Roger Ebert Compares The PPG Movie to September 11th?

[mbaker]

Ebert & Roeper just reviewed "The Powerpuff Girls Movie", and Roger Ebert gave it A thumbs down, and yet they have the gual to give "Like Mike" A thumbs up?!?!? (What's wrong with this picture?!?) To make matters worse, Ebert says that the film was nothing but senseless violence (So are The Looney Tunes, but not as senseless as he thinks.) with no redeeming virtues whatsoever. (What?!? The girls do have redeeming virtues!! The learned what Spider-Man learned. "With great power, comes great responsibility") Ebert also had the gall to make a reference to September 11th. HUH?!? (He may not have seen A single episode of "Scooby-Doo", but has he ever seen A single episode of "The Powerpuff Girls"?!? At least we both agree on how bad The Scooby-Doo movie is.) Now this is the same crittic who says that "Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm" is far more superior the the live action Batman movies, and I agree with him on that. But what happened to this guy's brain in the last 9 years?!? He also thinks that "The Black Cauldron", "Titan A.E.", "Monsters, Inc". and "Shrek" are superior to "The Emperor's New Groove" (One of the funniest Disney movies ever made in A long time! What's not to like about that movie?!? "The Black Cauldron" could've been made into A great trilogy If Di$ney had more guts back then.) Oh, and "Like Mike" has re-deeming qualities? "Yo, matha #%^&@ers. buy my CD, pimp A ho, drink some gin, and grab some Nike shoes if you want to be the shiznit on the court, fool! ya hear?" (At gun point. Sorry, I just can't help myself.) I use to think Ebert had A soft spot for animation. I guess not. I myself can be critical on some animation, but equating The Powerpuff Girls to September 11th is totally uncalled for! (Unless you want to call Bin Ladin, and his followers monkeys. Why not? They earned that lable as far as I'm concerned.) Townsville always gets destoryed, but ends up looking as good as new by the next episode. This is just another glairing example on how biased people are towards all non Disney, and non Dreamworks animation that tries to be bold, and out of the ordinary, but I'm not surprised. There, I'm done with my rant.

[Funkatron]

we now all know the truth: I will never watch that bafoon and the poor excuse for a siskel replacement again

[Polychrome]

Funny little situation just happened to me. I just e-mailed the "Movie Answer Man" at the chicago sun times, to tell whoever it was how really low and stupid Ebert's review was, and I didn't learn until after I sent it that the e-mail goes directly to Ebert.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Well, ain't he gonna get a surprise when he recieves an e-mail telling him (In no flaming way) what I think of him......................only in third person? I'm wondering what he'll think of that.

Oh well, funny and ironic situation. Back to life.

As for calling Bin Laden and the Al Queda a bunch of monkeys..................I like that idea.

[auto]

I thought Roger Ebert worked for Disney or something. Anyway, Ever heard the pharse "Money Talks" I bet the movie companies pay him to say good reviews and could pay him to say bad reviews about the competition.

Wouldn't you think FOX would pay Ebert to dump the PPG, so they can get rid of major competition? stick to the newspapers

[BrendaBat]

How did you guys hear his review of PpG if the show doesn't air until July 7 at 6:30pm?
I have a hard time believing that Mr.Ebert would be so hard on an animated film. He always seemed to have a soft spot for cartoons with origional styles such as PpG. :(

[langden alger]

it's a shame craig didn't dub the movie in french and put in subtitles for ebert and "the other guy" in they're screening...then we might have gotten a review stating how much of a masterpiece in animation this film is.

[BrendaBat]

Mr.Ebert is being a hypocrit by comparing PpG to September 11! He once said that you can't penalize every violent film because of the tragedy (I think he was referring to a Swartzen-Swarzta-ummm, Arnold S. movie about terrorism that came out a few days after September 11). I'm pretty sure the PpG movie was written up way before that. Besides, it would have been pretty unrealistic if nothing was distroyed during all those fight scenes


it's a shame craig didn't dub the movie in french and put in subtitles for ebert and "the other guy" in they're screening...then we might have gotten a review stating how much of a masterpiece in animation this film is.
HA!HA! Good point! :D

[Red]

I don't think it has any reference to 9-11.

I give the movie a 2 thumbs up!

[Funkatron]

they basically said

-too violent for kids
-the girls had no personality
-the prof, mayor, ms bellum and the other characters were too creepy for kids to handle
-egbert said it was to violent esp since sept 11 cause the scenes when the city was on fire and ruins

they had like 2 good things to say about it
-they likes the tag scene
-reminiscent of godzilla films

and btw, roeper dissed the adult fans of the ppg , saying he'd hate to meet any

[langden alger]

and btw, roeper dissed the adult fans of the ppg , saying he'd hate to meet any
that's such a heartbreaker to me, seeing as how it's my dream to meet such a grating, smarmy, holier than though movie critic like him. :(

[KoKo]

That's why I hardly ever listen to critics. I like to hear it from fans themselves, and even people who aren't fans who decided to see the movie anyway. But really, everyone's opinion is different, and there will be a few that are...strange.

[treehouse]

you shouldn't single out Roger Ebert. after all, most of the critics gave the movie mediocre reviews.
and the P.P. Girls movie failed miserably at the box office this weekend (with an embarrassing $3.6 million), so the majority of the viewing public feels the same way.

[John Miles]

Originally posted by Treehouse
you shouldn't single out Roger Ebert. after all, most of the critics gave the movie mediocre reviews.
and the P.P. Girls movie failed miserably at the box office this weekend (with an embarrassing $3.6 million), so the majority of the viewing public feels the same way.

1. No, most people are giving it good reviews. Check out RottenTomatoes.com.

2. No other reviewer has made the insane comparison to Sept. 11, and that is why Ebert is being singled out.

3. The movie not getting a lot of money doesn't prove that less people liked it, it just proves that less people went to see it so they could actually decide for themselves.

[treehouse]

Originally posted by John Miles
1. No, most people are giving it good reviews. Check out RottenTomatoes.com.

2. No other reviewer has made the insane comparison to Sept. 11, and that is why Ebert is being singled out.

3. The movie not getting a lot of money doesn't prove that less people liked it, it just proves that less people went to see it so they could actually decide for themselves.
1. mmmmm, no I looked through those reviews and most of the critics give it a mild passing grade. a few critics thought it was great, and a full third of all critics were bored by it. if you read their full reviews rather than merely those snippets, you'll see what I mean.

2. no, he's being singled out because he's the most famous American movie critic and because he panned the PPG movie.

3. the public felt that they wouldn't like this movie. usually people have a pretty good instinct about that sort of thing. if you've seen the commercials, and seen the TV show, and read a few reviews, you probably have a pretty good idea whether you'll like a movie or not.
I haven't seen Mr. Deeds, but I know I would hate it.

[Killtacular]

Unfortunately, some people haven't seen the TV show, and have only seen the commercials WB produced, that make the movie look like one big "girl power" kiddierama. Meh.


The reason the movie failed at the box office was because of the shlock WB advertising campaign, and the treatment the movie theaters gave the movie(NO FREAKING NIGHT SHOWINGS?!).

It has nothing to do with the general public. The general public can't even find a theater where it's playing at their convenience, for crying out loud.

[John Miles]

Originally posted by Treehouse

1. mmmmm, no I looked through those reviews and most of the critics give it a mild passing grade. a few critics thought it was great, and a full third of all critics were bored by it. if you read their full reviews rather than merely those snippets, you'll see what I mean.

2. no, he's being singled out because he's the most famous American movie critic and because he panned the PPG movie.

3. the public felt that they wouldn't like this movie. usually people have a pretty good instinct about that sort of thing. if you've seen the commercials, and seen the TV show, and read a few reviews, you probably have a pretty good idea whether you'll like a movie or not.
I haven't seen Mr. Deeds, but I know I would hate it.

1. My point was, most of the critics thought it was worth your time to go and see it.

2. That was NOT why this topic was made. Look at the freaking title.

3. People CANNOT make an accurate judgment about how good or bad the movie is until they actually see it. End of story.

[treehouse]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson
The reason the movie failed at the box office was because of the shlock WB advertising campaign, and the treatment the movie theaters gave the movie(NO FREAKING NIGHT SHOWINGS?!).

It has nothing to do with the general public. The general public can't even find a theater where it's playing at their convenience, for crying out loud.
PPG was on 2400 theaters this weekend.
that's the same number of theaters that Like Mike was shown on, but Like Mike made over 3 times as much money.

sure, there weren't many night showings of PPG. maybe because IT'S A FREAKING CHILDREN'S MOVIE. I imagine most theaters showing PPG at night a pretty empty.

[John Miles]

Originally posted by Treehouse

PPG was on 2400 theaters this weekend.
that's the same number of theaters that Like Mike was shown on, but Like Mike made over 3 times as much money.

sure, there weren't many night showings of PPG. maybe because IT'S A FREAKING CHILDREN'S MOVIE. I imagine most theaters showing PPG at night a pretty empty.

Even if it is a children's movie (which you wouldn't know about, considering you haven't seen it), who do you think has to drive little Billy to the theater? An adult. When do most adults get off work? Around 5:00 or later.

Besides, such films that you would probably categorize as children's films like Monsters Inc., Shrek, and Lilo and Stitch have all gotten much better showtimes.

[treehouse]

Originally posted by John Miles

1. My point was, most of the critics thought it was worth your time to go and see it.

2. That was NOT why this topic was made. Look at the freaking title.

3. People CANNOT make an accurate judgment about how good or bad the movie is until they actually see it. End of story.
1. my point is that a significant number of critics thought the movie was boring.

2. my response wasn't to the topic, it was to the posts that attack Ebert for panning the movie, in this thread and others.

3. sometimes people can make pretty accurate judgments about things they haven't watched. for example, I have only watched a few episodes of soap operas in my lifetime, yet I know (with surprising accuracy) that I will not enjoy watching all the thousands of episodes of soap operas that I haven't seen. consequently, I also know that I won't be watching any movies based on soap operas.

[John Miles]

Originally posted by Treehouse

1. my point is that a significant number of critics thought the movie was boring.

2. my response wasn't to the topic, it was to the posts that attack Ebert for panning the movie, in this thread and others.

3. sometimes people can make pretty accurate judgments about things they haven't watched. for example, I have only watched a few episodes of soap operas in my lifetime, yet I know (with surprising accuracy) that I will not enjoy watching all the thousands of episodes of soap operas that I haven't seen. consequently, I also know that I won't be watching any movies based on soap operas.

1. But not more critics than those that liked it.

2. I don't think anyone was attacking him for that, for the most part they were attacking him for the inappropriate September 11 comparison.

3. Just go see the movie. If you see it and decide you don't like it, then your opinions will be taken with a little more validity, but until then you are just making yourself look stupid for trashing a movie you've never seen. Plus, it couldn't hurt to help support Cartoon Network, seeing as how they show your precious Adult Swim and all.

[treehouse]

Originally posted by John Miles
Even if it is a children's movie (which you wouldn't know about, considering you haven't seen it),...
actually, I WOULD know if it's a children's movie or not, considering I've actually seen the television show (amazing, huh?) which is a children's television show.


Originally posted by John Miles
who do you think has to drive little Billy to the theater? An adult. When do most adults get off work? Around 5:00 or later.
I don't think that many adults are working on 4th of July weekend.
it's also poor reasoning considering all the children's movies that have flourished on weekends.


Originally posted by John Miles
Besides, such films that you would probably categorize as children's films like Monsters Inc., Shrek, and Lilo and Stitch have all gotten much better showtimes.
sure, but those movies are much more attractive movies to family crowds, and the theater owners recognize this.
CNN's box office report catagorizes the PPG movie as a "low-budget animated film, targeted at young girls."
you really can't blame the PPG movie's embarrassing performance on the absence of a few evening showings.

[Killtacular]

Why can't I? I've heard a ton of complaints from people whose theaters did not play the movie after matinee hours.

Families that go to see the PPG movie after matinee hours and find out its not playing are forced to see Like Mike, which IS playing at night. OF COURSE it's doing better. Movie theaters will give Lil' Talent a bazillion screens but PPG is not even mentioned in newspaper listings.

Sure, the advertising is to blame too, but the movie theaters is where some of the real miscommunication is happening.

[John Miles]

Originally posted by Treehouse

actually, I WOULD know if it's a children's movie or not, considering I've actually seen the television show (amazing, huh?) which is a children's television show.

You can catagorize it as whatever you want, but the Powerpuff Girls has always been a show that is entertaining on many levels, and the movie is the same way.


I don't think that many adults are working on 4th of July weekend.
it's also poor reasoning considering all the children's movies that have flourished on weekends.

sure, but those movies are much more attractive movies to family crowds, and the theater owners recognize this.
CNN's box office report catagorizes the PPG movie as a "low-budget animated film, targeted at young girls."
you really can't blame the PPG movie's embarrassing performance on the absence of a few evening showings.

That's not the only reason it's doing poorly. It also suffered from poor advertising and poor timing. And misinformed sources like the one you cited from CNN's box office report don't help, either.

[treehouse]

Originally posted by John Miles
1. But not more critics than those that liked it.

2. I don't think anyone was attacking him for that, for the most part they were attacking him for the inappropriate September 11 comparison.

3. Just go see the movie. If you see it and decide you don't like it, then your opinions will be taken with a little more validity, but until then you are just making yourself look stupid for trashing a movie you've never seen. Plus, it couldn't hurt to help support them, seeing as they show your precious Adult Swim and all.
1. but not enough critics liked it, and many of the critics who recommended it still thought it would be boring for most adults.

2. you should probably re-read the posts in this thread.

3. it would be idiotic for me or anyone to support a movie just because it's episodic counterpart is shown on Cartoon Network.
it would be wiser for me to stay away from a movie whose television counterpart I feel is childish and overly cute.

did your fanatical logic direct you to rush to the theater to see the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie and the Scooby Doo movie? are you sure you've seen them enough times? better rush back!
don't forget to buy a small stack of Scooby Doo Movie DVDs when they're released.

(watch it with calling people "stupid" on this forum. behave as if you were an adult if you want people to take your opinions seriously.)

[John Miles]

Originally posted by Treehouse

1. but not enough critics liked it, and many of the critics who recommended it still thought it would be boring for most adults.

2. you should probably re-read the posts in this thread.

3. it would be idiotic for me or anyone to support a movie just because it's episodic counterpart is shown on Cartoon Network.
it would be wiser for me to stay away from a movie whose television counterpart I feel is childish and overly cute.

did your fanatical logic direct you to rush to the theater to see the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie and the Scooby Doo movie? are you sure you've seen them enough times? better rush back!
don't forget to buy a small stack of Scooby Doo Movie DVDs when they're released.

(watch it with calling people "stupid" on this forum. behave as if you were an adult if you want people to take your opinions seriously.)

1. No. No, they didn't.

2. I have. And I still stand by my position that the reason Ebert is getting so much flak is because of the Sept. 11 thing. He also had some other less than intelligent reasons why he didn't like it, which were pointed out.

3. You could do that, but you're hurting Cartoon Network as a whole.

Cartoon Network didn't make one red cent off of Scooby or Rocky and Bullwinkle. The Powerpuff Girls Movie is something that they produced themselves, and by going to see it I am supporting the network and the other original programming it produces, such as Adult Swim.

And I didn't call you stupid, I said I thought you were making yourself look that way. Your inability to properly use capitalization doesn't help, either.

[Killtacular]

1. but not enough critics liked it, and many of the critics who recommended it still thought it would be boring for most adults.

Um, enough critics liked it to get a Fresh rating on Tomatometer, which is more than anyone could say for MIB2.


did your fanatical logic direct you to rush to the theater to see the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie and the Scooby Doo movie? are you sure you've seen them enough times? better rush back!
don't forget to buy a small stack of Scooby Doo Movie DVDs when they're released.

Um, Scooby Doo is not PPG. Comparing the two is apples to oranges.

Also, WB owns all revenue that comes from the Scooby Doo movie. None of it goes to Cartoon Network. With PPG, all profits or losses get taken out of CN. And if it's losses, then there goes any hope of Adult Swim getting new programs or traditional animation. Because CN will cover the losses by taking money out of whatever's least profitable.

[treehouse]

Originally posted by John Miles
You can catagorize it as whatever you want, but the Powerpuff Girls has always been a show that is entertaining on many levels, and the movie is the same way.

That's not the only reason it's doing poorly. It also suffered from poor advertising and poor timing. And misinformed sources like the one you cited from CNN's box office report don't help, either.
well, I don't think it's a bad show, but you've got to admit that young girls ARE its primary target audience. I mean, they're 3 little girls in pretty dresses, ferchristsake. LOL

[Killtacular]

well, I don't think it's a bad show, but you've got to admit that young girls ARE its primary target audience. I mean, they're 3 little girls in pretty dresses, ferchristsake. LOL

...........




Dear Lord.


That is the most unresearched reply I've ever read on this forum.

[John Miles]

Originally posted by Treehouse

well, I don't think it's a bad show, but you've got to admit that young girls ARE its primary target audience. I mean, they're 3 little girls in pretty dresses, ferchristsake. LOL

I agree that the WB is making the movie look that way, but Cartoon Network has always tried to make the show look like it appeals to other audiences as well, which it does.

[Killtacular]

Actually, it reminds me of a quote from Half-Baked.

"Well I mean, there's gotta be forms laying around somewhere.. I mean.. they -are- SCIENTISTS.."

"What the f*$@ are you talking about?!"

[treehouse]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson
With PPG, all profits or losses get taken out of CN. And if it's losses, then there goes any hope of Adult Swim getting new programs or traditional animation. Because CN will cover the losses by taking money out of whatever's least profitable.
I guess they shouldn't have made that Powerpuff Girls Movie, then. those dopes :rolleyes:

[Killtacular]

I guess they shouldn't have made that Powerpuff Girls Movie, then. those dopes

Whoops, sorry, I didn't realize we weren't using logic tonight.



But even though we aren't, I'd like to inject some anyway. PPG's made $1 billion in profits on merchandising. This year was the perfect time to release a PPG movie.

However, Warner shafted them the entire process.

They wanted to do it WITHOUT the original team or creator(remember Ren and Stimpy?), but CN made them wait. So when the PPG team started doing it, they whipped up a cool trailer to put before Harry Potter, and WB rejected.

So WB made their OWN PPG trailer, which sucked. To make matters worse, they charged CN $1 million to put it before the Harry Potter movie. Can you believe this?! A company charging someone.. WITHIN THE COMPANY?!

Suffice to say, the trailer didn't show. It only showed during two low-profile movies. It wasn't very good. Nor were any of the TV trailers. Warner didn't get it.

They wanted to put pop songs throughout the PPG movie. You kwow what I'm talking about. A*Teens, Lil' Romeo... crap like that. Craig refused.. so WB made them just put in some song by No Secrets called That's What Girls Do.. forced them, I should say, and they used that in the promos.. which sort of killed the movie right there..

So... a numerous amount of factors got in the way of this becoming a success.

[treehouse]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson
Dear Lord.
That is the most unresearched reply I've ever read on this forum.
well, now your reply is.

I've actually WATCHED the show. haven't you?

a little background: it's a show about 3 Hello-Kitty-lookin' li'l girls in dresses who fly around forming rainbows.

[Killtacular]

well, now your reply is.

I've actually WATCHED the show. haven't you?

a little background: it's a show about 3 Hello-Kitty-lookin' li'l girls in dresses who fly around forming rainbows.



..............



......







.........................











......

....






.........
.....



















....................................










....yeah. That's exactly what Craig created the Whoopass Girls to do.


Make rainbows.

[treehouse]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson


Whoops, sorry, I didn't realize we weren't using logic tonight.



But even though we aren't, I'd like to inject some anyway. bla bla bla excuses, excuses etc etc and then the evil WB put a hex on the goodly CN


so the reason PPG failed at the box office is because a pop song was in the promos. why, yes, that makes loads of sense. interesting concept of "logic"

[Random]

... beating the bloody crap out of monsters, Mojo Jojo and a few other creeps.

[Killtacular]

Any particular reason why you feel you have to ignore all of my points, which are substantiated, while your own claims aren't?

[John Miles]

Yeah, as people have continuously stated, there are many reasons why the movie failed.

[DR. BELCH]

--that Citizen Kane was a commercial flop as well, when it was first released.

As for Mr. Ebert, I'm now inclined to think he deserved what Slappy gave him in "Critical Condition"....

[Jimmy Kustes]

I would close this thread. But it is too funny.


....yeah. That's exactly what Craig created the Whoopass Girls to do.


Make rainbows.

LOL

[treehouse]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson
Any particular reason why you feel you have to ignore all of my points, which are substantiated, while your own claims aren't?
I claimed that the Powerpuff Girls is about 3 little girls.
hmmm, how could I possibly substantiate that? let me gather a team of research assistants and I'll get back to you.

as for your "points", I did not ignore them. how can one possibly ignore the logic that the movie failed because they played the wrong song in the promo. no, that one had me laughing my ass off. can't ignore that one. almost as funny as comparing the PPG Movie to Citizen Kane.

god, I hope someone trots in and says the Wild Wild West movie failed because Will Smith was wearing the wrong color of socks and then starts comparing Garfield strips to Hamlet. I could use another good laugh.

[John Miles]

Originally posted by Treehouse
[B]as for your "points", I did not ignore them. how can one possibly ignore the logic that the movie failed because they played the wrong song in the promo. no, that one had me laughing my ass off.

Yes, you ignored every other point everyone else in this thread made as to why the movie is failing, and made it look like we were saying that was the only reason, which it isn't.


can't ignore that one. almost as funny as comparing the PPG Movie to Citizen Kane.

Not that you would know the difference between the two, seeing as how you still haven't seen the PPG Movie.

[B.W.H.]

Originaly Posted by ionspark -ms bellum ,mayor profeesor and kean to creepy for young children to handle ehat the heck is he talking about creepy ive been watching the girls since i was 11 and none of the charcters creeped me out. :mad:

[Killtacular]

I claimed that the Powerpuff Girls is about 3 little girls.
hmmm, how could I possibly substantiate that? let me gather a team of research assistants and I'll get back to you.

No, you claimed that the show is childish, that it is targetted at little girls, that all they do is form rainbows, and that any male viewer that watches it is "less manly".

All of these claims you have made are unsubstantiated.


as for your "points", I did not ignore them. how can one possibly ignore the logic that the movie failed because they played the wrong song in the promo. no, that one had me laughing my ass off. can't ignore that one. almost as funny as comparing the PPG Movie to Citizen Kane.

Um, you yet again ignored my other points. Warner screwed the movie from beginning to end. They:

1) Would not put a trailer before the Harry Potter movie, which would've spread the news like wildfire.

2) Wanted to market the show to little girls, WHICH IS NOT THE SHOW'S TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC, through the use of pop and R&B stars, and remove James Venable's awesome musical score.

3) Created a lame advertising campaign based on an R&B song regardless. This one song, "That's What Girls Do", has lyrics that embody girlish feminism in a way that definitely does not fit the movie at all. By combining the promos, in which they only chose safe clips like the girls making sandwiches, with the song, it definitely sent the wrong signals.

4) Made most of America believe the movie was too girly and childish, when it in fact is not (and the people that have seen it have enjoyed it on all age levels).



And also, a 5th reason, which is not related to Warner Bros: The movie theaters did not give the PPG movie night showings, which is when most families go to the theaters. How is a family going to see a movie if it's not showing at the time they go?

[Thundercleese]

This just makes me sick. What is wrong with this guy? September 11th? Why? Cuz some buildings got smashed? EEEEEEEEEEEH!!! Damn Ebert.......I loved the movie and I wanna do all I can to help this movie.

:Pants heavily:

[Spike Mcdougal]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson


No, you claimed that the show is childish, that it is targetted at little girls, that all they do is form rainbows, and that any male viewer that watches it is "less manly".

All of these claims you have made are unsubstantiated.



Um, you yet again ignored my other points. Warner screwed the movie from beginning to end. They:

1) Would not put a trailer before the Harry Potter movie, which would've spread the news like wildfire.

2) Wanted to market the show to little girls, WHICH IS NOT THE SHOW'S TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC, through the use of pop and R&B stars, and remove James Venable's awesome musical score.

3) Created a lame advertising campaign based on an R&B song regardless. This one song, "That's What Girls Do", has lyrics that embody girlish feminism in a way that definitely does not fit the movie at all. By combining the promos, in which they only chose safe clips like the girls making sandwiches, with the song, it definitely sent the wrong signals.

4) Made most of America believe the movie was too girly and childish, when it in fact is not (and the people that have seen it have enjoyed it on all age levels).


Jezz

I cant believe Warner screwed them like that, it's really sad..........................And no i'm not being sarcastic

[CookieS]

Treehouse, while your version of "logic" is so interesting, it bored me to tears. If you need a soap box to stand on, I'm sure other sites are looking for a big mouth. Thank you.