The Big Picture: Arch-Villains

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Thats it, I am now memorizing that whole speech section on the darwinism and the idiots, that made too perfect of sense to me.

I consider myself a progressive, and I can't stand the far-lefties and their nanny-state nonsense.

I'm of the same opinion; tobacco is different than fast food, because fast food isn't chemically addictive like tobacco is. Having it every now and then won't form a habit, but like gambling and WoW, people can form an emotional dependancy.

When it comes to scapegoating, being too liberal is as dangerous as being too conservative because both want to control you.

Again, Bob takes his time to hate on Fast Five and Pirates 4, simply because THEY ARE MORE POPULAR then your friggin nerd movies.
I should definitely go see both of them.
I wouldn't have done so before, because I thought they sucked but your constant whining convinced me to buy tickets, and if only out of spite.

It felt like the show ended just as you were really gaining momentum. I think that might be my problem though. You often seem to be asking all the right questions, then I start to get hopeful and think you might have all the answers too.

But the questions are good. I agree that it would be nice if we could intervene with bad parenting (in more than just the extreme cases) but I also see the moral issues that such a course of action would raise. I believe the best solution to irresponsible parenting is education, but that is a very broad answer. It's something that I think is worth thinking and talking about.

I think it's been mentioned, but just in case, here's a link to the extremely relavent opening scene of Idiocracy.


You're kind of arguing the same point as him. That personal responsibility matters.

The distinction is that CHILDREN aren't completely cognizant and able to make informed decisions. Anyway, I'm the same age as you and where I grew up, a place where every family owned at least a few horses for practical reasons. Cowboys were cool. Guess what brand EVERYONE smoked in high school? Marketing works on many people. Now, I don't think that the Marlboro man is what caused them to smoke. It did however help them make their purchasing decision.

I don't think an 'all advertising mascots or none' is a solution. That's ridiculously black and white.

The problem with your logic, and by extension, bombadilillo, since you both responded to me with nearly identical arguements, is that you're both ignoring the fact that outright marketting for tobacco products has been, for all intents and purposes, non-existant for almost 40 years. "You're marketting to children!" They aren't marketing, at all. By law, they can't. At least, not on television. That's why those mascots came to be. With the loss of television as an advertising medium, tobacco companies had to rely soly on print ads. They had to get their point across in a single image. So, they were forced to do whatever was required to get attention to their product, in as short a span as possible. I believe that this falls into the "Nice Job Breaking It, Hero" trope.

But, onto bombadilillo's comment, because I don't want to double post, did they lie about health risks? No. How can I say that? Simple. They used and abused the hell out of loopholes and technicalities. Do cigarettes kill people? No. Why? Because it's the smoke that does the damage. "But, people die because they use a tobacco product as intended." Well, a firearm's intended use is to shoot a bullet at something. And, the arguement could certainly be made, with a great deal of success, that games like Call of Duty are made with the intent of glamourizing the firearm. I don't watch the news very often, so I don't know if this has actually been done recently. But, if Call of Duty glamourizes firearm use, Bulletstorm Rule 34s that bitch.

I know what some people are going to think/say. "But, guns don't kill the user if used as intended." There's one problem with that logic. There is absolutely nothing in the owner's manual that expressly says "And, don't point the end with the hole in it at yourself." A gun's intended use is to point the end with the hole at something that you wish to destroy, and pull the trigger, enabling an explosion in the chamber which sends a projectile to do the destroying. "Destroy and kill shit" is pretty much the sole intent of a firearm. By the way, this is also true of the sword and the mace.

Yeah, I know. "Hunting." Did I miss a meeting where it was decided that hunting no longer involved the ending of animal life, in order to supply human beings with food/clothing? The point is, if pushed, I could name about a dozen things that, when used exactly as intended, do very little other than directly end life, and do so MUCH faster than a lifetime's worth of cigarettes or other tobacco products. In fact, a single cigarette, to the best of my knowledge, has NEVER killed anyone. Try to say the same about a single firearm or a single bullet.

Having watched the video again, forcing myself to skip past the cigarette bitching, I found that Bob's points were almost well done. I say "almost" because, when taken in concert with his commentary on how people aren't responsible for smoking, and cigarette companies are the devil, he really does show himself to be exceedingly hypocritical.

You should be a politician speaking so much without actually saying anything.
I will reiterate this concisely.
When it comes to marketing and personal choice. Certain things are different.
It's not all the same.

Hey movie bob, I'm only posting because you have said before that you look at all your comments. You may recognize me(Highly unlikely) for a post or 2 a few weeks back where I said that I would no longer be watching your show. As you can see, that lasted all of 2 maybe 3 weeks. This episode looked intriguing so I decided to give it another shot. Great episode, couldn't agree with you more about society intervening to save people from their own stupidity. I have officially returned to watching your show, at least provisionally.

It's my choice to attend to McDonalds and buy their Caramel Frappe. I'm aware of the calories and the health risks, but I do so anyways? Why? Well, it's very delicious for one thing, but also because I set myself to work out through the week to burn those calories and I always don't have it just because.

See, Movie Bob is right- we can't blame everyone for some issue because there will always be an issue brought up and using someone or something as an escapegoat just won't cut it. We got to set responsibilities, and yes I can see people trying to work things out because they don't want those kids ending up unhealthy because of their parents but we all can't be superheros. The best thing we can actually do is perfect our lives and treat our own kids to be healthy and well aware of things so in hopes that they grow maturely and do the same thing.
That and donate to charity/attend to those who are less fortunate. I shall not just ignore those who are helpless and hurting because of choices they make, we can't just shun them for it but rather help them out (it depends on what it is, okay? lol)

I'm of the same opinion; tobacco is different than fast food, because fast food isn't chemically addictive like tobacco is. Having it every now and then won't form a habit, but like gambling and WoW, people can form an emotional dependancy.

There are actually some studies showing that fast food can be addictive (though I don't know how reliable they are).

But Bob, don't you see? All this nonsense is essentially suggesting that said bureaucrat or whatever is the one raising our kids. It's the same thing whenever video games get blamed for aggression in kids. All this is essentially suggesting that someone other than the parents are the ones raising the kids. Who takes the little shits to McDonald's? Mr./Mrs. shitty parent. Who let's them play violent video games? Again the parents. Who has the power to not let them have McDonald's all the time? Parents again. Who has control over what video games kids can and cannot play? Take a wild guess.

Woah woah woah....

Disclaimer: Although I don't always see eye to eye with Bob, I appreciate his reviews and articles, and read/watch all of them. I like his humour and presentation.

Sorry Bob, you are way off with this one.

Straight up, as Idiocracy put into words far better than I ever could, evolution doesn't favour the intelligent. I get that you have a massive superiority complex, and you idolise Objectivism to an extent, but really that just makes you more likely to not be one of the incredibly intelligent types. Sorry, don't mean to be harsh, but that's the truth of it.

Anyway, less deviating. Intelligence doesn't define evolution. Nor does stupidity. The only people who really believe that, can't understand evolution. Yeah, yeah, I know about the Darwin Awards, but that's tongue in cheek self satisfactory patting on the back between people who need to laugh at others misfortune to feel better about their own lack of achievement.

Evolution works on a simple principle. We have a cumulative evolution by non random survival of random hereditary changes. Simply put, it's all down to luck and biology, and the genes that will win are the ones with better odds. Or, more simply, the one that bred more. This isn't a certainty in all cases, but a statistical probability in most. Sooo... to the McDonalds thing. You're doing the very brattish, conservative thing of screaming "blame the parents", when reality dictates that a mixture of influences define a child's upbringing. Sure, if parents feed their kids crap then the kids will get fat, BUT children for the most part don't enjoy eating what's good for you. Again, it's science. We are predisposed to think that anything that contains the flavours and colours that are found in vegetables, might be poisonous. Our bodies don't like them as much. This changes when you're an adult, but we're talking about kids here. Similarly, you can eat junk food as a primary staple of your diet and remain slightly fit, depending on food quantity and exercise. Fast food places already offer healthy alternatives as well as smaller portions, but children will only eat what they choose to.

What I don't get, is how you want the government to affect parenting. Take some kind of test or license to breed? Be assessed constantly? All of the ways to do this (and none of them are reasonable) threaten far more damage to family life and people in general, than the current status quo.

The truth is, the obesity problem can be cured with what we have now. Children need more exercise, they need ONLY healthy options in school, but a wide range and variety of them, and they need people to stop bellyaching about whose fault it is, and start actually fixing the problem. Of course, in a two party system, that's easier said than done.

I do agree that fast food marketing has little to nothing to do with child obesity though. Just watch the path your mind sometimes wanders down, thar be the far-right down thar (pirate themed as I know you love PotC so much)

What it ultimately boils-down to is that this is a free country, and that means that you are free to make stupid mistakes. Some people (usually the vocal idiots) don't like that they are free to make stupid mistakes, so they insist that the government pass laws to protect themselves... from themselves.

Frankly, I'm even of the opinion that even the Joe Camel ban was perhaps a little too far. I personally grew-up with Joe Camel supposedly advertising directly to me, and you wanna guess my opinion on smoking? I think it's the most disgusting thing a person can do (okay, not THE most, but within reason it's the worst). Heck, plenty of my peers who were supposedly under the same targeting would agree with me. The kids who were "saved" by not being influenced by Joe Camel are doomed by being influenced by something else bad anyway, so all that really happened by banning Joe Camel is that the company's rights were violated.

Also, I tend to hate this "kids don't know any better" argument. Children are a lot smarter than most adults like to give them credit for. Heck, some kids even know that they're smarter than adults give them credit for and specifically use that to their advantage. Are children as experienced as adults? Certainly not, but they aren't idiots. Going back to Joe Camel, I honestly never even gave the ads any thought. I'd see them, I'd know they were about smoking, so I brushed them off. And why? Because I knew that smoking was for grown-ups only.

Heck, Joe Camel be damned. I grew-up in the era where children's cartoons weren't afraid to portrait a character smoking and/or drinking. We're talking Looney Toons and Disney here, people! Heck, I think even a Tom and Jerry or two had smoking in them. And yet, here I am, having grown-up with all this so-called "glorified imagery" of people smoking and drinking in the shows I grew-up watching, and yet I don't smoke, and I drink very little. So yeah... Joe Camel was fine.

just an idea i once had to combat obesity. In ancient celtic times you were charged additional tax if your waist larger than average, the idea being if you can afford to be fat you can aford the extra tax. methinks that this should be implemented somewhere(just to see if it works) perhaps use B.M.I or whatever's better for finding if a person is overweight.

whatever you do don't use the B.M.I it sucks, according to the B.M.I Arnolad Schwartzenager (probably spelled his name wrong) would have been obese when he was declared the world's strongest man

Good vid. Although there is one problem with the evolutionary thing.

Evaluation takes place with natural selection.

natural selection takes place when something can add their DNA to the gene pool.

If Dumbassasourus can get laid before it's demise, most likly after uttering the immortal words of "Check this out," and awsomesourusrex is a-sexual, on an evolutionary standpoint the dumbass is the better of the two.

It sucks, but that's nature: You may be the biggest, baddest thing out there, but if you can't make a second generation you suck as an animal.


I'm of the same opinion; tobacco is different than fast food, because fast food isn't chemically addictive like tobacco is. Having it every now and then won't form a habit, but like gambling and WoW, people can form an emotional dependancy.

There are actually some studies showing that fast food can be addictive (though I don't know how reliable they are).

I know, in the same way video games and gambling can be addictive, and so can food in general, not just fast food. It all changes how your brain functions, but they have nothing about them that makes them chemically addictive.

Having just a good steak makes your brain release dopamine and makes you feel good, and if you start eating when you're sad or upset and comfort yourself with it, you'll be addicted to certain foods eventually. Think of it kinda like sex addiction.

There's a difference between chemical and emotional addictions, but have similar results

This episode is pure win. the only thing I could have asked for is if he would have asked them to bring back dangerous toys for kids. The elimination of stupid children at young ages could save the rest of us from having to deal with stupid adults.

It's more the other shit in fastfood that's bad for you.

I'd also argue it's probably more addictive and worse for you in the long run than cigs too. But that's really just personal opinion there. The only thing that I'd say you can't argue with me on, is that it's generally a problem amongst lower income families. Due to it's relative cheapness and ease of prep.

The problem isn't that morons are feeding their kids shit because they're fucking idiots. It's that some work long hours in low paying jobs. So they don't have the time or the money to prepare them nutritious meals. Macy's, BK or KFC are just a fast and simple alternative.

And weight is proboably a larger health issue than smoking alone.

So it is a problem whether we like to agree with it or not.

But, I agree with you. They aren't going about it the right way. It's not the way the product is marketed. It's the general benefits that going for that type of food has on a busy family.

What we should really be doing is looking at making healthy fast food joints. Like they have in Japan. Focusing maybe on fish, egg and vegetables. And making it a much cheaper alternative to things like KFC. Fuck, even making more Deli type joints like subway. and making their healthiest sandwiches substantially cheaper than the unhealthy ones. Maybe even forcing the prices of macy's and such up a bit. So it isn't the cheapest and most convenient option.

Then the excuse isn't really there.

good till you made that pirate joke at the end

I'm old enough to remember Joe Camel. This is the one part of the video I have to disagree with Bob on. The whole "Joe Camel was aiming an adult product at kids because he was a cartoon character" can be countered with two words: South Park.

This show proves that just because your character is a "cartoon character" doesn't mean they're aimed at kids.

I never found Joe Camel appealing as a kid. Why? I can thank good parenting here.

I was taught that cigarettes and cigars were not for me, period. Cigarettes equaled grown up stuff for me. I was a kid and thus didn't care for grown up stuff.

This means every time I saw Joe Camel in a magazine or billboard ad I ignored it. Why? Because he had a cigarette in his mouth. That meant he wasn't talking to me.

As I always say, Let the dumbass's smoke, and the Fatties eat Burgers because why fight natural selection?



I'm of the same opinion; tobacco is different than fast food, because fast food isn't chemically addictive like tobacco is. Having it every now and then won't form a habit, but like gambling and WoW, people can form an emotional dependancy.

There are actually some studies showing that fast food can be addictive (though I don't know how reliable they are).

I know, in the same way video games and gambling can be addictive, and so can food in general, not just fast food. It all changes how your brain functions, but they have nothing about them that makes them chemically addictive.

Having just a good steak makes your brain release dopamine and makes you feel good, and if you start eating when you're sad or upset and comfort yourself with it, you'll be addicted to certain foods eventually. Think of it kinda like sex addiction.

There's a difference between chemical and emotional addictions, but have similar results

There's also the habituality of it; this is the addiction that is often hardest to break with smokers (and lasts much after the chemical affects have dispersed). With respect to fast food, however, this effect also comes down to (somewhat) bad parenting.

Bob, you're fat, probably morbidly obese, and that's why you can't have a non-biased opinion on the subject. I never actually saw you, but I'd bet 100 bucks on that.
Also, I'm no vegetarian, but it's being proven for nearly a decade now that just eating meat takes as many years from your lifespan as smoking; that said, it's not hard to imagine that fast-food-based diets are more damaging than that. Honestly, I don't give a fuck, but let's keep in mind that if all people were like me, generally speaking, this world would be far worse than it is now.

This episode is pure win. the only thing I could have asked for is if he would have asked them to bring back dangerous toys for kids. The elimination of stupid children at young ages could save the rest of us from having to deal with stupid adults.

Dude, I love you.

Is it just me or is it that the more MovieBob goes on, the more one-sided, nerd-justicar does his show get?
I mean, he openly admitted that he worships Nintendo and thus limited his credibility in the gaming field in my eyes.
But lately he seems too much of a Saint Nerd, who knows what's right for everybody, cause... he's Bob.

Maybe just me though.

I think it's important to understand the causes of obesity before we start attacking things. Today, more than ever, we live in an information economy. That means most people spend their days sitting in front of a screen of some sort. This general lack of activity leads to greater rates of obesity. While diet has it's place, the core of the problem likely is a mix of the two. Just picking a target to attack isn't going to fix anything.

there was a comedian on Graham Norton that once said "I was to have kids just so I can go to all those parents that used their kids to say they were right and tell them that because I'm a parent I am right."

Basically his argument was that no matter the issue, parents will say they are right just because they have had kids and you haven't, and I can definitely agree that parents think they are the all holy controllers of their kids lives and there or have the right to complain when food they give them is unhealthy or tv is too violent.

I really think you need a liscense to have kids, and have to take a test and class to prove that you will be a good one, but in some way that throw a wrench in your "let natural selection happen" plan.

Actually that was why movies like Idocracy scare the s**t out of me, because they could actually happen.

BTW they are actually getting ride of Ronald McDonald. See McDonalds is trying to turn itself into a healthy cafe like establishment with his actual chicken in chicken nuggets and salad options. They are actually getting rid of Ronald because he promotes the image of fatty fast food.

Anyone else feel this one wasn't as good as Bob's usual episodes? He kind of just relayed something he saw on the news to us, then gave his opinion.
Talk about nerdy stuff Bob, it's more fun.

I don't know how things are in the US (if somebody could inform me, that would be swell, pard'ner) but where i live (France) the Government really cracked down on fast food restaurants. Rather than destroying them outright they just made them serve healthier food, you can buy salads at McD's, organic fruit, all kinds of health foods, and rather than burgers being the focus point you can buy veggie burgers, steak, fish, McD's has basically become a regular restaurant that happens to serve burgers.
Damn good burgers might i add.

Eating too much of ANYTHING is going to have negative effects, you can even die from drinking too much damn water. (It's seriously a lot of water though, a LOT.)
People should be personally responsable for what they do and what they eat, if they can't control themselves, how is the company to blame? Do people ignore the vast majority of customers who are fit, healthy people?

And on the other hand, Bob...

Really good episode, the only thing I disagree with is calling "Darwin's Hammer" amoral. It's Apomoral, it transcends the idea of morality instead of merely being absent of morals. Yes I know, Grammar Nazism

Being a fairly libertarian minded fellow it's nice to hear someone like you (very liberal) advocate for personal responsibility. You have an awesome streak of great Big Picture's going! Keep it up! =D

Ah... I love this argument. And in fact, I'm not against Ronald McDonald. In fact, I like him.

I think the problem is that society seems to want to head into the direction of Demolition Man where there is only one franchise left (please don't let it be Taco Bell) and then not even have the option to get salt for it.

I live in Canada and we have Tim Horton's; our favourite coffee and donut shop. About ten years ago they did something that saddened me greatly. They started to bake their donuts. It completely changed the taste and consistency of the donut. It started to taste something more like cake and less like the donut I loved.

You may be wondering why I bring this up? The answer lies in why Tim Horton's started to bake instead of fry their products. I looked into it and found out that they were joining the ever-growing bandwagon of food chains that wanted to be healthier. So they started to use baked donuts instead of fried.

Now this argument of theirs sounds good in theory, but stupid upon actual inspection. The argument could be made that some place like McDonald's has food that could appear to be healthy (you have your meat, cheese, veggies, and bread), but never ever could you do that for a donut.

When I get a Homer-like craving to go binge on half a dozen donuts I'm not thinking "Golly gee, I sure would like some donuts but I gotta find the healthy ones". I'm thinking that I want to down some junk food that satisfies my taste buds. So it is idiotic to try and make something that is inherently unhealthy healthier at the cost of the actual quality of the product.

Well, no one has realized it's american culture to cram food down your throat. It is even apparent in our TV shows such as man vs food, and Anthony bourdain (who is not necessarily all about pigging out but when he is in an american city all he talks about is pig out spots.) I am not saying it is their fault but it is reflective our culture. Americans traditionally love to pig out. ESPN sponsors the hot dog competition every year with full coverage. Not to mention America has the largest market for competitive eating.

If we should blame anything we should blame ourselves and our culture. NOT our restaurants and chains that resemble our culture, because businessmen will be businessmen. If they see a large demand in cheap, greasy food they will absolutely increase the supply of cheap greasy food. The use of supply and demand is the most basic economic principle and putting it on the businessmen is a poorly informed statement.

If you want these corporations to start cooking better burgers than show it through demand or a survey. It does not need to be anything radical. For example if you could convince them to use buffalo meat instead of cow meat they would start serving buffalo burgers. (Which are lower in fat, and based on opinion better tasting.)

I will not blame McDonald's one little bit for anyone over the age of 18 getting fat on their products. That said, I'll make an argument that Joe Camel and Ronald McDonald ARE the same in some ways. I know that burgers are legal while underage smoking is not, and I also know that McDonald's is dealing above board in their marketing to kids while Camel was being sneaky about it. Therefore, I'll restrict my argument to the following: Both McDonald's and Camel used their mascots to encourage kids to become habitual users of a product that is demonstrably bad for them.

Eating even one fast food meal offers the same health/pleasure trade-off as a cigarette, and adults like Bob (and me) can make this choice as we wish. Eating one probably won't hurt you (barring allergies), and eating one very occasionally will have little effect on you, but regular moderate to heavy use WILL have a negative health impact. Also, both are habit forming and chemically addictive. Kids cannot properly understand what fast food is; they (and some adults) see it as just another kind of food, instead of the nutritionally worthless, calorie excessive junk that it is.

Also, consider that these cartoon characters have a long term strategy in mind. Joe Camel's targets are in their 30s right now, and many of them are still smokers. How many of those kids had access to cigarettes when they saw their first ad? The same number that could walk to their local McDonald's and buy a Happy Meal, i.e. the ones with bad parents. However, plenty of kids with good parents saw the ads too, but couldn't act on them right away. Later during their middle school years, the cartoon influences worked their magic, and plenty of well-parented 13-year olds used spending money on both Camel (illicitly) and McDonald's (right out in the open).

This issue isn't about moderation: most kids don't understand moderation. If one of something is good, twenty is better. When we let kids make choices (and McDonald's is baldly attempting to influence the choices of children), they shouldn't be held accountable for life if they or their stupid parents make bad ones. Unfortunately, that's what happens a lot today. What are you going to say to a 75 lb. 4-year-old? "Sorry, Sally, but you're going to have to pay for your parents idiocy and my right to get a Thickburger with a lifetime of diabetes and heart disease."

I'll make a radical claim: every child deserves to graduate high school at a healthy weight. Kids won't necessarily claim that for themselves; their families and communities need to help provide them a healthy diet. ALL parts of a community need to pitch in: families, schools, churches, and businesses. And when one community member seems to be willfully disregarding this right to aid its bottom line, you better believe I want the government to come in and crack the whip. If that means sending Ronald McDonald to the same pasture as Joe Camel, I'm all for it.

I'm of the same opinion; tobacco is different than fast food, because fast food isn't chemically addictive like tobacco is.

I'll find them for you if you want, but a Google search will help you find a dozen studies that say fast food is chemically addictive. Not just in an emotional/comfort capacity either; people who've eaten diets with high sugar get the shakes when the sugar is taken out of their food. I'm not saying that this should make fast food illegal; I'll be ticked if someone tries to take away my very addictive caffeine. Marketing these things to kids, though? No.

(Music)"send in the clown~..." I too also hate politicians for pointing fingers, and you did made a good point when you said "what next? Blame Mario for our kids lacking excise?". Yes Joe Camel should die and forever burn in hell, yes, let the clown go, yes don't trample on our hobbies... But as I was agreeing to these points, I started thinking...

They could have made this "kids getting fat" issue just an "awareness movement", but they did, years ago, (I could even say, when they did that whole "Golden Pyramid" thing) but they weren't successful. They try telling us off from meat, promoting vegetables, promoting healthier food, that didn't stop us from over eating. Individuals stood out and alert people; "super size me", "my ears of meat"..etc making EXTREME MANEUVERS to go as far as to say "meat is the problem, go vegan!"... still didn't work. as our schools changing from "coke vending machines", to "water vending machines" (no joke, I live in California, this is happening in my home town!). They (government?) are resorting to "forcefully remove excessive sugar, calories, fat...etc. from our kids' diet. and you know, they did studies where kids who eats right, and have no excessive sugar/ bad eating habits preform better in class.

I still think kicking the clown in the ass is not right, and up front violation of the second amendment... but I can't say this wasn't because everything else failed, and they were left with not much other options...

Wow. Um, how exactly is that an "and up front violation of the second amendment..." which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Sorry, but I don't get what you're saying there. At all.

Otherwise great show again Bob, but I think I'm going to skip most of the comments from now on since about 80% of them are always people just saying the exact same thing you just pointed out in the video! Keep it up!

Alright Bob, I am very on board with you. The issue with me is that they call it 'food'. They list health stats on the little poster by the checkout, and display wonderous concoctions of set designers in the ads. Soda is not Food, we know that so we dont try to life off it. Chocolate bars, twinkies and all the rest of the crap we eat that isn't strictly speaking 'food' doesn't claim to be. They are called things like 'snacks' and 'candy'. If something is 'food' you SHOULD be able to survive eating it and therein lies the deception.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here