He is 6'7", not 6'4".
-
benmasta — 11 years ago(January 10, 2015 03:09 PM)
only people born in the 1920's think this way.
this is the mentality that all people should go out of their way to cater to people who expect more from others than should be required.
no one in their right mind would light a cigarette in YOUR car without asking you. That has many repercussions (smell/allergic reaction/smoke in the car and needing a window open/etc.). If it is THEIR car, you are the beep for telling them how to act in their car, just because you dont want them to act that way. They are driving you arent they?
swearing is not even the same. People are only sensitive to swearing when they are around kids too often (or they are born in the 1920s). This is because it is a type of communication which usually accentuates personality traits. Its obvious that someone who swears is not your type of person, but to blame them for being who they are is just you trying to tell them that you are the epitome of the human condition and that they should act like you. -
theleftboot — 20 years ago(July 24, 2005 12:24 PM)
I recently saw the episode of MAS*H that he appeared on. In the scenes inside th "Swamp" he appeared to be 3-5 inches taller then both Alan Alda (6'2'') and Mike Farrell (6'3''). The height difference seemed especially noticable between Alda and Cromwell.
Another example, watch Star Trek: First Contact. Look at the scenes where he is standing next to Jonathan Frakes (Riker). Frakes is listed at 6'4'' and he is definitely at least 6'4''. In those scenes Cromwell is taller. -
KingKoala — 20 years ago(October 01, 2005 11:38 PM)
The concept of a room full of college students being offended by the f-word is completely absurd. Unless it's a menonite school, or something like that, I'd wager good money that at least 99% of them use the word just as regularly. And even if you don't use it, there is no logical reason to be offended by it. Some people are so puritanical.
And yes, he is definitely taller than 6'4". -
-
kencr7 — 20 years ago(November 17, 2005 09:45 PM)
And even if you don't use it, there is no logical reason to be offended by it. Some people are so puritanical.
We're talking about the effects of language on someone's system of "values" or "code of conduct". Some people don't use a logic system with regards to that, and some have differing "logic" systems.
A person can be offended by anything, and your use of the word "puritanical" indicates the reason for disapproval is exclusively religious in nature.
News Flash: It's possible to have a value system without religion.