|
Post by gillianren on Jun 11, 2010 0:47:20 GMT -4
I haven't. I thought about watching it, but my local PBS station was calling it "edgy." The Ethan Hawke Hamlet was "edgy," so I'm always afraid it's a code word for "terrible."
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 10, 2010 23:28:41 GMT -4
Or it's over, to be safe, 150 years old. And remember that the performance is what counts in that. Hamlet is in the public domain; a clip from the Branagh (or Gibson, Olivier, or what have you) is not.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 10, 2010 23:27:09 GMT -4
Remembering that there are people who don't or can't watch YouTube videos, of course.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 10, 2010 19:32:54 GMT -4
i didn't know it is copyrighted because I got it on the net, i thaught the author allowed for it or else she would have acted against the site. anyways, I wanted to put something from youtube, but now I will not. Do you know how much work that is? Getting people to stop posting your stuff illegally is nigh impossible. But hey, maybe they can just visualize it gone and it'll stop, right?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 10, 2010 15:42:48 GMT -4
But you can't get everything you want. No one can. Believe all you want, but the work is more important.
|
|
|
Divorce
Jun 10, 2010 13:41:10 GMT -4
Post by gillianren on Jun 10, 2010 13:41:10 GMT -4
Certainly older people are more likely to have been exposed to situations outside their family and have therefore learned that not everyone is exactly like them. It's one of my issues with homeschooling, really. Exposure to the outside world is important.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 10, 2010 12:53:02 GMT -4
Oh, The Secret is utter crap--it actually says working for things gets in the way of just visualizing that you want them, because it brings the suggestion that you might not get it.
|
|
|
Divorce
Jun 10, 2010 12:50:44 GMT -4
Post by gillianren on Jun 10, 2010 12:50:44 GMT -4
Jlove is built on respect adn goodness of dealing. some people would hate the spouse if he/she quits the respect adn good treatment, but surprizingly others don't. some people love each otehr and figth over unimportant things and they devastate their homes because of this. Everyone fights over unimportant things. I've been arguing with Graham about our shower curtain for longer than I want to admit. (Given his higher income compared to my higher outlay on household expenses, I think he should buy it. He thinks we don't need a new one.) The fact is, if you go in expecting that you will be arguing over unimportant things and realize it doesn't kill the relationship, that makes for a better relationship however it manifests. I may not be married that my breakup wouldn't count in divorce statistics, but Graham and I have been together longer than a at least two couples I know who are married. We all know the secret--you can't agree on everything, and it doesn't mean your relationship is doomed. "Love would fade after a couple of years"? Where on Earth did you hear that? It changes, but the belief that it fades after a couple of years is, bluntly, another reason people have faulty expectations of their relationships. It's like, to cite another important aspect of the relationship, belief that you stop having sex after you get married. Your sex drive as a couple may change, and of course one person may have a higher drive than the other. But lots of people have sex after having been together for decades. It's just not as funny. I do believe that people should seek marriage counseling if they're having difficulty with their relationships, but there are three problems there. Number one is that a lot of people can't afford to. I mean literally. Even today, a lot of insurance companies either don't cover mental health or don't cover it to the same extent they cover physical health, even though studies show that paying mental health coverage can reduce the amount shown paid on physical health. Which leads us to number two--there is a stigma against mental health issues in the United States and presumably elsewhere, though my knowledge is limited there. Seeking counseling is itself a sign of failure, because people can work out their own problems just fine, unless they're weak, right? Which is why, for reason three, there simply aren't enough mental health professionals and access thereto to supply that increased demand. And, again, there are situations where you shouldn't bother with marriage counseling. If you have differing views of your positions in the relationship? Yeah, you might be able to work that out. If your significant other is hitting you or the kids? Leave. Leave now.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 9, 2010 18:17:24 GMT -4
I think his credibility gets exaggerated because he's a scientist. As though scientists never have totally crazy notions.
|
|
|
Divorce
Jun 9, 2010 18:14:37 GMT -4
Post by gillianren on Jun 9, 2010 18:14:37 GMT -4
Honestly, in a lot of cases, I think divorce is a good thing. People shouldn't stay in abusive relationships. People shouldn't stay with people who have no respect for them. If you really don't love someone anymore--and it does happen--should you stay together for form's sake and just be unhappy until one of you dies?
What's worse is staying together "for the children." That's the worst possible reason. It doesn't make the children's lives better to see their parents fighting all the time, especially if they know the situation would be improved if they weren't there. (And if you know it's why two people who hate each other are staying together, how is that not a burden of guilt?) And if the relationship is abusive, all the more reason to get the children out of it.
I do think a lot of people get married too quickly. Some people don't take it seriously. I know people who got married because they were in Reno and thought it would be funny to get married. My sister got married so her now-husband could go on her dental insurance. Now, my sister's been with him for thirteen years, and last I knew, the other couple are still together, too. However, I knew people who "had to get married," and when their son died, they discovered they didn't really have anything in common. (Also she's crazy; the whole thing is a long story.) They actively tried to have another child to fix their relationship, and it didn't. He's better off, but their second child isn't.
I think the problem is that some people think that human relationships are one size fits all. When they're in a relationship which seems like ones they've seen in the movies, that means they're going to love each other forever. And when the relationship changes, well, they must not love each other anymore. It also gives some people an awful right to be smug when others' relationships don't fit theirs.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 6, 2010 20:14:36 GMT -4
And "coincidence" is never, apparently, an explanation, nor do anecdotal stories without any supporting details lack anything if they come from "scientists."
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 5, 2010 14:41:45 GMT -4
the phenomena does exist undeniably. I'm denying it. I'm denying that one person's paper is sufficient to conclude it's anything other than anecdotal evidence. I'm suggesting that, with no plausible mechanism, there's no reason to believe there will ever be anything else. I'm suggesting that your "best example" is so full of holes that it's actually more likely it's made up (by someone somewhere along the line) and being trusted blindly (by everyone else to have come after that). I am also suggesting that you're either ignoring or have no concept of the scientific method, because you're not asking any of the questions we are and are, in fact, defending that fact even though all of our questions are entirely reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 4, 2010 16:31:26 GMT -4
Agreed. Life is scary and dangerous. Yes, it is. "Protecting" these children just sets them up for greater falls later.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 4, 2010 13:05:59 GMT -4
How would this supposed "cellular memory" come into importance when there were problems with the original person's actual memory? My best friend's grandfather just had a stroke; will his spleen restore any problems he has with his brain?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 4, 2010 13:04:28 GMT -4
The problem there's being that they were actually voted in, so throwing them out denies the Gazan people's right to self-government. Which is not to say I think that government is acting in the best interests of its people, of course. It's just that so long as there is such rampant anti-Israeli sentiment, anyone who says they can bring down Israel will gain support.
|
|