Mrebo

Post Praetorian said:

Mrebo said:

Post Praetorian said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

If this is a block universe -- with all points in the past, present, and future co-existing at once in the sea of eternity -- then the question is meaningless; neither the chicken nor the egg came first.

 It is certainly possible.

Although in such a universe in which lunch may follow supper it is quite meaningless to consider meaning...yet here we are so doing so if one is willing to make one such assumption it might be fair to make another.

A further point to consider might be, if we are indeed living face forwards, what might be expected to come last? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or might both be cooked together and served with toasts' toasted toast?

what of bacon?

 Perhaps chicken bacon?

I meant Francis Bacon ;)

I am the Keymaster. Are

suitcase filled with cans of

Post Praetorian said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

If this is a block universe -- with all points in the past, present, and future co-existing at once in the sea of eternity -- then the question is meaningless; neither the chicken nor the egg came first.

 It is certainly possible.

Although in such a universe in which lunch may follow supper it is quite meaningless to consider meaning...yet here we are so doing so if one is willing to make one such assumption it might be fair to make another.

A further point to consider might be, if we are indeed living face forwards, what might be expected to come last? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or might both be cooked together and served with toasts' toasted toast?

what of bacon?

God must have a sense of humor that it is both austere and erudite. I hope he chimes in.

Hopefully the year will bring new inspiration for all.

Warbler said:

*possible spoilers*

Well I saw the Christmas Special.   Weird one.    Barely made any sense.   From now on it looks the entire series could be in a dream world and we'd never know.  wonderful.

*possible spoilers*

 My thoughts went to the Dream Lord.

I kinda agree with Anchorhead on much of what he says on Clara and Danny Pink. But I also agree with Erik Pancakes. In S7, Clara was more of a plot device, now she is more of a character.

Regarding the last regular episode and the more recent discussion regarding [redacted], I don't care for casual treatment of death or the casual killing of characters; generally I don't care for death. I make an exception for the Vashta Nerada. The occasional use of death can be interesting, but it mostly leaves a bad taste for me. I agree with the Warbler that [redacted] didn't have to die.

TV's Frink said:

I feeling lazy, so...

Django Unchained 7/8

My favorite scene was that totally unnecessary funny one.

Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage 7.2/8
Antiviral 5.5/8
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug 7.3/8

My expectations The Hobbit movie are low, hoping that it is somewhat better than Harmy found it.

A surprising number. I hope they know you're coming, Frink.

AntcuFaalb said:

Mrebo said:

Like Santa Claus, I am omnipresent. Also, I am very close to you guys.

Cool! Whereat?

 Just inside the Beltway, Bethesda, Silver Spring, Takoma...that area.

Like Santa Claus, I am omnipresent. Also, I am very close to you guys.

JayArgonaut said:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/star-wars-stereotypes-not-force-201412172145780714.html

Can't quite work out what to make of this article. It's irritating alone for repeating the wildly inaccurate claim that the Jar Jar Binks character is offensive to Caribbean people. My parents and extended family are from the Caribbean and none of them sound even remotely close to Ahmed Best providing the voice talent for an alien species...  

I object to your use of the word "talent" :P

I agree the racist claims are at least exaggerated, though eyebrows are understandably raised on some accents. I think a better example is in the  Polar Express where at least one elf seems to be Jewish (he speaks Yiddish) and says "time is money!"

KilroyMcFadden said:

Perception is reality.  If most people think it's racist, then it has the effect of being racists even if it isn't.  The Zeitgeist is a harsh mistress.

Agreed and I think zeitgeist is playing an increasing role in our society.

Maybe it was remarked upon on these forums someplace else, but there is a  claim that there is a controversy over Boyega in Stormtrooper armor. I wish we could ignore this nonsense and not give it so much play.

One theory.

No seriously, I agree that I always thought he was just really old and full of the Dark Side.

That last episode was just horrid.

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

Ultimately, one does just gotta have faith when it comes to religion. The outstanding question for me is always: okay, well why should I have faith in this or that particular set of beliefs?

When it comes to something like the Garden of Eden being in America, such assertions will not make sense to the many of us who are not Mormons. But it is useful to recognize that every religion has such faith-bound elements that are not supported (and sometimes even contradicted by) known facts. I suspect such a critique of Mormonism might be more pronounced because it is a newer religion with an unusually America-centric slant that many construe as a corruption of Christianity, or as you say "weird."

My question is why have you chosen to put your faith into Mormonism?

 I was indeed born into this Church.  On my mission, however, I had a great challenge and had to decide if I was willing to believe what I'd been taught or if I was wasting my time.  This was in large part where I gained much of my interest in Church history, the critiques of my church which were quite popular in Atlanta, GA, and the faith supporting research that was taking place.  As you've said, all religions take a certain amount of faith in spite of what may not seem logical.  As mortals, we often forget that our understanding is limited, and we are often surprised when what was once thought impossible is in fact inevitable.  Sometimes you have to suspend what you don't understand at the present till an answer comes along later.

It often feels like there is a Catch-22 when it comes to discussing religion. When a person goes scratching below the surface from a logical but non-believing viewpoint, he may find all kinds of apparent problems. It's not that the religion can't offer an answer, but the answer is unsatisfying in the absence of faith. Or the non-believer can say, "but what about secular facts A, B, C, and D?" Maybe those facts aren't all relevant or maybe the religious person believes that they're not all facts. And then there is only argument (much of it stupid, tbh).

Alternatively, one might express an honest interest from a more or less academic viewpoint, wishing to understand another's beliefs and weigh them silently. If he ends up being persuaded, fine, but he isn't really engaging or trying to believe, as he may not be dissuaded accepting at least the possibility of certain secular facts. And then, is that person merely humoring the believer?

 Humor me all you like.  Most posters here probably do that a bit.  But I wanted this to be a pretty candid thread, and I only ask for respect.  I'm pretty keen when posters here are actually trying to be clever and underhanded, but I don't worry about those who might clumsily step on toes.  I want honest inquiry, and those who offer it don't have to worry about offending me.

 Good attitude. My post was motivated in part from a recent spat with someone who got rather upset at me for not revealing points on which I don't agree, while I thought I was being respectful by listening to them and asking questions.

There's a saying that non-Jews leave and never say goodbye, while Jews say goodbye and never leave. I'm glad you are doing neither.

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

Ultimately, one does just gotta have faith when it comes to religion. The outstanding question for me is always: okay, well why should I have faith in this or that particular set of beliefs?

When it comes to something like the Garden of Eden being in America, such assertions will not make sense to the many of us who are not Mormons. But it is useful to recognize that every religion has such faith-bound elements that are not supported (and sometimes even contradicted by) known facts. I suspect such a critique of Mormonism might be more pronounced because it is a newer religion with an unusually America-centric slant that many construe as a corruption of Christianity, or as you say "weird."

My question is why have you chosen to put your faith into Mormonism?

 I was indeed born into this Church.  On my mission, however, I had a great challenge and had to decide if I was willing to believe what I'd been taught or if I was wasting my time.  This was in large part where I gained much of my interest in Church history, the critiques of my church which were quite popular in Atlanta, GA, and the faith supporting research that was taking place.  As you've said, all religions take a certain amount of faith in spite of what may not seem logical.  As mortals, we often forget that our understanding is limited, and we are often surprised when what was once thought impossible is in fact inevitable.  Sometimes you have to suspend what you don't understand at the present till an answer comes along later.

It often feels like there is a Catch-22 when it comes to discussing religion. When a person goes scratching below the surface from a logical but non-believing viewpoint, he may find all kinds of apparent problems. It's not that the religion can't offer an answer, but the answer is unsatisfying in the absence of faith. Or the non-believer can say, "but what about secular facts A, B, C, and D?" Maybe those facts aren't all relevant or maybe the religious person believes that they're not all facts. And then there is only argument (much of it stupid, tbh).

Alternatively, one might express an honest interest from a more or less academic viewpoint, wishing to understand another's beliefs and weigh them silently. If he ends up being persuaded, fine, but he isn't really engaging or trying to believe, as he may not be dissuaded accepting at least the possibility of certain secular facts. And then, is that person merely humoring the believer?

Warbler said:

I'm sorry.  Call me a sexist, but I can't accept a female Master. 

Sorry, that made me snigger.

However I wouldn't be able to accept a male Rani or Romana either.   I just can't agree with turning a male character into a femal character or vise versa.   It changes the character too much.   Also we have seen multiple regenerations of multiple characters in Doctor Who(the Doctor, the Master, Romana,  the President Borusa, Melody Pond/River Song).   Never in the history of the show have we seen a regeneration result in change of gender.  If regeneration can result in such, how come in never happened in all the regenerations we have seen until now.   This smells of political correctness to me.

It is my suspicion that a female Master was done as a concession prize for all those who wanted a female Doctor, which tilts in the direction of political correctness.

I've liked this Doctor. He was reckless in Moon but it at least set up the development in Forest. I agree it didn't have to go that way though. He's grappling with being a "good man" in the face of everything he's done and the jading effect of hundreds of years. I like to think there was a good "timey wimey" reason for his actions in Moon. But there is an unfortunate trend toward fatalism. We saw this in Sherlock's dealing with Magnussen and Superman's [spoiling] of Zod. All the skills and motivations of a character go out the window in order to have that contrived "difficult" moment of decision. I think it is a lazy attempt at being "real."

.Mac. said:

I fail to understand how anyone could be complaining about the title already, as if they already know the plot of the movie and what title suits it best.

And as for the word "Awakens" in the title, of course it's a metaphore and not to be taken literally. The continual puns about the Force having been asleep aren't getting any funnier.

Could be wrong in prejudging, but a metaphor as a title feels pretentious and a touch melodramatic. In the end, the title doesn't matter that much and I do want to stay positive. But by way of analogy, renaming "When Harry Met Sally" or "The Princess Bride" to "Love Awakens" would be groan worthy.

Interstellar. It was really really good. What was most impressive was how effortless it felt. It felt more real because all the futuristic technology wasn't a focus of the story or the characters. With so many movie stars in roles big and small, it was also impressive how the movie remained immersive. Whatever small imperfections were overshadowed by how good it was.

TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

the Harmy.

 I see what you did there, though I don't think you meant it.

 Nope :P

I agree with the Bingo and the Harmy. I fear the title is trying too hard and I see no reason for the Force to have been dormant. I'd prefer a more grounded title - like there being a new hope, or an empire striking back, or even the Jedi (who were actually practically extinguished) returning. HotRod is correct on the distressing matter of hair.

Yes, the music was written in the 1970s. There was some question about at least one missing scene (per another attendee) in the version I saw, perhaps that is why. Saw it on a big screen which made it really great. The little kid was the future Uncle Fester. Great child actor.

The Kid (1921) - first Charlie Chaplin movie I've seen. Impressive for its humor and drama. The music was great too and was written by Chaplin in the 1970s.

What thoughts do you all have on the accents of the cast members? Do you think any actors will have to adopt another accent for the part? There is speculation that Domhnall Gleeson could play Luke's son but I would think they would have chosen an American actor if that were the case.