Oh dear Kevin, you pathetic idiot. You try so hard to prove me wrong you don't even realize how innocent my points are and how dumb yours are.
How "innocent" your points are? The hell are you yapping about?
Allow me to continue, and don't worry, I'll be getting back with you on that BTTF Part II board discussion really soon.
Good lad, and get a move on.
I did in fact state that the house was not the main focus on those films did I not? Yes, I did and I quote: "The house played a role in Parts 1-4, and in Parts 6-8 the same structural design of it is featured though not the main focus of those films". So with this I'm making it clear that the same house is still seen in the movies, and people who have seen the movie would know how that is so I don't need to be specific here, followed by me stating that the house is not the focus of those movies. So he had no reason to think that I was saying that the house played a main role in the movies because I said it was featured when taking into account the following statement I made where it wasn't the focus of the movies. He overlooked that and thought I was saying that it was the main focus on those movies and I didn't. He's at fault here, not me. End of story.
I think you're getting confused, as usual, so let's analyse the first part of your comment and his response to it:
You: "The house played a role in Parts 1-4, and in Parts 6-8 the same structural design of it is featured though not the main focus of those films (Part 8 featured a miniature "dollhouse" version of the house)."
BoSoxRule: "Actually, you're wrong. The big white house with the eyebrow windows is only the main focus in Amityvilles 1-3, and makes a cameo appearance in 4." Your original post implied that the house
was the main focus of 1-4, but was
not the main focus of parts
6-8. The poster who responded (BoSoxRule) did not comment on parts 6-8, what he disagreed with is that, contrary to your implication, it was not the main focus of part 4, only parts 1-3 with a mere cameo appearance in part 4.
Now do you understand, dumbass?
Don't get stupid Kevin because I'm simply indicating how I can understand him writing what he did if he hasn't seen the movie besides just reading about them and knowing the house isn't the focus because the fact that he has seen the movies and I stated that the house is not the focus in those movies
Might wanna try using commas a bit more often, lad, that was one hell of a pointless, run-on sentence.
he made a very big oopsy here where he should know how the house was featured and again taking in the account that I said that it was not the main focus of those movies. But his comment reply still would have been a mistake because I still would have had stated the house not being the focus, so he still wouldn't have said what he did like I was saying the house was featured in a main way when I said the opposite.
You said the house wasn't the main focus of parts 6-8, only that a similar structural design was featured, you implied the exact opposite when discussing parts 1-4 which is the part he disagreed with. You then expected him to be a mind reader and assume you were talking about newspaper clippings when you didn't even allude to anything like that, so first you misrepresented his position, and then you blamed him for it. You're an idiot.
No it doesn't matter. It may not be the actual house, but because we still have a structure display of the infamous home in the series in the movie. So we technically do still see the house in Part 8. It may not be exactly the same thing, but it's still a display of the house. I don't know why you think because something isn't exactly what it is it doesn't count a little because technically, it would count a little.
Not exactly the same thing? It's not even close, ya muppet, it's a bleedin' dollhouse! Like I said, why not simply have the next ninja turtles movie involve some dude playing with ninja turtles action figures? You failed to respond to that comparison because you damn well know it's accurate, coward.
Just like if some one were to say we still see Michael Myers in HIII, that statement isn't entirely false because we do in fact see him, though it's on the TV screen in the movie which displays the original as a movie and not physically in character, we technically do still see him the movie. Realize that and shut the hell up.
So why isn't it called
Halloween III: Michael Myers on a TV Screen? Laughably, you're attempting to be technical while failing to understand that from a technical standpoint, your suggestions implode. We may
technically see Michael Myers on television in Part III but he's not
technically there in character just as a dollhouse isn't
technically the Amityville house. Moron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de4ot18QS4A "Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
12 years ago
[deleted]
Kevinology_Rises
12 years ago
Dumbass, I never indicated it playing a main role in Part 4 and I quote: "The house played a role in Parts 1-4". I just said role referring to it being used in those movies knowing it only plays a cameo in Part 4 so I didn't use "main role" to refer to each of those movies since I had Part 4 thrown in the batch with the first three movies. You understand that, dumbass? The other user could have realized that as well so again, I am not at fault here.
Read my post thoroughly ya pleb, I said you
implied it played a main role in parts 1-4 because you followed up your statement by specifying that it didn't play a main role in parts 6-8, by omission and the inclusion of the word "though", indicating the opposite for parts 1-4. The way in which your sentence was constructed and worded implied as such, so it's either a logic fail, or a language fail, take your pick.
Hopefully you understood the point of it, and you are just as useless as they come Kevin brain.
Hopefully I understood the point of it... even though I described it as a pointless, run-on sentence... you really need to learn to read, mate. Sincerely. It's actually worrying at this point, you may have a learning disability of some sort that's preventing you from being able to concentrate, have you thought about getting yourself checked out? I'm not mocking you, I'm being serious, if they find something then perhaps it'll make your life a bit easier if they're able to treat it.
A bleedin' dollhouse that happens to have the exact appearance of the actual Amityville house featured in the series. That's just about close on the money right there.
To quote Tyler Durden, sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
I chosen not to respond because I didn't want to, and no it's not accurate. But I will respond this time just to shut you up about it like you're making a point here. With those action figures, we technically would still be seeing the ninja turtles in the movie. It may not be the real thing, but it would be very close.
Action figures are close to the real thing? Okay, first you think characters have rights and that we can be unfair to them, now you're saying that pieces of plastic designed to physically resemble the real thing is close to the real thing. You have problems, son.
Funny you make that second sentence here when you did just that with the first sentence which is so easily to counter you ought to be ashamed of yourself. First off, that title is stupid as hell and second, the movie is not about Michael on the TV screen nor is it an important element to the movie or the focus so it has no reason to be in the title. DUH.
Way to miss the point, you dozy bint.
http://www.headlineasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/whoosh.gif Michael Myers may technically not be there in character in Part III but we do still see him in the movie
No, we see the image of his character on a television screen within the movie. By your logic, if there's a poster of Bruce Lee in any movie after his death, then Bruce Lee had a role in the movie. Talk sense, you idiot, you even fail miserably at splitting hairs. Do
something right, please, just once.
just like we technically may not see the actual Amityville house in Part 8 but we do still see it through the dollhouse that is structured entirely the same in a way to showcase the house throughout the movie without using the actual house. Idiot.
A dollhouse is not an actual house, so we don't see the house. Seriously dude, it's not rocket science. It doesn't matter if it's structured the same way, it's not the Amityville house any more than ninja turtles action figures are the ninja turtles. It doesn't count. Accept it.
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
12 years ago
[deleted]
Kevinology_Rises
12 years ago
I said "main role" later mostly with the first three movies on my mind since out of the 1-4 batch we have three out of the four movies that feature it that way. Didn't think it was really a problem as anyone could have excluded Part 4 when reading that part since it's clear I've seen the movie to know what the deal is to indicate something false as the house playing a main role in the movie and only had to think of the first three movies.
Get it through your head:
people aren't mind readers. We don't know what's on your mind when you word a sentence poorly, we only know what is in the sentence and what the sentence implies. It's not the poster's fault you're an idiot who can't express himself coherently, he can't possibly judge what you know or don't know just because he knows you've seen the film, people who have seem the same film often have completely different perspectives or make mistakes when discussing it. Ultimately, the error was yours if you included part 4 when discussing roles, because that led the reader to infer that you meant parts 1-4 involved the house in a main role, while parts 6-8 did not. Use that loaf.
Charlie Brown's teacher, shut up please.
Eh?
Yes. They're a display of the ninja turtles aren't they? Just not the real thing but they look like the actual turtles hence why they would be close. Now if they were completely different looking turtles entirely or different animal toys then you would have an argument about them not being close to the real thing but since that wouldn't be the case, you lose.
Just because they're created to vaguely resemble the real thing does not make them close to the real thing, you fool, they're pieces of plastic that have no mannerisms or characteristics or functions beyond playing with them or standing them up as collector's items. They're nowhere near the real thing.
He sort of did just by being displayed in the movie. Don't see what the problem is there.
You're telling me that dead Bruce Lee had a role in a movie because they showed a poster of him? In all seriousness? Take some time to think the stupidity over before you commit to the point, rest your belly, allow it to sink in and then confirm it so we can say bye-bye to any last semblance of intellect you may have had stashed away beneath the cobwebs of your dried up sponge of a brain.
Of course it isn't, but it's amazing how you fail to see how we technically do still see the house through the dollhouse because it's a structure display of the house that do in fact play a big role in the movie and the cause of the mischief that goes on with the characters in Part 8 as thought they were living in the actual house. That's like so easy to understand here.
You're getting it ass-backwards, you moron,
technically we
don't see the house at all, we see the
dollhouse, which only
represents the menace behind the house and that's why similar experiences happen to the family who own it. It was the same with the other films that contained articles and possessions from the house, but not the house itself. It was just a cheap way (although a slightly inventive one, I must admit) of squeezing more cash out of the series. They couldn't do anything else with the house itself, so they thought they could tie their crappy sequels to the
Amityville name by simply having the objects that cause the strange happenings be memorabilia from the infamous house. In hindsight it's actually incredibly sad to see some of these sequels desperately milking the story for all it's worth, especially now that the original so-called true story has been revealed as an admitted hoax.
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
12 years ago
[deleted]
Kevinology_Rises
12 years ago
Damn right it's over, make sure you read what you type before you post next time, or I'll embarrass you again. Stop blaming other users for your mistakes, people aren't mind readers. Now you can piss off.
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
12 years ago
[deleted]
Kevinology_Rises
12 years ago
Dude, know when to walk away, you just said the conversation was over. Stick to your guns and get lost, you're done. Better luck next time, alright?
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
12 years ago
[deleted]
Kevinology_Rises
12 years ago
As usual, I didn't need to win anything, you defeated yourself quite admirably as you often do while I sit back, watch, relax, and laugh. You were unable to counter, you made a fool of yourself, and now you're running away like a bitch. That's not a tough guy act, lad, that's just observation. Remember the lesson you learned. People are not mind readers, let it sink in and stop making the same mistakes over and over. Now you can go, off with ya.
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
12 years ago
Oh I've countered and you lost here maniac.
Where? You simply responded and said the conversation was over, ya loon. That's not a counter, it's basically a cloaked admission of failure because you knew you'd made a boo-boo. You should be apologizing to that poster for expecting him to know what you're thinking. Be a big boy and say you're sorry.
As usual, you try so hard to come out on top and FALL COMPLETELY all the way down. BTW, I was referring to your last comment before this one as you acting all though and getting mouthy you luxurious lunatic.
And I'll continue to be mouthy as long as you behave like a bitch instead of addressing the points I made and countering, or admitting you made a mistake like a man. That's the sad part, if you admitted it every time like you should, I'd have a lot more respect for you and would've simply said "fair enough" like I always do with people who have the balls to admit when they're wrong. What makes me wanna pummel you even harder however is when you continue to maintain your stubbornness even after your attempt at an argument has been dissected and refuted, or you've been proven incorrect, or both. It's that arrogance that spurs me on, every single time you do this, I'll turn up the heat, so you're better off just being honest, lad.
Oh, and "luxurious" makes no sense in that context.
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
12 years ago
See, you are clearly an idiot because I'm referring to me countering to you in the conversation prior to me eventually posting that as a result of you wanting to act stupid and make pathetic excuses. Duh.
So am I, my last response in that argument was legitimate and it dissected and refuted everything you'd said, to which you had no response other than to say the conversation was over. Previous to that, you'd at least attempted to counter and of course failed, but the fact that you at least tried was something. There's two things that are usually responsible for making me disrespect someone, and that's those who say they're right and can't back it up, or those who say they're right even when they've been clearly out-debated. Be a man, and either counter, or concede. But hey, if your insecurities are forcing you to maintain your refuted position that's fine, however you should at least apologize to the other poster for your behaviour toward
him, considering he's not a mind reader.
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
12 years ago
Don't get stupid Kevin. You didn't dissect a damn thing or overcame me. I overcame you and you had to be so desperate to come out on top. I won here and you know it.
That doesn't even make sense, first you said I had to be so desperate to come out on top, which implies I actually did come out on top, and then you followed that up by saying you "won". Make up your mind, ya stuttering momo. You'll never even have a
chance to win anything unless you actually try to first, so get responding to the last post I made before you whined about the conversation being over, pussy. Move it. And get responding to my post on the other thread as well, you're lagging behind.
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
12 years ago
To stay on top would imply that I was on top in the first place, it doesn't matter whether or not you're calling me desperate because the fact is I would've still come out on top according to the way you're phrasing your sentences. How dumb are you?
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
12 years ago
You said stay on top, which implies I was already on top, you didn't need to state it directly because the implication was enough, there's no other conclusion to derive from that. You backed yourself into a corner with your poor grasp of the English language, as usual.
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
It's too late dude, you already slipped up. I've been "on top" from day one, I've even explicitly admitted to toying with ya for months on end and you were still too much of a dumbass to stop fetching the stick, despite professing to leave conversations umpteen times over the course of this slaughter. Learn from your mistakes and you might become wiser in the future, as of right now though mate, you're in the wrong league. Get your OCD sorted, read up on your viewpoints and opinions in order to support them, cut those apron strings, and know when to quit after you're beaten. Those are the things you should be taking away from our fun time spent together. Nurse that wounded pride and you'll be fine, don't worry about it.
"Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody, but unbowed."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
I won here Kevin, now accept it.
Remember what we talked about, sweetcakes? How saying things doesn't make them true?
Also, there's a user below who made a comment reply to me in regards to you being a pain to them. I'm not surprised.
Whoever they are they're on my ignore list, but I expect it was probably the paedophile SophiasDoll considering he apparently commented on a post I made on another thread recently. Basic deduction tells me he's the likely culprit, I can't think of anyone else who's still butthurt enough to comment. It seems the poor sod is tugging on my trouser leg a whole two years (or maybe longer, I forget) after I left him in the dust with his tiny todger in his hand, begging for attention. I must've made one hell of an impression on the bloke, that's all I can say, most people would've actually tried moving on with their lives by now but I guess the requisite for that is to have a life to move on
with. Is that gonna be you, when I'm done with you? Because you gotta learn to accept defeat lad, unlike you and him I'm not dumb enough to acknowledge those who follow me around after I discard them. I simply put 'em on my ignore list and that's the end of that, I sincerely hope you follow suit if and when the time comes and I decide you've exceeded your worth.
That makes like four users who have came to me ranting about your pathetic bullying behavior.
Four? Who are the other three?
Still want to play as the innocent one here?
Why do you keep saying that? I've stated this time and time again, would you like me to type it in bold capitals for you, so you don't forget?
I DID NOT CLAIM TO BE INNOCENT. I admitted like seven times very early on that my sole intention was to squeeze entertainment out of you, does that sound like an innocent thing to do? I admitted I was arguing for the sake of arguing, but that the topics I chose to argue
about were still topics on which I held genuine opinions that I was capable of supporting. And I did. But at no point, for the last time, did I claim to be "innocent", you're the one who keeps peddling this claptrap as though I've got something to hide. I'm completely open about what I'm doing, perhaps that's what's throwing you for a loop, are you having difficulty accepting it? If I intend to take the piss out of someone, I'll pretty much tell them outright, and if I don't, then I'm having a genuine debate for the purpose of intellectual stimulation. Obviously in your case it sure as hell isn't the latter, I'd get more intellectual stimulation out of a debate with an egg cup, but you sure are fun to laugh at and berate in a morbid sort of way. I rarely ever lie about my motives when it comes to debates, for the most part I was even honest with the paedophile, which is really more than he deserved. In your case, I promise you, I am arguing for the hell of it, and will continue to do so for as long as you qualify as sufficient entertainment. Are we clear? Do you understand what my intentions are now, or do you need some building blocks and a pop-up book? Stop whining about me playing the innocent when I've repeatedly stated I'm far from innocent, and don't particularly care. Innocent or not, one thing I am is bloody well consistent.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
What I've said was true and you're just too hypocritical to admit it.
Remember what we talked about, sweetcakes? Misusing words? "Hypocritical" is nonsensical in this context.
Yes it was him and he's apparently another pedophile like Angelica? Interesting....
It's the same guy under a different username, you twong.
Well there's Angelica, the user you argued with on the Chloe Mertz thread named Miz... something, and some one else I can't quite remember the name. But including this Sophia user it's been about four at the most.
Angelica doesn't count, this user named "Miz" I don't even recall arguing with at all though the name sounds vaguely familiar, whoever it was they're not even on my ignore list, and "someone else I can't quite remember the name"? Really? Why don't you just admit you made that person up? Four my ass, as far as I can see there's only SophiasDoll, and apparently this "Miz" character who must've only turned up like once or something to pass judgement. And even if there were four other people, which there isn't, but if there was, which there isn't, whom I apparently argued with, they'd be biased anyway considering I defeated them in debates; hardly reliable and objective opinions.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
You are just a sexy little thing when you're trying to "school" me on something aren't you?
Poor sod, we're way beyond you creeping me out at this point. Nice try, though.
That didn't come to my attention obviously, dork. You sure as hell didn't say anything about him being Angelica.
Well what's the likelihood of two paedophiles on the same board with the same attitude and typing style following me around saying the same things, genius? I've encountered and disposed of other paedophiles in the past, admittedly, but I'm not a bloody pedo-magnet.
Yes really. I can forget things you know but I do have some recall of you arguing with some one else. To think I made the person up just because I can't remember the name is just stupid. Perhaps the person didn't exist, I don't know. But I could have said there were ten people that came in and complained about you if I was up to lying but I said four at the most. It should have been clear I wasn't trying to play games here due to that low number that should have been fair to you. And you don't remember the user on the Chloe Mertz board? What a shame. But what is even more of a shame is that I went to Chloe's message board page to find the thread and apparently it's no longer there. So that sucks. I wouldn't be surprised if you now want to dismiss truth behind this due to your lack of memory, but you did talk to this user and it wasn't for long either. He then came to me telling me to ignore you.
Mm, how convenient that the thread isn't there any more. Nevertheless, the "Miz" name at least sounds vaguely familiar to me so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for that poster alone, as for the other one, you're more than likely making it up. SophiasDoll/Angelica and possibly this Miz user would be the only two, and both would be extremely biased anyway, the former especially. I wiped the floor with that freak for nigh on two years, what I did to him makes what I'm doing to you look like child's play. And he's still butthurt over it two years after I left him in the dust, of course he's not exactly gonna give you a glowing recommendation letter is he?
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
I've just only seen this Sophia account and it sure didn't come to my mind that it was Angelica. But even if this were a different person who just so happen to be a pedophile as well, it would only two people.
No, for it to come to your mind you'd need basic powers of deduction, something we both know you lack. Anyway, now you know they're both the same guy, so shut that yap.
If I was making it up, it sure wasn't done deliberately. I just figured there was some one else. But to make you happy I'll settle it at two people. I've decided to search through the threads of the Chloe message board to see if this Miz user posted anymore on it so I can link you his profile so you can remember him more clearly. I haven't found him yet considering there are so many threads on there to go through but he has to have posted some more on there.
Well good luck searching dude, I don't really see the point, I already told you that both of these people would have biased opinions of me if I defeated them in debates (and in the pedo's case, a lot more than that), so what exactly are you trying to prove?
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
You shut up. I'm sure other people wouldn't have connected the dots either so you can stop acting like I was to know Sophia was Angelica.
Yeah, I'm sure others would've assumed two paedophiles with the exact same typing style, attitude and probably description of the events that led them to dislike me were following me around at the same time.
I just want to you to remember the person better since he's only vague on your mind and I don't want you to later on second guess yourself on this guy not existing. I made that perfectly clear so it's not like I'm trying to bring him in to deal with you some more.
Why do you want me to remember him more clearly if it has no bearing on the discussion? I didn't say you lied about this Miz character, I said I'd give you the benefit of the doubt because the name sounds familiar, but that it ultimately made no difference either way. If you wanna waste time searching the entire board for the guy, knock yourself out, but if you're not trying to recruit the bloke to fight your battles for you, you have no logical reason to seek him out.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
Lots of people can and do in fact have the same damn typing style. It doesn't mean they're the same person.
No, but in conjunction with the other things I mentioned it's certainly a pretty big hint.
Because I don't want you to second guess yourself and think I'm lying here in the future. It's great you've gave me the benefit of a doubt in all, but I know you Kevin and I feel you're capable of changing your mind here with something you can vaguely remember.
You don't know me at all, if I think you're lying I'll say it outright, not say one thing and then change my mind later.
So yeah, he doesn't need to be brought in to discuss anything as what the hell would he need to discuss with you about? I doubt either of you two would want to revisit your old one and he serves no purpose bickering at you with this discussion either, especially when we're not even discussing anything really important now in this thread.
There would be no reason to revisit whatever we argued about, whatever it was I must've defeated him in the debate if he saw fit to follow me onto a thread where I was slaughtering you to whine about it.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
Well I didn't see it. This isn't really something to even make a fuss over. I know now so yeah....
Assume by default that anyone else posting about me is probably the pedo too, he had a host of other names and other accounts that I forced him onto.
Of course I know you. We've been at each others necks for almost a year now. I'm aware of how you think and act.
You haven't got a bleedin' clue mate, you just finished implying I was trying to play innocent when if anything I've been doing the exact opposite, and you can never outword me which you would be able to do if you knew how I thought and acted.
He up and left that discussion so you pretty much won against him.
Of course I did, but it won't have had anything to do with him leaving. I will have had the better argument.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
I do know you and you have been trying to play innocent. What is wrong with you Kevin? Stop being so damn evil.
How have I been trying to play innocent?
Well he could have put up a better one had he stayed. I don't know, but how the argument would have turned out had it continued, is just speculation and nothing official.
Nonsense, he left because he lost, as people often do.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
There's a good bitch. Now go fetch.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
I'm actually responding out of reason, if I was responding out of hate I could've responded to all of your other posts as well, but I chose the most illogical. Do somethin'.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
Nonsense, I respond out of whimsy, I don't literally hate you. You're not really important enough to hate, and I enjoy having a laugh at your expense.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
Kevinology_Rises
11 years ago
I don't hate you, I told you, you're not important enough to hate. I despise people like you, self-entitled brats who think they're much, much smarter than they actually are. Sexist, racist, xenophobic, narcissistic imbeciles that lack the intellectual capacity to even construct a coherent sentence, but you in particular are providing too much entertainment for me to hate. Plus I'm constantly slapping you about on here, which would alleviate any potential hatred, should it arise later on, it's somewhat cathartic to knock people like you off your pedestal.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
reply
share
nstgermain
11 years ago
Huntley is right. Kevin is wrong. Internet fights are stupid either way.
Man... I was really hoping to find discussion on THIS movie and the house that appears in it. Disappointing.
reply
share