the television show, The Hippodrome, was a British program.

>> ^ponceleon:

great clip, but how the hell is it british?

You're welcome.
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
With whores.. *quality
>> ^gwiz665:

Talk v. Action. The latter wins out in the end every time.


Thanks dude! Forgot about this song, good to hear it again

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
With whores.. *quality
>> ^gwiz665:

Talk v. Action. The latter wins out in the end every time.


Thanks dude! Forgot about this song, good to hear it again

With whores.. *quality
>> ^gwiz665:

Talk v. Action. The latter wins out in the end every time.

Very cool. I remember the Steve Allen appearance.

Are you affiliated with this video?

He was probably referring to early Usenet, which was in fact a pretty civilized place. Of course, it was unusual for people to go anonymous on Usenet at the time. Most posters used their real names and official work or school email addresses.

It speaks volumes that the kids posting this video with this title can't even conceive of a civil internet. It says more about them than John Allen.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'allen sherman, reason for being fat, public service' to 'allen sherman, reason for being fat, public service, clean your plate' - edited by calvados

A few years back I saw a very interesting documentary on all the questions surrounded the landing. It made me cautious enough to question the validity of the facts we have. I've learned not to trust in belief based on something I've been told or what's in a book. That's why I don't believe in religion. One thing I do believe in, it's man's ability to lie.

Research on the internet reveals solid, sound proof of the landings while it also offers some very interesting questions such as theVan Allen Radiation Belt.

What I end up with is one big science-fiction story that I hope is true but have no way of actually proving for myself..

Two random picked sites on either side of the debate.:
• Facts and Info about the Fake Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy Theory
• The 15 Essential Moon landing facts


>> ^spoco2:


Really? Good arguments from the side that say it was a hoax?
Show me ANY GOOD arguments and I'll respect your stance, but there are NONE. NONE. Every one of their inane arguments is utter rubbish and easily, simply, painfully debunkable.

Those people are summed up by the question at 3:26 :
“I would like to know why people try so hard to be anyone but who they are.”

Also, those questions remind me of the Woody Allen line from Small Time Crooks :
“The one thing I would like, I would like to learn how to spell Connecticut.”>> ^xxovercastxx:

I found myself irritated by people who asked questions to which the answers are readily available ("How does a venus fly trap, like, work?", "Exactly what is in Jello?","What's in a Wonder Ball?") or questions that were just intentionally stupid ("Where can I get the biggest, cheapest cookie right now?", "What's your favorite microwavable food?", "When's the zombie apocalypse gonna happen?").
Really? You have an opportunity to have any question answered and you're going to ask something meaningless or something you could find out for yourself with less than a minute of research?
I guess that says as much about me as it does about them.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

Forrest Gump may be a cliche now, but his performance in it was great. He was great in Philadelphia and The Green Mile as well. For pure strength of acting, I think you've got to go with Cast Away. Not many actors can carry a movie all by themselves with only a volleyball to interact with. If you want a role that really steps out of the norm, try The Ladykillers.

Hanks may not be one of those guys who completely transforms himself for a role, but I still think he's solid. Tim Allen has never acted, to my knowledge. He plays himself in all his roles.

>> ^sanderbos:

Since I don't read as many gossip columns as you apparently do I don't really know what you're going on about. I was referring to the actual reaction of Tim Allen during the actual ceremony :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ozHrZRySw#t=0m50s

<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> spoco2 said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="/avatars/s/spoco2-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">NO ONE was really offended (except perhaps scientologists, they suck at taking jokes), everyone took them as they were intended, in good humour.
So f ck off with all the 'x was insulted', 'y was offended'. It's all bullshit.
</div></div></div>

Which was actually an act... geeze people, these are awards for ACTORS they can sometimes pretend you know.

Since I don't read as many gossip columns as you apparently do I don't really know what you're going on about. I was referring to the *actual reaction* of Tim Allen during the *actual ceremony*:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ozHrZRySw#t=0m50s

>> ^spoco2:


NO ONE was really offended (except perhaps scientologists, they suck at taking jokes), everyone took them as they were intended, in good humour.
So f ck off with all the 'x was insulted', 'y was offended'. It's all bullshit.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
... Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
...


You do realize that Polar Express has been universally panned for having almost zombie-level animation? Money for Nothing's Minecraftian characters had more life.

Although, I have to agree A&D was possibly the most boring "thriller" I have ever sat through.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.


Also, Tim Allen's a crackhead.

>> ^sanderbos:

Absolutely amazing joke.
What is great about it too is that Mel Gibson is a good sport about it (unlike say Tim Allen this year), as you can see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6AxyQXVUJc#t=1m40s


Tim Allen was a good sport too... Ricky, Tim and Tom had drinks after the show, it's all a friggen beat up by 'journalists' trying to create drama where there isn't any.

NO ONE was really offended (except perhaps scientologists, they suck at taking jokes), everyone took them as they were intended, in good humour.

So f*ck off with all the 'x was insulted', 'y was offended'. It's all bullshit.