That’s the problem. None of the actors mentioned above would have allowed that to happen.
I don’t wish to know more.
In fairness, he gets tweaked about it on a semi-regular basis. I’m afraid I couldn’t point you to any examples, but Verhoeven and lissener’s opinion of him has become a running joke he’s been jabbed with not more than a few times with little provocation since his return.
I think lissener’s a douche and to a large extent brought it on himself, but I’ve seen some pokes at him that I didn’t think were wholly warranted. I’d probably get surly again too.
There were two solid pages of evidence of active douchebaggery before anyone brought up Verhoeven.
I meant since he was unbanned. Been several months since then, which is why I’m reticent about finding examples.
**Lissener ** was unbanned in October 2005.
While he does get twitted about Showgirls on occasion, in the ensuing 21 months he has been the subject of at least 6 Pittings, none of which had anything to do with his affection for Verhoeven. Most had to do with him being an asshole on entirely unrelated subjects.
Oh, so it’s been almost 2 years?
Does becoming unbanned grant special powers like being undead?
If lissener is any guide, they are certainly unable to see themselves as others see them.
Indeed. Might I refer you to the cinematic classic, " 28 Lisseners Later " for guidance as to how to handle zombies?
Imitation, and not even flattering.
I notice that **lissener ** hasn’t been around since I last posted, and even though I disagree with him, think of him as abrassive and oppinionated, it’s still uncool to try to rile him about *Showgirls * and Verhoeven. If he’s being an asshole, then it won’t matter, if not - it’ll matter even less. I also think that his reinstatement included clauses about him not debating Verhoeven, but IMBW.
My POA is: Don’t bait him.
He is seriously, as mentioned in passing above posting by candlelight, or to be more accurate, posting when it’s slow at work.
There was for a short time after his reinstatement, a sort of unofficial one-off kind of rule about posters sneaking up behind him and shouting, “Verhoeven!” in his ear. That may be what you’re remembering.
Why I love the Dope, Part Six Bajillion and Three – it’s a place where there can be unofficial “No-Verhoeven-baiting” rules … instituted and respected.
That was no lissener-baiting – that was my Jerry Lewis impression!
Froinlavin!
Verhoeven’s sakes, will you quit picking on Lissener’s execrable tastes?! :smack:
All I did was say to my wife, “That piece of halibut was good enough for Verhoven!”
THUD!!
and
You’ve not got the full flavour. It’s not a matter of disagreeing. There is no room to disagree. Lissener has simply stated a fact. A given. It’s simply unbelievable that it is a fact you are not aware of. There’s no point arguing about it. He was there at the time and this was a given back then, and you are surely not suggesting he is lying about what occurred. There’s simply nothing to agree or disagree about, that debate has already occurred and been decided. The only thing left to do is state the outcome, which Lissener has. Sorry.
Are you calling me a liar? :dubious:
Of course. What option do I have? You have simply stated an untruth. I’m a prisoner to the facts as they exist.
No kidding. Back in the AOL days there was the " John Landis Corollary " and gosh, did people lose their head over that one !
:eek:
