Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Jay said:
It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

I didn’t say that Kavanaugh was an alcoholic. Rather, I said that he had a problem with alcohol. And I stand by that claim – a high school student frequently drinking until staggering drunk, becoming belligerent as a result of the alcohol, to the point of possibly assaulting people, is someone having a problem with alcohol, regardless of whether or not they are an alcoholic.

Interesting follow-up that Mark Judge reportedly admits to being an alcoholic.

Some people are making a big deal out of other people not remembering attending the particular “party”. Well, Ford made it clear in her testimony that this wasn’t a party. It was a very small number of people stop-over at a house on the way to a party. Given that this crowd seems to have been frequent party-goers, and that they weren’t aware of the assault, I would be more surprised if they did remember.

I went to only a few parties in high school, but still I only have the vaguest of memories of them. I couldn’t even begin to say where or when any of them were. Now, had I been raped at one of them, I’m pretty sure I’d remember the rape. Would I remember all the other details? I don’t know. A lot of experts have said that Ford’s level of recollection is pretty normal for assault victims, and it is a normal defense mechanism for the mind to blot out as much as it can. So I wouldn’t presume otherwise in the absence of expert testimony to the contrary. But then, I’m not frantic to get Roe v. Wade overturned.

Jay said:
It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

I didn’t say that Kavanaugh was an alcoholic. Rather, I said that he had a problem with alcohol. And I stand by that claim – a high school student frequently drinking until staggering drunk, becoming belligerent as a result of the alcohol, to the point of possibly assaulting people, is someone having a problem with alcohol, regardless of whether or not they are an alcoholic.

Warbler said:
Even if he did lose some of his memory while drunk, it doesn’t prove he assaulted her.

Do you even realize how low you and the republicans have just set the bar for being a supreme court justice!? So it’s acceptable for a supreme court appointee to have had past problems with alcohol, even if they lie by denying it, and even in the presence of sworn testimony by a respected professor that said drunkenness led to sexual assault, so long as that particular assault can’t be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt.

Everyone is questioning whether Ford is mis-remembering. But I don’t understand why nobody has brought up the possibility that Kavanaugh is mis-remembering? That seems far more likely to me, since multiple people have said that he had a history of getting drunk and it affecting his personality. It also isn’t uncommon for people who were drunk to not remember what they did while they were drunk.

If it can be shown that in fact he was often drunk, then the “he-said-she-said” balance would seem to tip in HER favor.

As we can see, everyone has a different opinion as far as how to start. For me, clever, self-contained individual stories are EXACTLY what hooked me, not long romantic story arcs which tended to leave me cold. That said, I liked the mummy episode quite a lot too 😃

To elaborate a bit, a large percentage of Who fans consider “Blink” to be the greatest episode ever. When I first saw it, it blew me away, and I had already been a fan for close to 20 years. I’ve watched it at least 6 or 7 times and I still enjoy it. By contrast, some of the more recent episodes are too “drama-heavy” for my taste – the whole Rose period, and the River Song stuff, all kinda detracted from the quirky-time-traveler episodic flavor that attracted me in the first place. In short, there are a wide variety of styles over the years, and you are likely to find some you like, and others you don’t.

For modern Dr. Who, I tend to prefer Capaldi - some of the episodes in the most recent series were fantastic. I also very much liked his predecessor Matt Smith, especially his first episode (“The Eleventh Hour”), but some of his later ones became too drama-heavy for my taste.

As for the older, “classic” Who, Tom Baker is certainly the quintessential Doctor. Way too many wonderful episodes to list. “Genesis of the Daleks” is one of the best, with a fantastic climax… some people consider it the best episode ever. It also would give you a sense of the slower-paced approach of the day, where a single story stretched and developed over a few weeks. Some younger viewers find that pace too slow, but in my opinion there’s no better way to spend a relaxed, rainy saturday morning with some coffee and toast 😃

For these older eras, I have known some women to prefer Peter Davidson, because he was good looking. A former fiance of mine had a big crush on him (she is the one who actually got me hooked on the show). Davidson was in several excellent episodes… “Caves of Androzani” for example. I liked Sylvester McCoy too, and although he was in some dreadful episodes, he was also in a few excellent ones (“Curse of Fenric” and “Remembrance of the Daleks”). Newcomers should avoid Colin Baker episodes (not to be confused with Tom Baker, mentioned above).

One of the cool things about the series, is that each Doctor is encouraged to inject their own “style”. So the various doctors are VERY different from each other, while still retaining some irreverent British humor as a consistent thread. The Dr. Who universe also is replete with a number of repeat-villains. The Daleks, The Master, The Cybermen, etc. It is interesting to see how the villains changed as the budget increased over the years.

I’d recommend “Blink”.

skywalkerfan101 said:

I would like to see screenshots.

Have you looked on the webpage linked from the first post?

I think what I find the most irritating about promos these days, is they show a scene, and in less than one second, they are already fading it out. It’s like this for snippet after snippet, at the end I have absolutely no idea what I just watched. So I have to watch it on YouTube so I can hit pause to even see what is in each snippet. Maybe that’s the intent.

Warbler said:

How many times have they put someone challenging the Doctor’s authority in an ad for the show?

Seriously reaching, dude.

Jeez, have you seriously given this any thought at all? There’s probably been 100 times that previous doctors have had the EXACT same thing said about them. “Who put HIM in charge?” I mean, just substitute “he” for “she” in the above quote and you’ve probably got 25% of the previous episodes. Just how SHOULD anyone challenge the doctor’s authority going forward, now that it’s a woman, without you seeing it as a feminist hit piece?

Warbler said:

“Why are you asking her?”

“Cause she’s in charge, bro”

“Says who?”

Obviously a guy that doesn’t want to take orders from a woman.

Wow.

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

It is clear this is marketed to feminists. ugh.

I didn’t get that out of it.

I am not sure how you could miss it.

The vast majority of it was showing scenes from the show, and some of the partners. Yeah there’s a cute little play on words at the end, but I didn’t think it was heavy-handed about it.

the music? The little bit where it looked like she will have to deal with the “typical male pig”?

You’re right, I missed where it made reference to a “typical male pig”. Where is that?

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

It is clear this is marketed to feminists. ugh.

I didn’t get that out of it.

I am not sure how you could miss it.

The vast majority of it was showing scenes from the show, and some of the partners. Yeah there’s a cute little play on words at the end, but I didn’t think it was heavy-handed about it.

moviefreakedmind said:

I hate the celibacy vow, but I don’t think that’s why there is so much abuse. My assumption is that pedophiles become priests because they know that they will not only have access to children, but also that the Church will protect and enable them in their crimes. They would have access to children in schools, daycares, summer camps, or sports teams, but accusations typically are and have been taken very seriously in those settings. You still see tragic cases of abuse in schools and sports, but not thousands of students abused by thousands of teachers in single cities where the districts ensured that the teachers be allowed to continue their abuse. The protection is what draws them, I think.

Alternatively, I’ve often wondered if some people notice in themselves urgings that they wish to suppress (e.g., attraction to kids, attraction to same sex), and are therefore attracted to being a part of an institution that provides a supportive infrastructure for a celibate life. I once knew someone who was considering joining a monastery partly for this reason. Ironic if they were to then find themselves in an environment that supported acting on said urges.

Warbler said:

It is clear this is marketed to feminists. ugh.

I didn’t get that out of it.

I’m not sure what to think of the vow of celibacy thing. Being rather socially clumsy, it wasn’t uncommon for me to go two or three years without so much as a date (and this was not by choice). But never once did that cause me to have the slightest notion of taking advantage of a kid. I’m not sure that people take advantage of kids because they are sex-starved… I think they just are attracted to kids. Or does it depend on the person?

At first I wasn’t sure whether I thought the police brutality thread was appropriate. Then I got to thinking, what if someone started a thread chronicling “North Korean police brutality”. I doubt anyone here would object. Why then couldn’t we accept a discussion on police brutality elsewhere, such as here? So, I think the topic is fine.

Man that 49ers-Lions game was insanity. 49ers were lucky to get through it. Defense was full of holes, they were saved by the penalties time and time again.

Yes, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if republicans strengthen their control. I think overall they are pretty happy that Trump has done a lot of what he says he would do, has waved the flag and ridiculed the evil football players, and they don’t give a damn about all this abstract Russia stuff. Plus he kicked out all those bad immigrants that are taken are jobs.

moviefreakedmind said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I’m no fan of religion (well, except the FSM). However, is the abuse rate any higher in the catholic church than in other religions? Or even when compared to large secular organizations? I haven’t seen any such statistics, and I wonder if it is just an unfortunate aspect of humanity in general.

It’s not just that, it’s the institutional coverups. If any secular organization, or even a smaller religious institution, did that, then they’d be brought down immediately after it came to light.

I agree it’s horrendous. But again, are there statistics that the amount of coverup is higher? We sometimes hear of agencies, schools, companies, etc, just transferring people. My university has covered up abuse cases, smeared victims, etc to cover their ass. Of course it’s bad, and especially noticeable coming from a group claiming such a high level of righteousness. But is it all that unique?

I am not claiming it isnt, I’m just actually curious.

G E Predator said:

Just came across this: Link to website removed by moderator - let’s not give them the publicity they wish for.

What the serious F.
Maybe the most brazen yet. It’s even got a “copyright” on the bottom.

I’m no fan of religion (well, except the FSM). However, is the abuse rate any higher in the catholic church than in other religions? Or even when compared to large secular organizations? I haven’t seen any such statistics, and I wonder if it is just an unfortunate aspect of humanity in general.

Just to clarify, are some people arguing that Norm McDonald has a right to be on the Tonight Show?