Anyone Watching Rome On HBO

[Panda]

Originally posted by alva

The episodes on the BBC are serously censored btw.
Also, the episodes don't run synchronised.

I saw the first two but wasn't really impressed and I really had high hopes.

Weak dialogue, rather poor acting, too much nudity (if you're gonna show one boob, might as well show a 100, it will adult rated anyway. ).

The problem with the BBC is that they cut the first three episodes to make two episodes, apparently justified because British audiences did not need as much information as Americans. The director of those episodes, Michael Apted, is pissed off and grumpy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1859513,00.html

Apparently HBO are a bit grumpy with the Beeb as well, as this reflects on them, after all.

I can't see this running on indefinately, as it is historical, so while season one deals with Caesar/Pompey I would imagine that season two will deal with Octavian/Anthony. I wonder if Livia will be included...Great stuff

[Dr Strangelove]

I don't have HBO. When I heard about this series I thought about adding it to our cable service, but I got busy and distracted. Has the firsrt season finished? Does anyone know if they plan on repeating the first season? I might consider adding HBO if I can catch the reruns.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I don't have HBO. When I heard about this series I thought about adding it to our cable service, but I got busy and distracted. Has the firsrt season finished? Does anyone know if they plan on repeating the first season? I might consider adding HBO if I can catch the reruns.

First season ends tonight.

They may repeat it, but I haven't heard when... check out hbo.com to find out, I'd say.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Ah, yes. Ignore the argument and quote someone elses half-sentence reply to it instead. I am clearly in the presense of a master debater.

I read your post about all the qualifications you listed. I made my post with the assumption that yes, the car would be in the same condition so I didn't think your post warranted a response.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

In the obvious way. If you are unaware that you have lost something, you do not suffer the loss, but it is still there (car).

How can the car still be there if someone stole it?

[Tattila the Hun]

A bit off-topic ( ), but how much of Rome is actually historically accurate? And how much is written? Obviously major things, like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, and perhaps general knowledge of affairs and minglings of the nobility, and things like the riot that prevented Marcus Antonius from casting his veto, but things like, the riot starting because someone came after Pullo surely do not have historic base.

But how about Pompeius not having the funds for his legions, because they were stolen, and then returned to Rome? Did such event really happen?

Apparently, atleast Vorenus and Pullo existed, soldiers in Caesar's army...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Vorenus

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by MrFun
How can the car still be there if someone stole it?

The loss is still there. Stop being obtuse, and point out what HBO has actually lost.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The loss is still there.

If the person is unaware of the car being missing, there is no real loss. If you are unaware of it, it isn't really a loss. It's a hypothetical loss.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I've been downloading it.

but right, you don't mind that do ya ;p

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If the person is unaware of the car being missing, there is no real loss. If you are unaware of it, it isn't really a loss. It's a hypothetical loss.

Of course it's a loss, it's just an unsuffered loss. Possibly, if the owner has absolutely no way of becoming aware of the loss, then there is no loss. And in which case, I would agree with Ludd - no crime was committed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Of course it's a loss, it's just an unsuffered loss. Possibly, if the owner has absolutely no way of becoming aware of the loss, then there is no loss. And in which case, I would agree with Ludd - no crime was committed.

But it would still be a crime. Say the owner is in a coma. Kids take his car and drive around. The owner dies later. It's still joyriding, even though the owner has absolutely no way of becoming aware that the car was gone.

I'd think that in order for it to be a loss, you have to be aware that the object in question is missing, and not after the fact. I think most people would think it silly for a person who'd been sleeping to say there was a loss of my property when my neighbor took my saw for cutting some logs and then returned the saw to my garage before I woke.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Guynemer


QFB

Quoted
For
Bull****

6. QFT link send redefine 6 up, 6 down
QFT = QFE for idiots. Devised by those who lack an understanding of the word "Emphasis". Quoted for Emphasis is essentially the same as Quoted for Truth, only it makes sense. If you are quoting something "for truth", you are quoting it for, get this - EMPHASIS.

'QFT' is usually used by children (i.e, under 13) who have clearly not had internet access long enough. Thus it is usually found on forums with something to do with children's games - namely CS, and various MMOs.
"u suck lol get a life!! u r so awseom lololr lmao"

QFT lol u rok lmao

[Immortal Wombat]

But it would still be a crime. Say the owner is in a coma. Kids take his car and drive around. The owner dies later. It's still joyriding, even though the owner has absolutely no way of becoming aware that the car was gone.

If there is no proof, and the kids are innocent until proven guilty, then the kids are innocent. If the kids are not found guilty, then nobody could be found guilty, and thus nobody can be found to have committed that crime. Further, if there is no evidence after the fact that the crime occurred, then how can you justify the claim that a crime has been committed at all?


I think most people would think it silly for a person who'd been sleeping to say there was a crime committed when my neighbour took my saw for cutting some logs and then returned the saw to my garage before I woke.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If there is no proof, and the kids are innocent until proven guilty, then the kids are innocent. If the kids are not found guilty, then nobody could be found guilty, and thus no crime was committed.

Who said there was no proof. Someone else could see the kids with the car, while the owner was in a coma.

I think most people would think it silly for a person who'd been sleeping to say there was a crime committed when my neighbour took my saw for cutting some logs and then returned the saw to my garage before I woke.

I totally disagree. Most would consider that a crime, and it is one. You took the saw without permission, that's a crime, and most would agree.

[Immortal Wombat]

If there is proof, I don't disagree with you, it is a crime.

However, if the kids are seen by someone else, then from the point of view of that observer, the owner has lost his car. It is a crime because there is loss.


Apologies for all the DanSage. I probably should be asleep.