MaximRecoil's Replies


"I would think it was obvious that if you post it's not a great comedy, and I post that I disagree that I don't have to go on to state, "it was a great comedy," in order for that to be understood." It has nothing to do with you not going on to state "it was a great comedy"; it has to do with you following, "I disagree" with statements that had nothing to do with my post, which indicated that you replied to the wrong post. Your post would have made more sense as a reply to the OP. Normally, if you type "I disagree" in reply to a post, the following sentences are reasons why you disagree, not random, unrelated thoughts about the movie. For example: "I disagree. Such and such a scene was hilarious..." I'll ask again, what makes it a comedy? You said, "Totally disagree. This movie was fascinating." What does the movie being fascinating have to do with whether or not it's a comedy? You also praised Kidman's acting, which doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's a comedy either. Plenty of movies are fascinating and have good acting without being a comedy. "I thought that was obvious" Why would you think it was obvious? You said that you disagree and then talked about things completely unrelated to my post. In any case, what makes it a comedy? There were a few scenes that were mildly funny, like Kidman's character needing the letter of recommendation story explained to her, but there are mildly funny scenes in plenty of movies that aren't intended to be a comedy. Watch the Rocky movies for example; the Paulie, Mick, and Rocky characters say some funny things, but those aren't considered comedies. A comedy, especially one that someone is claiming to be "one of the very best black comedies ever", should at least have some hilarious laugh-out-loud scenes, and this movie had none. I never even got the impression while watching the movie that they were trying to make a comedy. Irreverent, yes, but not a comedy. Why did you reply to my post? Your post doesn't have anything to do with mine. "By changing the life focus of the story’s protagonist, the novel, and therefore the movie, turned the Smart case into one of the very best black comedies ever." This movie wasn't a comedy at all, let alone a black comedy, let alone "one of the very best black comedies ever". Black comedies have funny scenes, e.g., Fargo, Very Bad Things, Pain & Gain. What funny scenes did this movie have? I didn't even notice any attempts to be funny, failed or otherwise. "Snipers have done it with older rifles." No, they haven't. No one has done it at all, with any rifle. And by "it" I mean making the shot with the full scenario recreated. "Oswald could've done it with luck." LOL "Like I said, it doesn't matter if you have a sniper with a million kills because the act has already been proven to be possible." No, it hasn't. And what's your explanation for Connally not hearing the shot that hit him (as he stated in the video that I linked to)? That indicates that a silencer and subsonic ammunition was used in the gun that was used to shoot him. That throws a monkey wrench into the official story, doesn't it? "It doesn't matter if a sniper has a million kills." Yes, it does. It means he knows what he's talking about when it comes to shooting a rifle, obviously. "It's too anecdotal to go by a few snipers, and does not qualify as scientific method." Is that a joke? The burden of proof is on you / your side. You're proposing that a known poor shot made a shot that one of the greatest snipers in the world couldn't make, despite trying it so many times that he lost count of how many times he tried. As I said, that's a [beyond] extraordinary claim, and you don't even have any <i>ordinary</i> evidence showing that it can be done, let alone extraordinary evidence. "Also the magic bullet theory was proven false. The magic bullet theory relied on placing Connelly's bucket seat in the wrong position and at the wrong height. When adjusted for accuracy, we see the bullet path from Oswald's window make a straight line through Kennedy's neck, Connelly and Connelly's wrist." Connally said that he wasn't hit at the same time that Kennedy was. You can watch and listen to him say it on video here: https://youtu.be/fJuKywBfOHY?t=1067 But regardless of all that, you need to show that someone, <i>anyone</i>, can make that shot before you can even have a legitimate foot in the door of the argument. "It'll take a little bit of luck, but it is most definitely possible." Is that another joke? I intend to win the next Wimbledon tennis tournament. Sure, I'm 45, have a bad right shoulder, haven't played tennis in a dozen years, and even at my best I wasn't even in the same universe as even the lowest ranked pro, but those things don't matter. It'll take a little bit of luck, but it is most definitely possible. "Conspiracies do exist. However, most people are incompetent and prone to talk. So the probability of a successful conspiracy drops with the number of people involved and the number of actions they take." That logic is only valid for conspiracies comprised of ordinary citizens. The general public doesn't consider anything to be a fact until it's confirmed by an "official" source. So what happens when the "officials" are also the conspirators? In that case, if they really want to keep it under wraps, it doesn't matter who talks, because all the "officials" have to do is deny it, or simply ignore it. In the case of the JFK assassination, the majority of the public believes it was a conspiracy: https://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/one-thing-all-americans-agree-jfk-conspiracy-n815371 But is it considered a fact that it was a conspiracy? No. If you read a history book, encyclopedia, etc., it presents the official story as fact. So even in cases where most people don't believe the official story, the government still says, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it." "Talented snipers have changed their opinions over the years. I would argue the majority of them say it's possible with a little luck." How many of them had 93 confirmed kills, and reconstructed the whole thing and actually tried it? Why would you believe such an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence? Even if Oswald had been an accomplished sniper it would have been an extraordinary claim, because we know that one of the greatest snipers in history tried it and couldn't do it. However, Oswald wasn't an accomplished sniper, nor a sniper of any kind. He was known to be a poor shot (he failed to qualify on the rifle range in the Marines, sometimes missing the target entirely, and only later qualified "marksman", which is the lowest level of qualification) meaning he wasn't even in the same universe as a sniper, let alone an accomplished sniper. With Oswald being a poor shot, the claim is <i>beyond</i> extraordinary. "This is the type of thing that would require a larger sample size." The first thing that such an extraordinary claim requires is to show that someone, anyone, can do what Oswald supposedly did. I've seen some TV shows (like 60 Minutes, 20/20, or similar) where they ostensibly demonstrated that people could do it, but in reality, they didn't even come close to actually replicating the scenario. For example, in one of them the shooter was on top of an open tower, which eliminates the huge problem of the window / wall / water pipes / angle, and eliminates the tree branches as well. So you know better than one of the greatest snipers of all time? Here's a quote from Carlos Hathcock: “Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock recalls. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?” Also, Marine sniper Craig Roberts said: “The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was because I could not have done it.” “First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper . . . I looked at the engagement angles. It was entirely wrong…Here, from what I could see, three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes . . . This would be extremely difficult for a right-handed shooter. Second, I would have to be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time; the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula—a law of physics Oswald would not have known.” And in case you're wondering who Carlos Hathcock is: <blockquote>Carlos Norman Hathcock II (May 20, 1942 – February 22, 1999) was a United States Marine Corps (USMC) sniper with a service record of 93 confirmed kills. Hathcock's record and the extraordinary details of the missions he undertook made him a legend in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was honored by having a rifle named after him: a variant of the M21 dubbed the Springfield Armory M25 White Feather, for the nickname "White Feather" given to Hathcock by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA).</blockquote> "There was no plan, just an impulsive act by Loser Oswald to become famous." Except, no one could have made the shot that Oswald supposedly did, especially not Oswald, which inherently means the official story is a work of fiction: Here's a quote from Carlos Hathcock: “Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock recalls. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?” Also, Marine sniper Craig Roberts said: “The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was because I could not have done it.” “First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper . . . I looked at the engagement angles. It was entirely wrong…Here, from what I could see, three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes . . . This would be extremely difficult for a right-handed shooter. Second, I would have to be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time; the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula—a law of physics Oswald would not have known.” And in case you're wondering who Carlos Hathcock is: <blockquote>Carlos Norman Hathcock II (May 20, 1942 – February 22, 1999) was a United States Marine Corps (USMC) sniper with a service record of 93 confirmed kills. Hathcock's record and the extraordinary details of the missions he undertook made him a legend in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was honored by having a rifle named after him: a variant of the M21 dubbed the Springfield Armory M25 White Feather, for the nickname "White Feather" given to Hathcock by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA).</blockquote> "He was, after all, a Marine who did qualify as a Sharp Shooter once." No, he didn't. He qualified as "marksman", which is the lowest level of qualification, and that was only after failing to qualify at all. Here's a quote from Carlos Hathcock: “Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock recalls. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?” Also, Marine sniper Craig Roberts said: “The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was because I could not have done it.” “First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper . . . I looked at the engagement angles. It was entirely wrong…Here, from what I could see, three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes . . . This would be extremely difficult for a right-handed shooter. Second, I would have to be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time; the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula—a law of physics Oswald would not have known.” And in case you're wondering who Carlos Hathcock is: <blockquote>Carlos Norman Hathcock II (May 20, 1942 – February 22, 1999) was a United States Marine Corps (USMC) sniper with a service record of 93 confirmed kills. Hathcock's record and the extraordinary details of the missions he undertook made him a legend in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was honored by having a rifle named after him: a variant of the M21 dubbed the Springfield Armory M25 White Feather, for the nickname "White Feather" given to Hathcock by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA).</blockquote> "Everywhere else on the planet, it goes day, month, year. Chronological order. From small to big." Small to big is ass backwards. When you say or write the time of day do you start with the seconds, then the minutes, then the hour? Obviously not. Big/broad to small/narrow is the logical way of organizing things. Look at how your folders are organized on your computer, for example. Are you familiar with the concept of "narrowing things down"? In the case of the U.S., we put the year at the end because it changes so infrequently that it's not usually needed for everyday usage of dates. For example, if you made a doctor's appointment on June 25th for the next week, they would just tell you, e.g., July 2nd. For the units of time that change most frequently, we order them the way they are supposed to be ordered, big to small: month/day/hour/minute/second/etc. "It's an unfortunate system" No, it's a logical system. Your system is ass backwards, like I said. "similar to America's stubbornness in accepting the metric system, despite it being used by those in the scientific fields." That's ironic. Are you using a metric (decimal) clock and calendar yet? No? Why not? "Rewatch this and listen to Robbie Beals (Jeffrey Demunn) Otherwise, check out Pet Sematery (Also by Steve King) and listen to Judd (Fred Gwynne). They both do hard-core Mainer very well." Not even close. No one has ever believably faked a Maine accent; not once, not ever. And Mainers who naturally have a neutral American accent instead of a Maine accent (which is at least half of all Mainers, and of the Mainers who do have a Maine accent, it's usually a mild one) are no better at faking a Maine accent than anyone else is. There's a lot more to a Maine accent than just dropping your R's, and to even do that part of it right you have to know which R's to drop and by how much, and no one has ever even got that part right. A Maine accent, like all real accents, sounds natural rather than affected. "Like addressing people by their full name for emphasis" That doesn't happen in Maine any more often than anywhere else in the country. "or saying "Ayuh" for Yes" No one actually says that unless they are trying to be funny. It's a case of people trying to phonetically spell the way they heard a word pronounced and the [inaccurate] spelling itself taking on a life of its own. The same thing happened to Canucks with "aboot". Canucks don't actually say "aboot"; there is no good spelling for how they actually pronounce "about", but "aboat" would be closer than "aboot". <blockquote><b>Biden wins Massachusetts Lite!</b></blockquote> Fixed. Real Maine starts north of about Augusta, as you can see in this image (it's from 2016 but it's typical of most any election): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine_-_Results_by_congressional_district.svg/250px-2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine_-_Results_by_congressional_district.svg.png Southern "Maine" is comprised primarily of Masshole transplants. If we gave that laughable part of the state back to Massachusetts from where it came, not only would it eliminate most of the leftist buffoons, but our violent crime rate would also drop to practically nothing. "I know she sent her home early to murder Joe" Based on the flashback scene which shows what happened, she didn't murder him. She led him into a trap but she didn't exploit his trust to do it (which would have been murder), she exploited his criminally violent tendencies. Had he not been a violent criminal he couldn't have been led into a trap that way, because nothing she could have said would have made him chase her with the intent of inflicting bodily harm (again). Anyone who gets killed while committing, or attempting to commit, a violent crime, had it coming. If there's a category for most ridiculous fake accent, then, yeah. "Yes, washing is better than dry cleaning for fabrics that can be. Some things I hand wash." Who said anything about dry cleaning? "Who said I used chlorine bleach?" If you're not using chlorine bleach you're wasting time and money by separating your whites. Non-chlorine bleach (AKA: oxygen bleach, AKA: color-safe bleach) doesn't work as well as real bleach and it's color-safe, so there's no point in separating your whites. And you still haven't said anything about why you separate "coloreds" from "darks". "I guess I pay a lot more for my clothes than you and I take care of them." But you're not taking care of them. Did you miss this part? "[Bleach] causes deterioration which results in the fabric eventually becoming brittle, and, ironically, yellow" In other words, bleach damages your clothes, and causing damage is the opposite of taking care of something. I assume you are using bleach on your whites, otherwise it's pointless to separate them for washing. Also, as I said before, separating "colored" from "darks" doesn't accomplish anything either; you're just wasting money. That's way too much, and yes, you're overworking your kidneys. A gallon = 16 cups, which is twice as much as the classic rule of thumb (8 cups of water a day), and even that old rule of thumb has been misinterpreted by most people. It doesn't mean you should literally drink 8 cups of pure water per day, it means your total intake of water should be about 8 cups per day, and much of that will come from the food you eat. For example, cooked meat is around 65% water, so if you eat a 1-pound steak, that's over a cup of water right there (10.4 ounces). Most fruits and vegetables are around 90% water, with some being as high as 99% water. So if you're drinking a gallon of water a day, plus the food you eat, that's something like 20+ cups of water a day, which is ridiculous. In any case, you don't need any guidelines because your body has a built in mechanism to make sure it gets the amount of water it needs; it's called "thirst". Drink water only when you're thirsty and you'll be fine. That's a 1969 Dodge Charger. It was painted like the "General Lee" from "The Dukes of Hazzard" TV show at some point in the '80s. I got it in 1994. It still has the remnants of the confederate flag on the roof.