and there are those who say "they have made mistakes, but they have also done plenty of good stuff, and many criticisms don't fit to what they actually have done". There are none who hold the opposing view to those who bash the WHO to the extreme.
  6. What is supposed to be so terrible about it? The whole idea was to make sure the healthcare-system isn't falling apart due to overload. This was never meant as the solution to the virus, more as a means to keep things from spiralling out of control. Because when that happens, you are screwed, and the dead lie around in droves, as could be seen in Italy. To act as if the whole strategy consisted of "flattening the curve" and then be done with it is just weird. Such a claim makes no sense at all, because it has never been the entire strategy.
  7. From experience here (granted, Germany is not a good example because the internet is often third world level here) remote locations do not necessarily suffer from a bad connection. In quite a few cases, people and lcoal councils got too tired of waiting until those in charge bothered to do something and put down the money to lay state-of-the-art cables themselves. The colleagues in my office live in some tiny villages but have an amazing internet-connection, much better than at work, which happens to be in one of the largest cities in the country. That's what happens when all political parties have little knowledge of the technology, while the main companies are more interested in enriching themselves than in investing to develop a proper network. It's truly appaling when you can visit basically every other EU-nation and not only get a better internet, but at a cheaper price as well.
  8. I don't know whether I would consider the JCF as trying to be that way. You won't see much of the truly ghoulish part of the fandom, but there's still plenty of bad stuff that gets tolerated. Or better: not treated in a way that makes people actually stop showing that kind of behaviour. In a slightly hyperbolic comparison: you are fine if you use dog-whistles, only outright vile comments tends to makes it a short visit for the person. There are certainly worse places to get a decent discussion on Star Wars going, but at the same time you have always the same group of people jumping into every topic they can find, so they can state their dislike for something, regardless of whether it fits to the topic or not, or whether they have any idea about what is discussed in the topic. That kind of behaviour has pushed quite a few people away. I wouldn't say that there are lots of bans either. If anything, I'd say it is more of the opposite. Outside of being an outright troll, unless you completely ignore what a mod posted right before, and do so multiple times, you have little chance of being banned. Quite often people can bash stuff to their heart's content, insult the people involved in making Star Wars, continuously lie about stuff and repeat the most rubbish nonsense from garbage sources. At worst they get a slap on the wrist, often accompanied by a Trumpian "both sides" statement. Like I said, the only time you really get into trouble, is when you annoy a mod by refusing to listen to an order.
  9. What the hell are you talking about? First of all, what is "the western"? Secondly, since when does wanting to make changes to the form of capitalism that is in place right now (which varies extremely from country to country) have anything to do with communism? You do realize that the world is more than just black and white, yes? Sounds more like you are spewing the only few buzzwords that you know of. Communism has a very specific set of ideas, ideas of which you apparently have zero knowledge about, else you wouldn't say that what ElsaRoc is saying would be communism. Because so far the statements in the post you quoted do not talk about those ideas. While communism as an idea is an abject failure that couldn't possibly work on any larger scale due to human nature, that doesn't somehow mean you have to cling to a perverted form of capitalism either. You do realize that globalization has caused drastic changes to how capitalism has worked, yes? You do realize that there was a time where people actually got decent increases in salary that was somewhat in line with the growth of the economy, unlike now, where only a selected few get to enrich themselves on the work of all the others, yes? You do realize that there are many countries in the world that have a capitalist system in place yet somehow manage not to treat their citizens like utter garbage, yes? If you really think that people having to work multiple jobs, getting no paid holiday, being without proper and affordable healthcare, being little more than disposable cattle that can be getten rid of whenever someone feels like it, somehow is how society or capitalism are supposd to be like, then there is something seriously wrong with you. Life stops being a proper life when you have to work yourself to death to barely get by day by day. You are supposed to work to be able to live, not live to be forced to work. Capitalism was never supposed to work like that. The whole system hinges on people being able to buy things. They can only do so when they have the means for it, which requires proper salaries. People are also far more productive when they are healthy, happy and rested. This has been proven time and time again. Going against that not only hurts the people, it also makes capitalism work far less efficient. But then again, there are sadly more than enough extremely rich people (though thankfully not all) who don't care one bit about any of that, who only see short-term benefits over long-term wealth. And saldy there are also more than enough people who are dumb enough to believe that this system as it is currently working somehow benefits everyone instead of just those selected few rich people, and that making changes that would personally benefit them and everyone else would somehow be the end of the world. It's like a cult that screams at everyone for ruining the world while being completely oblivious to the fact that they are the ones who are heading for the cliff, dragging everyone else down with them.
  10. They didn't really give wrong advice in any way. Instead it's yet again another case of people leaping onto one line of a whole text, taking it completely out of context, and then proceeding to spread it everywhere, claiming that "the WHO said X" when they did no such thing. This is the text they released: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19 It makes it abundantly clear that this is a comment about the current state of affairs, not a final verdict. In fact, there is this line which specifically explains what they mean: "As of 24 April 2020, no study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection by this virus in humans." Now, maybe the one comment earlier on in the text ("There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.") could have been worded a bit clearer, but none of what they actually released was wrong. Anyone who actually bothered to read what they stated would recognize what they actually said, it's only those who can't be bothered to read the whole thing who could possible come to the wrong conclusion here. Granted, you can obviously blame the WHO for not realizing that a ton of people are prone to do just that. It's not their first official statement ever, it's something they should have been aware of. As a whole, the statement was released because some nations wanted to hand out "immunity passports" to those who already had the illness. So the WHO released this to say that it is a bad idea because it can't be proven that there is an immunity yet. Which means their advice was indeed correct, as there is no proof yet.
  11. As far as I understood it, the new stars got escalating contracts, so they would get more the further along the trilogy went, though I doubt it makes that much of a difference. I also think that Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher probably weren't all that expensive, seeing how they weren't exactly in the prime of their careers anymore. You could of course say that they could have demanded quite a bit, with their characters being needed for the story and all, but I don't think they really were set on grabbing as much as they could out of this. Now JJ Abrams is a different matter. Lucasfilm was kind of desperate to get him back on bord again. That might have come at quite the price. There also may have been the need to pay Treverrow as well, depending on what sort of contract he had. Having two "directors" who could get participations beats having just one of them
  12. I think one issue with the recent novels has been that they aren't really much more than support material. They tend to give some depth to characters from movies or the tv-shows, but unlike in the past there isn't really any independent story being told away from that. Back in the days the future of the story was handled almost entirely by the books, because it didn't look like any more movies would happen. With this part now being filled by movies and tv-shows as well, books didn't really have much of a place beyond enhancing the story here and there. Not that this says a lot about the quality that gets delivered, but it obviously keeps the books away from telling grand stories. I guess they have recognized that as well, seeing how Project Luminous is set in its own timeftrame telling a brand new story that is disconnected from everything else.
  13. Ugh, I'm torn between not doing this because I generally don't rank Star Wars stuff (interest shifts way too much depending on the mood I'm in, and what I write down might already be outdated a short time later) and doing it anyway just for the heck of it
  14. What would that have to do with immunity? If such a thing were required to defeat an illness, then there would never be any need to get more than one vaccination for a specific illness, yet there are quite a few out there that require more than one shot. Not every illness requires antibodies to that specific illness either. The immune-system doesn't rely on just one method to combat illnesses, it would be rather lacklustre if it did. Not to mention that you can be exposed to a virus to a different degree, Some might get a full load and end up with a higher risk of a severe infection, some might just catch a very small amount that doesn't end up causing much of an issue. That would obviously have an effect on what means the body has developed to deal with the illness.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.