Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

JeezumCrow

Member
  • Posts

    170
  • Joined

Posts posted by JeezumCrow

  1. 16 hours ago, Bastet said:

    I guess maybe if you were a Los Angeleno born after it was changed from Grauman's to Mann's, you'd think of it that way, but even then you were likely hearing it referred to as Grauman's by people who were around before the change.  It's always been Grauman's to me, and while I knew it had been changed to Mann's for a time, I rarely if ever heard anyone who lives here refer to it that way; that would be something a tourist would read out of their book.  And TCL?  Forget it.

    My youthful brain always assumed Mann's was just a nickname for Grauman's. TIL. 

    • Love 3
  2. 3 hours ago, piccadilly83 said:

    When did OJ say he didn't own those shoes? Was that in the criminal trial? I thought Marcia Clarke said he didn't testify in his defense so they couldn't get him on the record perjuring himself. That doesn't of course do away with the fact that the shoes were rare, but I though I'd ask.

    I'm pretty sure the shoes weren't brought up in the criminal trial because the found photos of OJ wearing the shoes were uncovered after the verdict (but before the civil trial). In the civil trial tapes he adamantly insisted he would never own "those ugly-ass shoes" and it is so satisfying to see his reaction when faced with the photo evidence. 

    • Like 1
    • Love 2
  3. On June 16, 2016 at 11:11 AM, smiley13 said:

    I have no issue with the staging of the house.  It was brilliant on Cochran's part.

    He can't be faulted for playing the game better than Marcia.

    I definitely have an issue with the defense lying to the jury by staging the house. Visiting OJ's home is hardly relevant to begin with, but if it's deemed relevant, it is so the jury can see his home, not the home the defense team felt would make him look best. They didn't even just rearrange his own possessions, they brought in items from elsewhere. That's not playing the game, it's a flat-out lie. 

    • Like 1
    • Love 12
  4. I think after the Golden Buzzer choices this season, we can officially change the name of the show to America's Kidz Got Singing. AGT, go jump back up your mother. (/30Rock)

    I prefer to see a variety of acts here because even though I don't watch them, there are plenty of other shows that most of these singers could flock to. 

    • Love 2
  5. On June 6, 2016 at 11:21 AM, NinjaPenguins said:

    This emoji discussion leads me to a commercial that I hate. It's one of those tedious Chevy focus group ads where our intrepid group of focusers must describe the vehicle they're presented with in emojis. First of all, why? What new insight will this glean that you can't get from, you know, words? The answers are predictably inane. I dislike the entire Chevy focus group series of ads, but this one and the power saw one stick out as particularly annoying.

    And while I'm on the subject of car commercials, Jeep can take their buttrockin' 4x4 ads and drive straight to hell.

     While I also hate this commercial, I can say as a past focus group participant that this is exactly the kind of asinine question that gets asked. Picture a wall with about 30 different photographs on it: a lightbulb, a lady doing yoga, a tree, the moon, four crayons, the number seven… Now, pick which image you would associate with the commercial we just showed you and also explain why. This accuracy of absurdity is the only reason I can give that commercial a pass.

    • Love 2
  6. 8 hours ago, Christina said:

    He had no reason to put his finger on that trigger. NONE. Even if his story was true, and he thought it was unloaded, he didn't need to pull the trigger. They didn't really show it on the episode, but during his testimony, he told another story (making it like number 5 because he kept changing it) about why he had grabbed it in a way that his finger was near the trigger. It seemed asinine to me, and I would have been one of the 4 who wanted murder, and just may have hung the jury over it. Grab the gun in a way that you accidentally fire it? Possible; accidents do happen. Just happen to shoot your wife in the back of the head, dead center? A bit too coincidental to me.

    Also, he was discharged from the military but it doesn't look like they brought him up on any charges. This took place off base, but he still could have been court-martialed for his behavior, including under-aged drinking.

    I agree 100%. The only alternative I could come up with - and the only "accidental" way this could have happened - is if he was in a rage, looked at the gun quickly and thought it wasn't loaded... and then aimed square at the back of her head and pulled the trigger, thinking no bullet would fire and he could live out a fantasy. In my gut, I believe it was just pure murder, though. He "couldn't remember" how he was holding the gun, why he pulled the trigger, IF he pulled the trigger (but acknowledged that that's how a gun fires), didn't try to help her OR call 911 (I can stretch my imagination to think that in a frightened panic one may do one but not the other, but definitely not NEITHER) and put on that big whiny show in the police car and on the stand. I'm just relieved the jury didn't completely acquit, which was what I feared. 

    • Love 2
  7. 2 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

    I forget what pharmaceutical it is, and I may have mentioned it before, but in the commercial's side-effects/warning part, the voiceover says something like, "Don't give to anyone under 6 years old," followed immediately by, "Don't give to anyone between 6 and 17 years old." What is the point of having two sentences when one would have sufficed? 

    Also, I heard one last night that used "has" when it should have been "have." Something like "Never has Item 1 and Item 2 been so..." (and it was not, say "peanut butter and jelly," which is fine to treat as a single thing by using "has").

    I think that's the commercial for Linzess. IIRC, it says it can't be given to children under 6, and shouldn't be given to children 6-17. I interpreted it as a definite no-no for the under 6 crowd but 6-17 could take it if absolutely necessary. But since I haven't seen the commercial recently, I could be remembering it the way my brain rationalized it. 

     

    As an aside, I was prescribed Linzess. I completely understand why you wouldn't give it to a child. 

    • Love 3
  8. John Francis Daley was one of the renters, yes? He did an excellent job growing up, I'll say that. *swoons*

    I enjoyed the episode overall but still couldn't believe Jessica let the couple MOVE IN before the check cleared. 

    • Love 1
  9. To be fair, babies don't need to be soothed literally every time they cry. We as viewers may find a crying baby annoying, but her not soothing him isn't necessarily awkward to me. Especially since soothing him would have probably involve whipping out the boob, which would have been way more awkward.

    I assumed she was holding him that way so he would be seen on camera.

    • Love 1
  10. For the repeat episode, I wish that they had reran the show where Robin drives Jason back to PC and is then kidnapped and Jason left as red asphalt by Ava.

    For story, yes. But TPTB did give us Kevin. At this point, I'll take what I can get.

  11. AAAWWW A wedding surprise for Carly! Sonny is one thoughtful beau, no? <sarcasm>.

    And are we supposed to believe that Franks and Neens are growing up fast and will be a positive influence on Kiki? Let's just hope that when they finally do get around to having sex, Neens won't immediately get pregnant with the Serial Killer's spawn. After all, he's promised that "when it rains it's gonna pour". Ewwww.

    Supposedly, Nina can't get pregnant, right?

    Right???

  12. speaking of did anyone find it a little weird that Val stayed at the party but yet Bobbie who was bitching about laura ruining her brothers life left along with lucy whom lives for drama lol.Obviously they didnt want to pay the vets another day lol.

    It's especially stupid because they'll pay the vets for some D-grade tween pseudo-story but they won't pay them to be part of a legitimate story. Heaven forbid that happen.

    • Love 2
  13. LOL, you'd not be the first to say they were confused by something I've written.

    First, I was presenting my wacky theory that Sloane really was the one who killed Duke.

    Then, with those last two sentences, I was just saying that I could be totally wrong about that. And I presented a second theory that Ron could do. In this theory, Sloane is actually good guy. He's a WSB agent, turned police commissioner. He likes to spar with Anna and bicker with her, but he loves her and protects her. So he'd be just like Robert Scorpio. Except that NO ONE can be Robert Scorpio. That's what I meant by "Robert Lite." He'd be a cheaper knock off of the real thing.

    It's all really my way of saying that Ron seems to change his mind about the big idea things -- the huge plot points -- on a whim. Like the Bill Eckert turns into DID kinda thing. Or maybe Ron's just leaving his options open about Sloane. Who knows.

    Oh gosh, I'm sorry! I didn't mean you had to explain yourself (although you did a fine job)! I meant it like, I can NEVER see Sloane being anything like Robert, even just in terms of pairing.

  14. Duke. Carlos shot Duke, but Sloane finished him off.

    It's all a big set up for the reveal -- when Anna finds that out and realizes she just slept with the man who killed her great love (hey, we'd be going from MacBeth to Hamlet, just without the possible co-conspiracy angle). And Anna will have the meltdown to end all meltdowns.

    Or not. Ron may try to turn Sloane into Robert Lite.

    My brain cannot comprehend your last sentence. All of the words make sense individually, but strung together? Does not compute.

    • Love 1
  15. I'm assuming that Brenda and Michael really did have sex and that she'll be bringing their child with her when she next visits. It perfectly folds into the current custody story and I can certainly see Sonny getting custody of both AJ and, somehow, the Brenda/Michael child. This is Port Charles, after all.

    I would watch this on an endless loop. And eat popcorn while it plays.

×
×
  • Create New...