nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> this is offtopic, but is there any point in renting something you really like?
> You probably already lost more money in renting the DVDs than buying them...

  Well, the first time you rent it, it's much cheaper, so it's obvious.

  The second time you rent it, it's still cheaper, regardless of how much
the rent fee actually is. You have *already* speng the first rent free.
You can't get it back. If you were to now buy the movies it would cost
you the price of the movies plus the one rent fee. Two rent fees is cheaper
than that.

  Follow the same pattern ad infinitum.

  Of course the amount of money spent in renting fees quickly become
larger than the price of buying the movies, but you would have had to
known this before you rented it.

  It would have, of course, been cheaper to buy the movies the first
time, but how would have I known?-)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   Well, the first time you rent it, it's much cheaper, so it's obvious.

Or loan from a friend ;). Or get it for christmas ;).

>   Of course the amount of money spent in renting fees quickly become
> larger than the price of buying the movies, but you would have had to
> known this before you rented it.

True. Alltough if I want to see a movie again, it's probably so good
that I wanna buy it.

>   It would have, of course, been cheaper to buy the movies the first
> time, but how would have I known?-)

You can buy a DVD, watch it and sell it, if you didn't like it. And if
you manage to sell it for some stupido (or a freak, if the movie is some
very-rare-version), you can get along spending less money than renting
on the first run.

And if selling is not worth to do the job it has (badly said imo, true,
but I guess you'll get it), once-watched movies can be used as presents
to other people - and they still usually look good on the shelf ;).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
  >   Man, I don't know what is it with this trilogy, but each time I 
watch it
> I like it more. Each time I get something from it I didn't get the previous
> times.
> 

That's really the mark of *any* good literature (read "story in any 
format whatsoever"), isn't it?  Damn, after (I hate to say how many) 
decades, I'm still getting new stuff out of Tolkien and Heinlein and 
even stuffy old Shakespeare...

...AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SO COOL....  ;)  ;)  ;)

--Sherry "Oh, I'm So Freakin' Old, But I Ain't Dead Yet" Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 
> My brain can render photorealistic animations in real-time.  Now, if I 
> could work out some kind of display for it... :)
> 

One of my personal Most Scary Moments was when I realized I could 
visualize a tesseract...The trick is, to get all the dimensions in view, 
you have to incorporate a fourth dimension, which means time, which 
means you have to make it *rotate*...light goes sliding around all those 
funky angles...blinding headache ensues...Damn, can't write about it 
without clapping hand to forehead and shouting "Stop it!  Stop it!  Stop 
it!"

--Sherry "Ah, But It's Still Cool No Matter How Much It Hurts" Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:35:33 -0600, Sherry Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>even stuffy old Shakespeare...

Stuffy! We could fall out, young lady. :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sherry Shaw wrote:
> That's really the mark of *any* good literature (read "story in any 
> format whatsoever"), isn't it?  Damn, after (I hate to say how many) 
> decades, I'm still getting new stuff out of Tolkien and Heinlein and 
> even stuffy old Shakespeare...

Don't know if I'm th eonly one this happened to, but the movies ruined 
LotR for me.  I used to love those books, and I read them once a year... 
  Now, I can't read them without thinking of the movies.  And, although 
the movies are good, they're nowhere near the quality of the books, so 
thinking of them makes me not want to read the books anymore :(

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:16:57 -0800, Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:

>
>Don't know if I'm th eonly one this happened to, but the movies ruined 
>LotR for me.  I used to love those books, and I read them once a year... 

It was National Lampoon's Bored of the Rings that ruined LotR for me. I could
never take it seriously after reading it.

"For Elfin Kind" said Legolam, raising his sword.
"For the Dwarf Kingdoms" said Gimlet, son of Groin.
"For Mankind" said Arrowroot.
"I got to go poo poo" said Dildo Bugger.

Sad, I know but I can't get it out of my mind even after thirty years.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Don't know if I'm th eonly one this happened to, but the movies ruined
> LotR for me.  I used to love those books, and I read them once a year...
>   Now, I can't read them without thinking of the movies.  And, although
> the movies are good, they're nowhere near the quality of the books, so
> thinking of them makes me not want to read the books anymore :(

That's right. The movies were good, but they couldn't reach the books.
But I am very disappointed of new editions of the books. The "translation" into
"nowadays language" kills a lot.
I only got the first part from 1975, the other ones are new and IMHO quite
another style.
But in the movie that loooooooong journey of Sam and Frodo wasn't that loooooong
and boring as it was in the book. I'd took the book away and read it again two
weeks later. (Too dry, too much time without action, colors, etc.)

bluetree

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
>  
> It was National Lampoon's Bored of the Rings that ruined LotR for me.
> 

Oh, I LOVED Bored of the Rings!


* Either Arglebargle IV or somebody else.


...or words to that effect.  The only thing better than footnotes is 
footnote parody.

But I guess it's just a matter of taste.  Satire always improves the 
flavor for me, but I'm kind of a pie-throwing anarchist.  (Rather like a 
bomb-throwing anarchist, but less bloodthirsty.)

Silly recollection:  I recall, back in the mid-Jurassic, this girl said 
(to a rather geeky group), "Oh, I read Bored of the Rings and it was 
just, like, boring."

I said, "...You've read Lord of the Rings, right?"

She said, "Nooooo......."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Never underestimate the power of human idiocy.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:09:54 -0600, Sherry Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>
>Oh, I LOVED Bored of the Rings!

I do like a bit of satyr-ing  myself but I think that I'm more of a pun-throwing
anarchist
I did like Bored of the rings


Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message