-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
He is not. I once had a job at a local coffeeshop (the type where coffee isn't actually on the menu), and one of the things I learned was that there are more imaginative names for distinct groups of addicts than you can shake a joint at.
Soooooooooooo... what were we talking about, again?
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i also noticed that some addict descriptions are interchangable and some are not, based on the type of term. you have speed-freaks and crack-heads, but rarely could you say crack-freaks, although in some situations speed-heads can be used. junkie is usually used for heroin addicts, but there are a few situations where the suffix -junkie can be added to other drugs, but it has to be a certain class of drugs that is especially distasteful, crack-junkie doesnt work unless the person were using crack AND heroin, and who REALLY does that? but then it can be a prefix like junk-head or junk-freak.. but that is behavior specific also sometimes ... and there are behovior specific ones, like k-whores. '-fiend' can be used often enough.. dope-fiend, candy-fiend, junk-fiend, pot-fiend, cid-fiend.. but this one carries a negative connotation of a more violent or annoying type of user than the passive sense created by '-head'
a candyflip raver is an interim term until more proper terminology can be invented, but its halfway between a LSD-hippie and a candy raver, the unlikely combination that occurs when someone enjoys taking acid and ecstasy at the same time. its becoming a lot more common as a party practice, but the two cliques havent exactly crossed, those who do usually maintain their identity as either a roller or a tripper, and just venture into both every once in a while.
the things i learn while selling hot dogs to rich college students and runaways...
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Back to topic...
Any response yet?
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
The email address I used was from a VFX site that Legato does work for on the side, so I'm hoping that it's just an address that he doesn't check on a regular basis, & hasn't seen my email yet. However, I'm not holding my breath about a reply, so no one else should either.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Ok, it's been almost three week since I mailed Legato, and I still have yet to receive a reply. Although I'm still holding out hope, realistically I'm guessing that he will not respond to me. Therefore, I'm going to try to find the email addresses of Gary Hutzel, Dan Curry, & David Takemura, in an effort to find the same answers, as they probably worked with Legato on this same scene. I don't know how successful I'll be, but if anyone here has any info, please let me know.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
