Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh, and in the interests of disclosure, I work for a bank. But I don't work for MasterCard and honestly it makes no difference to me whether people use a Visa or a MasterCard. (In fact the bank I work for has a preferential relationship with Visa.)
-
always go MasterCard
Do explain..
In regards to disputes between a cardholder and a merchant, the card issuer can sometimes assist. This assistance is governed by the credit card scheme rules. (It's a very useful aspect of credit cards especially when buying online and even more so when buying from overseas sellers. It's not so easy to take legal action against the overseas company - it's not like you can take them to the disputes tribunal.)
In general, MasterCard's scheme rules favour the cardholder, giving them the benefit of the doubt and putting more onus on the merchant to make their case (did you scratch that rental car or was the damage already there, etc). Visa are the other way around (keep that in mind if you see a "This merchant prefers Visa" sign.)
Having said that, there may be other considerations. For example, it might pay to check whether the particular bank issuing the card charges the same 'currency conversion fee' for foreign currency transactions. I think some banks may still charge slightly more on MasterCard, but I'm sure not all do.
-
which they practically give free to infants, dogs and serial bankrupts, right?
Don't be silly!
They would not give them away free.
-
...that this amounts to a SPECTACULAR lowering of the standards for platinum status.
Gold cards were once the 'status' cards. Now Gold cards are perceived to have little to no prestige value anymore, and Platinum cards are the new Gold cards. So you're Golden, Giovanni.
pre-approved form for a shiny new pair of Visa ...
Do they have a MasterCard option? If so, always go MasterCard. That's a bit of general, all be it unsolicted, advice*.
*Made in good faith but with absolutely no responsibility whatsoever on the part of this poster. But I'm right.
-
Heh heh. "ackward" and "jouralism". What a numbscull.
-
Complete change of subject, but while I'm here, here is the latest case of class jouralism, Children paid to watch TV violence shock.
Okay, as a story in itself, it might be fine, and it would make sense on page 5 or somesuch, as a straight bit of reportage.
But front page of the Dom Post, with the intro blarring "Children as young as 14 have been subjected to footage of rape, sadism and domestic violence as part of research directed by two broadcasting watchdogs." Come on.
Once you read the full story, most of it is 'nothing to see here' stuff, and then there's the pointless inclusion of comment from Family First's Bob McCoskrie. He said the fact that parents had consented for their children to take part "says something about the parents".
Well, thank God someone is thinking of the children.
-
I didn't find that at all. I didn't feel that the movie seemed anywhere near finished that early. I do think it dragged on too long, and the 10 or 15 minutes after the Jokers last appearence, with Gordon's family and Batman's final confrontation with Two-Face, was ackward (and had me thinking of the end of Return of the King). It wasn't really a coda, but more like another climatic scene. It's obvious the Nolan's couldn't quite figure out how to get everything they wanted in, but they gave it a good try.
-
Any any technique is "appropriate" if there's a purpose to it, and I'm not sure Foster had one. Apart from "action verite" being hip -- and if you've got to try and be cool, you're not.
I agree. I felt Greengrass had a vision for his Bourne entries, that made the approach an honest stylistic choice (plus he executed it better). I don't think Forster used that style for any reason other than it is the "style du jour". I assume with the Bond films, though, that the producers have a huge say in that kind of thing too. They may have basically insisted on the approach.
I think you're underrating Ledger as Joker, though. Nicholson hammed it up as a sadistic psycho. Ledger's performance was far superior. It can be easy to dismiss ostentatious, maniacal performances, but I think it must be difficut for an actor to get these things just right. Ledger did. I like to see him nominated, anyway.
Cloverfield was a good film. It did make me nauseous, though. I'm also glad it wasn't any longer, but of course it didn't need to be long.
For some reason, The Blair Witch Project did not give me nausea. (Though I did feel kinda sick when I realised how much money they made from that piece of crap.)
-
Yep, I'm right. From IMDb trivia:
"First James Bond movie to take its title from an original Ian Fleming short story since The Living Daylights (1987), a gap of twenty-one years. It is also the first time since this movie that James Bond has visited the opera."
-
I think that is an honest Flemming title. I heard it was based on one of his short stories (though changed beyond recognition).