Tom Cruise gets it in the face!
- Thread starter thaiboxerken
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cruise
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
Orwell said:
to the moderator: please don't remove it as it is the funniest goddamn thing ever.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
That was hilarious!
I just saw a promo where the Today show will be doing a Scientology segment tomorrow, apparently inspired by this episode. Let's see how informative it really is, or if it will gloss over the extraordinarily nutty parts in favor of the more run-of-the-mill nuttiness. Or maybe it was the local version of the Today show, just caught a bit of the commercial.
I just saw a promo where the Today show will be doing a Scientology segment tomorrow, apparently inspired by this episode. Let's see how informative it really is, or if it will gloss over the extraordinarily nutty parts in favor of the more run-of-the-mill nuttiness. Or maybe it was the local version of the Today show, just caught a bit of the commercial.
As I understand it Leo changed his mind and now wants to sue and Cruise changed his mind and doesn't want to sue.
Obviously both men do not have the same publicist.
For the record I fall into the "should have punched him in the face" category.
I wouldn't find such a prank humorous at all and doubt I would have remained as composed as Cruise did.
I still think the guy is a loon, but apparently a civil, well mannered one.
Obviously both men do not have the same publicist.
For the record I fall into the "should have punched him in the face" category.
I wouldn't find such a prank humorous at all and doubt I would have remained as composed as Cruise did.
I still think the guy is a loon, but apparently a civil, well mannered one.
Re: That's all right, Mark...
Please show any quote where I suggested or advocated "outright violence." You need to mature your reading skills as well as your sense of humor; I merely said you have no right to be surprised or complain if one your juvenile pranks has that result. I stand by that.
As for me, other than in self defense, I have never struck another human being in my life. Neither have I put cling-film on a toilet seat. That's the kind of thing that is funny to you, is it?
webfusion said:
Please show any quote where I suggested or advocated "outright violence." You need to mature your reading skills as well as your sense of humor; I merely said you have no right to be surprised or complain if one your juvenile pranks has that result. I stand by that.
As for me, other than in self defense, I have never struck another human being in my life. Neither have I put cling-film on a toilet seat. That's the kind of thing that is funny to you, is it?
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,795
rolling-on-the-floor-laughing funny, yeah!
Mark, you have indeed said that you advocate a physically-violent response
"... then surely he should have the right to respond with a boot up the perp's arse." was one of your comments,
followed by
"Personally, if I were Cruise, I'd have decked the little ◊◊◊◊"
and you added
"missing a few teeth" or "getting a nose busted" (is to be expected) if some stranger approached you and the result was you getting squirted with a fake water-shooting microphone or phony camera, or squirt-lighter, etc.
Actually, yes, I would very much complain and insist on you being arrested (or sued for damages) if a harmless water-squirt resulted in you assaulting me and causing me to require medical treatment. Your violent reaction would be a Disproportionate Response and is, in fact, criminal.
How do you act towards a fellow motorist who has just backed into your car in a parking lot? Bust him in the nose?
NO?
Yet, being the subject of a minor prank would draw that from you? Weird.
Mark, you have indeed said that you advocate a physically-violent response
"... then surely he should have the right to respond with a boot up the perp's arse." was one of your comments,
followed by
"Personally, if I were Cruise, I'd have decked the little ◊◊◊◊"
and you added
"missing a few teeth" or "getting a nose busted" (is to be expected) if some stranger approached you and the result was you getting squirted with a fake water-shooting microphone or phony camera, or squirt-lighter, etc.
Actually, yes, I would very much complain and insist on you being arrested (or sued for damages) if a harmless water-squirt resulted in you assaulting me and causing me to require medical treatment. Your violent reaction would be a Disproportionate Response and is, in fact, criminal.
How do you act towards a fellow motorist who has just backed into your car in a parking lot? Bust him in the nose?
NO?
Yet, being the subject of a minor prank would draw that from you? Weird.
rocketdodger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 6,946
There is a big difference between a minor prank and someone accidentally backing into your car. One involves the purposeful act of intruding upon another person's space and the other is an unintentional mistake.
I side with Mark. While I certainly wouldn't actually hurt the guys, I would probably tackle them and give them a noogie. That way, you can let them know you don't like pranks, but that you are still a good natured person. Aren't noogies great like that!
Disproportionate retalition is a right of everyone. Why should the initiator of confrontation get to decide where to draw the line on how far someone can retaliate? I firmly believe that once someone chooses to mess with another person, they forfeit the ability to complain about whatever happens to them in return. And if it so happens that Ken squirts someone who is also a fighter, and they end up putting each other in the hospital, well.... Ken probably wont ever squirt that person again, will he? And that is usually why people retaliate out of proportion -- they want to make sure people don't do it to them again. Nothing wrong with that if you ask me. Don't mess with people unless you know them, thats what I say.
I side with Mark. While I certainly wouldn't actually hurt the guys, I would probably tackle them and give them a noogie. That way, you can let them know you don't like pranks, but that you are still a good natured person. Aren't noogies great like that!
Disproportionate retalition is a right of everyone. Why should the initiator of confrontation get to decide where to draw the line on how far someone can retaliate? I firmly believe that once someone chooses to mess with another person, they forfeit the ability to complain about whatever happens to them in return. And if it so happens that Ken squirts someone who is also a fighter, and they end up putting each other in the hospital, well.... Ken probably wont ever squirt that person again, will he? And that is usually why people retaliate out of proportion -- they want to make sure people don't do it to them again. Nothing wrong with that if you ask me. Don't mess with people unless you know them, thats what I say.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,795
"space"
{One involves the purposeful act of intruding upon another person's space...}
Dude, once you leave your house, you're in MY space!
You are liable to be pranked, for we are out there, we have the resources, we are cleverly plotting to make you see how foolish you really can be, as the human apes that we all are.
http://www.prank.org/phpBB2/archive/o_f/f_5/public-place-pranks.html
I especially was ROFL with putting a bunch of live grasshoppers into mailboxes at a nearby apartment building and seeing the wild squeals and reactions of the women who came down to open their boxes and these insectoid things started jumping out!
{One involves the purposeful act of intruding upon another person's space...}
Dude, once you leave your house, you're in MY space!
You are liable to be pranked, for we are out there, we have the resources, we are cleverly plotting to make you see how foolish you really can be, as the human apes that we all are.
http://www.prank.org/phpBB2/archive/o_f/f_5/public-place-pranks.html
I especially was ROFL with putting a bunch of live grasshoppers into mailboxes at a nearby apartment building and seeing the wild squeals and reactions of the women who came down to open their boxes and these insectoid things started jumping out!
rocketdodger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 6,946
Fusion you don't realize the slippery slope that you are on. Who defines the line between a prank and actual harm? Can the line even be drawn? That is the problem.
You say squirts of water are harmless. Or any other prank. But are they? What if a person happens to have a morbid fear of grasshoppers, and the event really traumatizes them. That is certainly not your intent, I am sure, but nonetheless it is a possibility. And therein lies the problem. You might not mind the prank you are doing, but you can't be sure the person on the recieving end feels the same way.
What if a person genuinely feels that slugging people in the bladder is harmless? After all, it does no permanent damage to speak of. How would you be able to argue with him if he used the same defense as you? Yes, slugging a person makes them feel pain, but then again so could any prank really. You see the golden rule is flawed, because other people might not feel the same way as you.
That is why I think it is best to just not mess with people at all, at any level, because that is the only way to be sure that you aren't distressing them in any way. You (and I) might think that there isn't a big deal in distressing people just a little, but it isn't our place to decide.
You say squirts of water are harmless. Or any other prank. But are they? What if a person happens to have a morbid fear of grasshoppers, and the event really traumatizes them. That is certainly not your intent, I am sure, but nonetheless it is a possibility. And therein lies the problem. You might not mind the prank you are doing, but you can't be sure the person on the recieving end feels the same way.
What if a person genuinely feels that slugging people in the bladder is harmless? After all, it does no permanent damage to speak of. How would you be able to argue with him if he used the same defense as you? Yes, slugging a person makes them feel pain, but then again so could any prank really. You see the golden rule is flawed, because other people might not feel the same way as you.
That is why I think it is best to just not mess with people at all, at any level, because that is the only way to be sure that you aren't distressing them in any way. You (and I) might think that there isn't a big deal in distressing people just a little, but it isn't our place to decide.
Re: "space"
Well this is fine, just understand that unless you face your mark after they have been hit you are a coward. The guy who squirted Cruise in the face stood there, it sounds like you are off in hiding from those women who freak out about grasshoppers in their mailbox. This would mean you are a lower class prankster than the guys who squirted Cruise.
You can make your shenanigans sound like some time approved, noble tradition, but it is simple immaturity that hides behind cowardice wearing bravado.
Face your mark after he realizes what you have done to him and accept the fact that a percentage of the population will attempt to pop you in the nose. Anything less is just cowardice.
Grow up.
webfusion said:
Well this is fine, just understand that unless you face your mark after they have been hit you are a coward. The guy who squirted Cruise in the face stood there, it sounds like you are off in hiding from those women who freak out about grasshoppers in their mailbox. This would mean you are a lower class prankster than the guys who squirted Cruise.
You can make your shenanigans sound like some time approved, noble tradition, but it is simple immaturity that hides behind cowardice wearing bravado.
Face your mark after he realizes what you have done to him and accept the fact that a percentage of the population will attempt to pop you in the nose. Anything less is just cowardice.
Grow up.
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
Drooper said:
I'll see your ridiculous example with one of my own: If some stranger walked by your kids and threw a bucket of water on them without provocation and a cop witnessed it and said "want to press charges" I guess you would say "aww, he was just playing"
anyway, the law is the law but it's all moot as it appears Tom Cruise isn't looking to press charges anyway.
Re: rolling-on-the-floor-laughing funny, yeah!
I did write those words. But, again, I am not advocating violence; I am saying that if you are going to assault people, you have to expect some of them are going to lose their temper stomp back. Tom Cruise was assaulted and you feel he had no right to respond. Seems rather cowardly to me.
Let me clarify (and I use small words out of respect to the low IQ displayed by your sense of humor): I do not think such violence against a juvenile, sub-moronic prankster would be appropriate. To resort to violence would be lowering one's self to the same 2 year old mentality. Would I lose my temper and deck such a cretin? Probably. Does that make it right? No. In such a case, I would be charged with assault; as the "prankster" would (or should) be as well.
To find humor in such moronic stunts requires a person have no manners whatsoever. The interesting thing is, that in order to pull such idiocy, the "pranksters" require that their victims DO have manners.
In your attempts to reveal other people's flaws through your inane "whoopee cushion" humor, you are revealing nothing about your victims, and plenty about yourself.
But, for the record, if one of your pranks does result in your nose being busted, or you missing some teeth, you have no right to complain. Why should you?
webfusion said:
I did write those words. But, again, I am not advocating violence; I am saying that if you are going to assault people, you have to expect some of them are going to lose their temper stomp back. Tom Cruise was assaulted and you feel he had no right to respond. Seems rather cowardly to me.
Let me clarify (and I use small words out of respect to the low IQ displayed by your sense of humor): I do not think such violence against a juvenile, sub-moronic prankster would be appropriate. To resort to violence would be lowering one's self to the same 2 year old mentality. Would I lose my temper and deck such a cretin? Probably. Does that make it right? No. In such a case, I would be charged with assault; as the "prankster" would (or should) be as well.
To find humor in such moronic stunts requires a person have no manners whatsoever. The interesting thing is, that in order to pull such idiocy, the "pranksters" require that their victims DO have manners.
In your attempts to reveal other people's flaws through your inane "whoopee cushion" humor, you are revealing nothing about your victims, and plenty about yourself.
But, for the record, if one of your pranks does result in your nose being busted, or you missing some teeth, you have no right to complain. Why should you?
DragonLady
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 4,615
This is your idea of funny?
You honestly think it's "harmless" that your victim may ruin his clothes -clothes that may have cost thousands of dollars?
You think it's humorous that some poor person is forced to strip to take a bath & rinse his clothes in the public washroom so he can eat dinner or attend a meeting without smelling like piss?
You think it's acceptable that some minimum-wage washroom attendant is left to clean up an obnoxious mess like that?
You think it's "no harm done" if the cling wrap gets flushed and costs the building owners hundreds of dollars in plumbing bills?
If that's your sense of humor -if you honestly believe that's funny, then you really should show some civic responsibility by just staying at home. The public doesn't need you.
Ed said:
Amen.
I think its amazing he didn't even cuss with the initial shock of it.
Cruise's Scientology seems to be coloring some opinions here. His religion is totally irrelevant.
It should be noted that Cruise was working when the guy squirted him. He was in work mode. Totally uncool.