• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SenatorJPO

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Back Woods of Wisconsin
  • Interests
    • I enjoy stimulating discussions about Friday the 13th's sociological functions. (Not mere "catharsis," as some are quick to conclude -- but complex allegories.)

    • I'm -not- a "Jason fan," per se, but -am- a fan of survivors overcoming their oppressors! (With a more-level -- and therefore empowering -- playing field in the video game, than in the films.)

    • Beyond that, I cannot really promote "my interests" without going "off-topic." (Gun Media -is- watching, after all.)

Recent Profile Visitors

117 profile views
  1. Although I've enjoyed the tête-à-tête between RevolutionBlade and Bee-Where-Uh-Bares, it's time to euthanize this bête noir! Let the Litmus test for determining an "accurate-enough mask" be this: Is the level of detail sufficient for us to correctly identify which "Part [N]" Jason is appearing in a screen-grab of gameplay, based on the mask alone? ...As for the fences: Breaking in them in one swing is -very- generous, as realistically, those ain't snow fences!
  2. You're not entitled to a game that -doesn't- star Millennials. Heck, based on your attitude, I'd say that if you programmed a horror game to mock Millennials, you'd have the default gameplay mechanism be, "Call Text helicopter parents, and then play video games until they show-up to save me from this dire predicament."
  3. Jenny's deformities are a karmic balance to her high "luck" stat. And speaking of hands... ...It's not -that- unusual for women to have huge hands. I work in manufacturing, and a few of the shorter women have hands that are comparable to those of taller men.
  4. Not to sound overly sensitive, but I'm glad Gun Media chose to have the police off-screen and therefore be immune to assault. While the developers' rationale might have been to keep the game mechanics concise, my reason for keeping the police off-field is to prevent players from trying to kill cops as Jason. (There -are- states considering making crimes against police into "hate crimes," due to polarized opinions on the role of law enforcement in a modern, diverse society.) Being unable to attack police in-game will help stave-off the sociopathic fantasies of those who've a grudge against law enforcement. Any who -really- need to scratch their cop-killing itch, can play Grand theft Auto.
  5. Steve Christy seemed like the stereotypical "dumb rich guy." Besides the points mentioned -- notably, not realizing a stigmatized property is a poor investment -- Stevie C. failed to realize that someone stalking towards you with a hunting knife, even if a recognized an acquaintance, should probably be run-away from instead of warmly greeted.
  6. So, who's the lucky first-one to get an enema with that thing? #FreddyGotFingered
  7. Changes that I notice: • Signatures are gone. -I do see -some- merit in this, as having multiple animated GIFs among signatures does lag browsers. • Background images no longer wrap-around the background on profiles. -They're more like "header" images. No more ruining the foreboding theme of this forum, by having a bright, expansive wallpaper covering the background gloom. • Thread viewers are no longer displayed. (Many of you remember, they used to appear the bottom of threads.) -If you want to know who's viewing which thread, then you must visit the profile of that individual. This, of course, will encourage more profile views.
  8. "...My recommendation to you is to cool it and maybe try to interact casually." This doesn't make sense to me. "Cool it?" I'm not the one accusing others of being "condescending" (what "JPops" called me); a "troll" (what "Camp Voorhees Hockey" called me); or anything. There's -literally- nothing to "cool." Show me otherwise! Cite examples. For instance, do you take umbrage with me questioning your "recommendations?" Don't just say, "Cool it," because that's too vague. What do you mean that I'm not "casual" enough? "...You can type well..." Thanks! I'll accept your compliment. But in terms of following your advice to "be more casual," as you've iterated in another thread... ...-What- does being more "casual" entail? Use more Internet slang? Use poor grammar and omit punctuation? Because honestly, I don't know what you mean! "Casual" might mean different things to you than to me -- and because -you're- making the mandate, I need to know -precisely- what you're demanding, in a sense of, "Here's -how- you act more casually on -this- forum." P.S. Yes, I underlined a few sentences in my post. There's -nothing- in the forum rules that says, "Don't underline." If you want to interpret an imperative in the rules that -doesn't exist-, then that's "on you." P.P.S. By posting specifically about my posting style, -you- took the thread off-topic. This thread is about the once-considered game mechanic of having failed skill-checks on the phone box resulting in player electrocution. It sets a poor example to the rest of the forum, when the -administrator himself- goes off-topic.
  9. "Hockey" guy is "revenge trolling." Two wrongs != Right Except, I never insulted anyone. And if your kids get messed-up by your stewardship, then that's on you, no matter how many times you say, "SenatorJPO is a troll." Yeah, keep saying that! Because others will "report" you, and you'll get "warning points." [Edited once: Accidental double-quote.]
  10. A few influential folks are reading more "antagonism" into my posts than I intend. I'll probably be banned before "Darrin Howard," let alone before I can indulge in sociological analysis of the Friday the 13th films. Oh, wait -- that would be "political" and "out-of-left-field," so I guess I've no reason to be here at all!
  11. "Take your liberal millennial agenda and go elsewhere." Get to know me, and you'll find I'm a "compassionate conservative." But I had to spell-it-out, instead of let you draw inferences, because you outright say: "Talking to people like you is like trying to get a brick wall to move by blowing on it. It just doesn't do anything." How did you reach -that- conclusion? Right away, you presume we'll find -no- common ground; but your assumption is...just that. "G8 B8 M8, I rate 8/8." Reading that aloud, I heard, "Great bait, mate. I rate eight-[out-of-]eight." "Try again troll. Find .50 more cents and try again." Except, I was sharing a legitimate concern. That ain't "trolling." [Edited once: To change "let your draw" to "let you draw."]
  12. Fine. Even though the -only- reason I can post right now is because it's my day-off... ...I'll set-aside my jealousy about you getting -paid leisure time-, and will contribute to your group activity: "...corporate pharmaceutical company..."
  13. I was celebrating about finally "getting used" to the forum rules, to sufficient extent that I'm now in complete compliance. It is a sliver of self-satisfaction, in a milieu of transience and uncertainty! (Exclamation point is for enthusiasm, -not- indicative of "shouting" or "excessive boisterousness.") I find that we can tell -quite a lot- about a person's psyche, simply by how he or she interprets innocuous remarks that aren't even addressed to him or her. I see this frequently among Disqus threads in which I share my story of getting misled by my state's public university system about the value of their degrees, only to see higher-education apologists -- many of them lobbyists for the university or its alumni foundation -- attack my "character," rather than attempt to rebuff my experiences and observations about declining enrollment. I agree that all-caps, excluding usage in a series of acronyms, unequivocally communicates shouting, i.e. emphasizing every word emotionally. I depart from your opinion, in that I use exclamation points to communicate enthusiasm, by implying a moderately quicker delivery of the lines so marked. (Without necessarily an increase in volume; think of an excited whisper, for instance.) I use dashes around brief phrases, or segments of sentences, to emphasize those terms without using other, "louder" conventions for doing so.
  14. "No way my little girl will watch anything like that, at least." As opposed to your little boy(s)? Why protect the girl from psychological damage, but not the boy(s)? If anything, dealing with the trauma of realistic slasher-film violence will prepare the girl for when she's assaulted in college. (What with 1-in-4 female university students being assaulted, being an -under-estimate-; it's closer to 28- to 30-percent.)
  15. I'm never "bored at work," or at least not sitting idly or able to browse the Internet, because my job is physically demanding and -doesn't involve using computers.- (I palletize stuff as a "permatemp," while the regular employees perform the technical functions, such as scan the product barcodes; print the pallet tickets; and web the rolls of film used to seal our products.) Some pay-off for a guy with a master's degree in public administration, eh?