MovieChat Forums > BullSchmidt
avatar

BullSchmidt (559)


Posts


Strangest casting ever? There is some justice in this world A duck walked into a pharmacy ... CLOSED ** Baker's Dozen -- Movies about American Revolution ** What are you eating for dinner tonight? She was Hitler's sister. I wonder if any of the stoner "420" crowd realize ... He didn't like Hitler very much Does anyone know ... View all posts >


Replies


I'd never heard of this. Apparently several episodes were filmed but only one was aired. The entire aired episode is on Youtube. I'll never understand television audiences! The tastes of the general public mystify me! How could this not succeed, with scenes like this: [i]After consuming considerable amounts of alcohol, various characters are dancing in a conga line around the Hitlers' living room. Adolf is the last in the line. The Jewish neighbor enters to introduce her niece. Neighbor -- "Hey everybody, say hello to Ruth." Conga dancers -- "Heil Ruth!" Neighbor, to Ruth -- "Grab hold of the Fuehrer's butt." Ruth -- "Okay." (does so)[/i] We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't know enough about Welch's and Bardot's work to judge, but Vanessa Redgrave had more talent in her left earlobe than Tate ever did. Same goes for Hanoi Jane, even if she was a Commie and a traitor. And the history of Hollywood is full of hot ladies who work a while and are forgotten afterward. Barbara Parkins, who was in Valley Of The Dolls with Tate, was quite a hottie in her day and worked on and off into the late 1990s, but I doubt if younger people recognize the name. Other than Trekkies, does anyone recall Sherry Jackson? And does anyone at all remember Margaret Teele? I found this site, great for searching for names. [url]http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/[/url] Looks like Barbara Hershey has never won one. I'm not thinking of any specific film, but she should have got one somewhere along the way. Sharon Tate. Had she not been murdered by Charlie's Mansonettes, she'd probably be forgotten today. Beer, a hoagie, and watching some of the loonier JFK assassination conspiracy documentaries. > Everything there is to see in [...] London Is that possible? Maybe if you live there. A few years ago I spent ten days there. The first two were business, and I spent the remaining days as a tourist. Before going I got two guidebooks (Lonely Planet and Rick Steves) and went through all the attractions, dividing them into three categories. The A list -- things I wanted to see so much that I wouldn't consider the trip a complete success if I didn't see them. The B list -- things I wanted to see but could do without. The C list -- things I didn't care about. I started working on my itinerary. I figured eight days would be plenty of time; I could work in all my A list items and some of the B list. Wrong! I couldn't even squeeze in all the A list items. I had to make some cuts. Guards at Buckingham Palace? Strike that, someone's probably already put it on YouTube. Et cetera. I did manage to see (and be inside) the London Eye, Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's cathedral, 221-B Baker Street, and about thirty other things I can't recall at the moment. > We are (hopefully) going to Japan next September for 3 weeks Went there about thirty years ago, so I won't try to make recommendations as they'd all be out of date. I spent most of the time in Tokyo but took a side trip to Kyoto. Hope you make it there, it's worth the trip. > That's incredulous to me, that there would be an actual lawsuit of wrongful/unfair dismissal would AND go so far as to have a jury involved. It's pretty rare here too, and not just for wrongful termination cases. Most civil cases don't make it to trial but are settled. Sometimes it's because one party (in this case, the employer) doesn't want to take it to trial, but sometimes it's because both parties don't want to go there. Trials are very expensive, and it might be cheaper for both sides to settle rather than to bear that expense. I did a stretch of jury duty a while back. Here (Kentucky) the courts alternate month by month. One month is all civil cases, the next is all criminal, then it's back to civil again. We were given a calendar of possible trial dates and a phone number with a recorded message we could call the evening before to find out if a jury would be needed the next day. On almost every date during the civil trial month, a jury was not needed because the case had already been settled. On the other hand, during the criminal month the jury panel had to assemble nearly every time. But there was very rarely a trial. When a defendant sees 70 fellow citizens, a judge, lawyers, a bailiff, etc, all ready to try his ass, the prosecutor's plea bargain he sneered at the night before suddenly starts looking good. So usually we'd assemble in the courtroom, there would be a few minutes of conversation at the bench, the judge would announce that "something's come up and we need to trash out some legal stuff in my chambers," they'd go off for an hour, then the judge would return and announce there wouldn't be a trial that day. > if you dont join a union an employer can sack you at will The flip side is that if you do join a union, part of your union dues will go to contributions to certain politicians. If you happen to like those politicians, fine. But if you lean toward the other end of the political spectrum, you shouldn't be compelled to indirectly support them. It's commonly said that baseball is our national pastime. That's not true. Here in the USA, litigation is the national pastime. Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. Lawsuits are fun! Sue a friend today! An employer can dismiss an employee arbitrarily. But that ex-employee can turn around and sue for wrongful termination. For the employer, this means legal expenses during the discovery phase of the litigation; responding to the plaintiff's subpoenas, et cetera. If the case goes to trial the jury will at best be neutral, but more likely will be biased toward the plaintiff -- they'll be inclined to view the matter as the rich entrepreneur (or even worse, the big corporation) versus the little guy. If the fired employee is a woman and/or a minority, the plaintiff's attorney will certainly suggest and maybe even convince the jury that this played a part in the termination. And there's also the chance the employer may have to divulge proprietary, confidential information in the course of the litigation. For all those reasons, unless the employer has a strong case, it might be well worth it to pay off the fired employee with a settlement just to make him or her go away. And, any smart employer will build up documentation toward a strong case before terminating someone. Smart employers, that is. But there are a lot of stupid people out there. > Has a titled "Grandmaster" female beat a "Grandmaster" male yet? I'd be surprised if it hasn't happened. According to the International Chess Federation ([url]http://www.fide.com[/url]), the top woman is Yifan Hou, who has a rating of 2658 and is 88th on the top 100 persons list. The 100th on that list is Maxime Lagarde (male) who has a rating of 2651. That's pretty close to being equal, but if the ratings predict as they should, if they played a game she'd be a little more likely to win. > Is their a cognitive difference that gives a man an advantage? Possibly. Been a while since my school days, but from what I recall the intelligence distributions for men and women are about the same, except at the extremes. In two groups of, say, ten million people -- one group men, the other women -- where none suffer from brain damage from birth defects or other organic causes, there will be about the same numbers of average persons, of dimwits, of fairly bright people, and so on. But at the extremes there are more males. In those groups there will be more super-duper-bright men than women ... and also more super-duper-stupid men than women. > In the 1990's I have read that neurologist have cited that men are better at "moving 3d objects in their head" better or something like that. Yeah, I remember that from school too. IIRC the theory was that the difference went back to our primordial hunter-gatherer days. Men did more roaming about, tracking woolly mammoths and such, and by necessity evolved a better spatial sense than women so they could find their way home. > Is this just male scientist bias/bullshit? Doubtful. The days when scientists were all male are long gone and have been for decades. Intelligence, neuroscience, etc wasn't what I worked on in grad school but was a closely allied field, enough so that I knew several grad students who were working on those things. That was in the late 1980s. About half those grad students were women. View all replies >