|
|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
 means the user is online now!
I also heard that it was a hoax. Don't ask me from where cause I don't know. I just recently heard in a magazine that that fossil was a hoax....I may be misteaken....probably am...
At 2:56:01 AM on 7/22/2001, Cuckoo said:
Utahraptor, Archaeopteryx is certainly a flier. The only people that currently claim otherwise are creationists for whom Archaeopteryx poses a threat to their dogma. I don't know what source you got that from, but it's not correct.
At 1:16:26 AM on 7/22/2001, Utahraptor said:
Archaeopteryx is no longer believe dot ahve flown. But ads are taking over. Only trailers, and those misisng kids are aceptable beofre a film.
At 10:00:56 PM on 7/21/2001, Darknodin said:
of course we do... but not on that thread
At 6:32:51 PM on 7/21/2001, conor said:
shut up N.M. Gardner. we so dont care about that.
At 6:16:23 PM on 7/21/2001, BrachioInGen said:
Can somone say show off.
At 5:55:58 PM on 7/21/2001, N.M. Gardner said:
Pteranodon is not a flying dinosaur. It is a pterosaur, a unique lineage of non-dinosaurian ornithodires. The only flying dinosaurs are the archaeopterygians (Archaeoraptor?, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Vorona?)
Nicholas Gardner
ladonnasng@starpower.net
The Dinosaur Homepage
http://dinosaurhomepage.homestead.com/index.html
At 5:28:14 PM on 7/21/2001, BrachioInGen said:
Oh!! I see! Ok, now I understand. that's kinda silly though, people get upset over the littlest of things!
At 2:16:02 PM on 7/21/2001, dinosniper said:
Ha ha ha...bet that drove 'em crazy...it's so funny when you see people erupt over something like that, you can tell the world's going to hell...
At 6:34:41 AM on 7/21/2001, Drakkenfyre said:
You must be blind not to see the Pteranadon shadow over almost the ENTIRE RIGHT SIDE,
-Drakk )))
At 3:45:12 AM on 7/21/2001, BrachioInGen said:
Is somone seeing somthing I'm not? I'v sat staring at this thing for a while and sen nothing. What are you people talking about? There's some JP3 add? That little black box in the middle? How is that bad? (Confused BIG TIME)
At 3:32:43 AM on 7/21/2001, sugardaddy said:
Utahraptor says:
<<The only commericals a movie needs is dancing food and talking cigarette lighters.>>
WOAH, WOAH, WOAH...don't be a trailer-hater, be a participator.
At 2:46:44 AM on 7/21/2001, Utahraptor said:
Ads are everywhere. Now computers ar eputting them everywhere into Tv/Movies afetr production. anyone ehre watch Seven Days? Ever see bottle water sitting ther eon a desk or elsewhere, nto being interacted with? Did you see it? Really? Cause the cast didn't. It's all digitally addded. Watch football, look at the field. A giant ad. See that helmet? Why are they hocking products at us?
Popups are going to become ever more increasing. X10 camera crap (don't buy) have below ads, that appear behind your browser. You find it when you close enough or click enough TaskBar Buttons. Soon, faxes, and pagers, and even cell phones will bug you with ads. The only commericals a movie needs is dancing food and talking cigarette lighters.
Oh wlel, anybody using IE, go to Tools, Internet Options, Security, click Restricted and then Sites, and start typing in stuff like *.valueclick.net *.valueclick.com
*.doubleclick.net *.doubleclick.com
*.x10.com *.admonitor.net *.admonitor.com and anyhting else you find as an annoying popup ad.
At 1:52:51 AM on 7/21/2001, Hitmanasaurus said:
Boo-fucking-hoo,atleast I actually looked at that page for once !!!!! Don't they have more important things to write about? Whether they know it or not,they're just giving the movie free publicity !!!!!
At 12:12:47 AM on 7/21/2001, Drakkenfyre said:
Bah, they should get use to it, if you surf the internet for more than 5 minutes (IF EVEN THAT) you get bombarded with a sickening amount of obnoxious pop-up ads, flashing ads, ads ads ads, NOTHING BUT ADS, on practically every site you go to, even this site has ads,(tho not so bad, or obnoxious), the idea was neat, but I do think they stepped over the bounds, you cannot fucking escape ads, I am so sick of them, a few years back they started showing commercials before movies, I want to sit down and watch a movie, not watch 10 minutes of fucking commercials before the movie, now the US Postal office is planning on renting space for ads on MAILBOXES (the big blue kind, not personal ones) for Christ's sake, so the more ads that invade my life, or any persons life, the worse they are, to put an ad (even for Jurassic Park 3) over almost an ENTIRE page is wrong, it is very creative, and I do like how it looks, but it is still wrong,
-Drakk )))
At 11:56:43 PM on 7/20/2001, Trillian said:
did the Ridgefield Press run one? ;)
At 10:07:06 PM on 7/20/2001, Darknodin said:
which webpages have the skaing browser thing?
(the first time I saw the mummy one I was sure it was a virus and wondered how It got in...)
At 9:32:52 PM on 7/20/2001, mxpx8690 said:
At least it looks cool.
At 8:10:30 PM on 7/20/2001, knux said:
who cares !? at least you can still read it, its not totally black
At 7:55:18 PM on 7/20/2001, BigChimpin' said:
I think it's really clever! (In a twisted and sleezy kinda way)
I'll definately keep my copy wich ran in the Boston Globe!
At 7:42:13 PM on 7/20/2001, Bling said:
i got that ad and it was sweet! i ripped it out to keep!
At 7:10:45 PM on 7/20/2001, Dan said:
I'm sure when I get back to school this is all my professors will talk about. :)
How much is newspaper content influenced by advertisers? Here's an anecedote: Many newspapers bar reporters from doing articles on shady used-car salesmen in town. Why? Used-car ads bring in a lot of money, and whenever they read an expose about how evil and corrupt they are, they pull their ads. Newspapers can't afford to lose such big advertising clients.
The moral of the story? Newspapers may soon be things of the past..
-Dan
At 7:01:51 PM on 7/20/2001, jajawarrior said:
Well, Dan's the journalist - how many newspapers are already bought out by ads?
I wouldnt be suprised if some papers are literally run by sponsors
At 6:36:52 PM on 7/20/2001, Beau said:
What's next? Positive film reviews by a critic that doesn't exist!?....oh wait. :-)
-Beau
At 6:22:16 PM on 7/20/2001, Dan said:
This is akin to an advertisement for Pepsi inserted into a segment on the the nightly news with Dan Rather. It is disturbing, to say the least. I mean, think of all the possibilities! A movie studio could place an ad for a movie on top of a review of a competing one. We are assualted with enough advertisements every day, I don't need to see them on top of a newspaper article I'm reading.
-Dan
At 5:56:56 PM on 7/20/2001, Cuckoo said:
"Readers don't expect to have to consciously distinguish between [the two]," he said.
Yes, God forbid that readers should have to use their friggin' brains once in a while...
At 5:41:44 PM on 7/20/2001, Dan said:
Here is a list of those newspapers guilty of becoming whores to advertisers: Chicago Sun-Times (!!!!!), Asbury Park Press, Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, The Boston Herald, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Star Tribune of Minneapolis.
-Dan
At 5:40:12 PM on 7/20/2001, Rob_Redwing said:
Marketing-wise, though, its a pretty good move. I personally don't agree with it, but the idea is pretty cool and ingenious (if devilish as well).
Peace,
Rob
(Communications minor)
At 5:21:09 PM on 7/20/2001, Hans MR said:
To hell with them!!!!!!!!!
At 5:07:27 PM on 7/20/2001, Dan said:
A disgraceful ad run by disgraceful newspapers. Ugh.
-Dan
Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment
|
|
Add DJP3P to your newsreader!
|
