Comments on: A Brief Ahhnold Timeline on Violence

By: Minnow

Minnow — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:41:26 +0000

Pinning could explain why his anti-helix is overly raised, MC.

By: MC Mom

MC Mom — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:39:20 +0000

Minnow, that creaking sound you hear is my back as I bow down to you. I might have noticed the closer set eyes…eventually.

And Ahnuld might never consider surgically altering the things you mentioned, but I’m betting dollars to doughnuts that *someone’s* had their ears done.

By: Minnow

Minnow — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:40:35 +0000

It’s a look-alike, MC.

Always look at the auricular folds of the ears. They’re unique to each person.

Unfortunately, the ears are not clearly shown in the top photo.

Too bad, because Ahnold has a very prominent anti-helix fold. Your helix is the outer rim of your ear, then you have a scaphal valley and then a raised anti-helix (working inwards). It’s not rare, but it is notable for an anti-helix ridge to stand proud of the helix ridge. In the second shot, you can clearly see Ahnold’s right side anti-helix (screen left).

In the two photos, I see 3 differences Ahnold is unlikely to ever surgically alter:

The model’s eyes are closer set.

Ahnold has free earlobes, the model’s are attached.

Ahnold has more prominent philtrum folds (the depression above the upper lip, running down from the nasal septum to the cupid’s bow).

Plus, the model has a few furrows between his brows which I think Conan the Vain would have botoxed out long ago.

By: MC Mom

MC Mom — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:19:41 +0000

Hey Oversneer, is that really Ahnuld in the photo? It looks like a mediocre SNL impersonation.

Of course, it may be that my monitor (or my eyesight) is finally failing me.

By: db

db — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:40:28 +0000

Comes down to Viewing vs Doing it but violent tendencies must be figured out; if anything movies add the emotional component to help slake their lust.

By: Runolfr

Runolfr — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:29:48 +0000

Let’s not forget that many of Arnold’s movies have associated video games that include the destruction of human images.

By: angry army wife

angry army wife — Tue, 26 May 2009 12:56:12 +0000

Beige – or Al Gore campaignig to save the Earth or John Edwards being paid to talk about poverty…..

By: Beige

Beige — Tue, 26 May 2009 00:17:05 +0000

Isn’t this a little like Ron Jeremy campaigning against porn? Or Pammy Anderson opening a steakhouse?

Oh. Never mind.

By: Aleric

Aleric — Sun, 24 May 2009 16:59:32 +0000

The problems California need to focus on are a bloated budget, corrupt politicians and out of control spending for the last 10 years. Their only solutions has been to raise taxes and spend more. Now that it has come to the breaking point they want to try and keep violent games out of kids hands???? This only goes to prove that politicians need to be brought back to reality and term limits need to be set for ALL offices.

By: Josie

Josie — Sun, 24 May 2009 00:14:37 +0000

Ugh. I am so over this whole mentality that the government is somehow responsible for keeping things out of ickle kiddies hands if it’s not safe for them.

If the parents decide it is a problem, then they should be actually parenting and stopping it. No video game yet can directly be given full responsiblity for any sociopathic action by a youth. Sure, it may be a trigger in some cases, but so can happy bunnies with sunshine daisies in their little paws skipping down the garden trail. You can’t predict what will cause someone to snap, no matter how much hot air Jack Thompson spews about Grand Theft or anything.

I don’t like GTA simply because I’ve always found the concept boring. But I will be damned if some lazy parent (or political types, no matter how much I like them) is going to somehow try to justify this crap by saying it’s to protect the children. You have a beef with it, YOU parent. The government shouldn’t have to play babysitter.