| Nekkid Vidmaster7 |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vidmaster7 wrote:captain yesterday wrote:Never heard of them.
I couldn't even tell you what Ip stands for.
It's his name. It's actually Ip man which makes him sound like a superhero I know. Which to that I can only say.. eh almost? Donnie yen was the blind monk force sensitive guy in rogue one. I feel like you're messing with me a little bit.
(Edit: had to keep doing sections on this one people kept interrupting me. come on people just because I work here doesn't mean I want ya'll bothering me. )
No, I honestly have no idea what or who you're talking about, or what any of these movies are.
I am genuinely clueless.
Ah ok yeah. I guess your probably not into martial arts movies but if you are in the least bit they are some of the best IMO. The story is actually kind of interesting too.
His character in rogue one's name was Chirrut Îmwe and like I said he was the blind monk guy who kicked but.
At no point was he naked though. in the movies.. probably has been in real life...
Also I thought you didn't like clicking on links? I would of just done that in the first place.
| lisamarlene |
I've grown to accept links, I'm sorry that sounded more annoyed than I actually was, I was mostly wondering what Ip stands for, but I should have been clearer on that. I blame Freehold.
That's funny.
Because saying DONNIE YEN! whenever Rogue One is mentioned on the thread is my version of "Dis-what?", I honestly thought you were messing with me.
| Mark Hoover 330 |
I don't fault Disney for making a couple disjointed Star Wars movies. I actually liked Rogue One, but the property as a whole has had continuity issues, WTF moments and other problems going back to the 80's. Every so often a comic book or novelization would come out that Lucas would have to completely disavow. Bottom line, the Mouse is doing the best they can with what they have to work with.
I didn't think I'd like the Mandalorian. I heard that it was One Mando and a Baby and figured it'd be cheese, but so far it's all kinds of good. It's sweet, a little thought provoking, and some of the action is cool to watch. It's no Daredevil season one hallway fight level action, but it's entertaining.
Also, maybe this is my depression/quarantine brain talking but The Child is freaking adorable.
As for Donnie Yen/Ip Man - I know of them, I actually enjoy martial arts movies... I've never seen them. I don't know, I guess I just never got around to them. From the hype they're getting here I suppose they're worth at least a look.
| NobodysHome |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, this is going to get ugly.
We just got a, "We need to talk," text from our bathroom contractor.
I can't imagine it being anything other than the dreaded, "Yeah, we're overbooked this winter so we're going to need to drop your project entirely," conversation.
Finding another high-quality contractor willing to do bathroom work during a full shutdown? I just don't see that happening. So looks like we're going to have a bunch of bathroom fixtures decorating the house 'til next summer.
Modern cardboard, U.S.A.
"Give us said plan, and you have to have a full-time on-site COVID manager making sure all the plan elements are being implemented at all times for your two-person project."
Er... what?
"Oh, and prove that this construction is necessary due to imminent danger to the residents; all non-essential construction is banned."
Uh... it's a bathroom remodel...
So while I approve of the city and state having some kind of regulation regarding construction, the fact that our contractors are welcome to dine together in an outdoor restaurant under the current restrictions, but aren't allowed to work together in a section of the house that's been segregated from the rest of us is... baffling...
| CrystalSeas |
the fact that our contractors are welcome to dine together in an outdoor restaurant under the current restrictions, but aren't allowed to work together in a section of the house that's been segregated from the rest of us is... baffling...
Is the bathroom work being done outdoors? Will they be able to keep the recommended distance from each other while working?
If not, then it's basic workplace safety for the people working at the jobsite.
| NobodysHome |
** spoiler omitted **
Is the bathroom work being done outdoors? Will they be able to keep the recommended distance from each other while working?
If not, then it's basic workplace safety for the people working at the jobsite.
It's not outdoors, but if it's anything like the last projects they've done for us they have one guy in the bathroom doing the actual work (and honestly, you can't fit more than one guy in there at a time anyway), and one guy in the back yard doing all the prep work for the other guy. And we're all in a separate section of the house.
It's why I'm comfortable with the work being done even with the rise in cases. We'd never be within 20' of the team (except to pay them) and they have plenty of space to avoid each other.
| Vanykrye |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Including myself, there are currently 4 people with the same first name on the job site.
Which is always hilarious on a construction site.
Tell them you've legally changed your name to be pronounced "Maximus" even though it's still spelled the same way. Makes it really easy on payroll to process that name change.
| Vanykrye |
201.0.
About 2 weeks behind where I thought I would be on my aggressive 1.5 lb/week plan, but still ahead the more traditional 1 lb/week plan. And given the time of the year, I will accept it. Moar time on the bike though.
I'm not sure I remember a time when I was 200ish lbs. That might've been 30 years ago.
| Vanykrye |
captain yesterday wrote:I've grown to accept links, I'm sorry that sounded more annoyed than I actually was, I was mostly wondering what Ip stands for, but I should have been clearer on that. I blame Freehold.That's funny.
Because saying DONNIE YEN! whenever Rogue One is mentioned on the thread is my version of "Dis-what?", I honestly thought you were messing with me.
Along those lines...the most recent episode of The Mandolorian had Diane Lee Inosanto in it. Bruce Lee started learning nunchuku from her father, Dan Inosanto.
| Limeylongears |
Interestingly enough, the cable channel that brings Kung Fu movies on the weekend did a Thanksgiving special and showed all the classics. 36 Chambers of Shaolin. Executioners from Shaolin(with everyone's favorite kung fu villain, Pai Mei!). Flying Guillotine! Oh man. It was awesome.
Was Return of Bastard Swordsman on?
| NobodysHome |
OK. This one is just surreal.
Similar to me, at a certain point my father-in-law realized he was drinking too much and quit cold turkey and has been a teetotaler ever since. I believe it's been over 40 years now.
So, you'd expect support in my endeavor from him. He's heard about my struggles over the last few years, and how I look up to him as a role model for my own behavior.
And yep, sure enough. He's having a bunch of packages delivered to our place because package theft is a serious issue in his neighborhood. And he wrapped up with, "And I'll show up late next week to pick them all up. And I'll bring a lot of alcohol."
Because somehow even *HE* can't remember that I don't drink any more.
Maybe I should just have it tattooed across my forehead.
Woran
|
Woran wrote:If we're talking martial arts movies, then Kung-Fu Hustle all the way.if we both weren't married woran...
No but I do love that movie.
Im platonically married to several other people (LARPs happen. RPG stuff happens). So we can defenitely get married.
Can Cap Yesterday oversee the ceremony?
| captain yesterday |
Vidmaster7 wrote:Woran wrote:If we're talking martial arts movies, then Kung-Fu Hustle all the way.if we both weren't married woran...
No but I do love that movie.
Im platonically married to several other people (LARPs happen. RPG stuff happens). So we can defenitely get married.
Can Cap Yesterday oversee the ceremony?
My dad could, though he's retired. He officiated our wedding.
| NobodysHome |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the one hand, this is red-hot political, so I've chosen to omit the concrete examples.
On the other hand, at its foundation my puzzlement centers around a legal question rather than a political one:
(1) I was under the impression that certain speech, such as incitement to riot or threatening certain government officials, is illegal.
(2) Given that we have clear examples of both, who's responsible for arresting/prosecuting the offenders, and why aren't they doing so?
I was watching a legal analysis of the movie "Trial of the Chicago 7" (which I now desperately want to see), and it involves a lot of the same ideas: At what point is it legal to prosecute someone for what they say, rather than what they do?
I was pretty sure there was a hard line, and I was pretty sure several notable public figures have jumped over that line, sped around the world, and jumped it again, but even the newspapers most politically opposed to said figures aren't calling for prosecution.
Is all speech suddenly protected?
(Obviously I'm trying to avoid any politics. I'm more interested in the law than in the politics at the moment.)
| Orthos |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most I can say without getting overly political is that there is a certain class of people in this country who have basically gotten themselves into a position where they can say anything they want with almost zero consequences because if they are at all opposed they cry that they're being persecuted.
If the things these people said were said by almost any other group, the Powers That Be would be on their doorsteps like Sophie on a tennis ball.
But that's all I'll say about that.
| CrystalSeas |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5 Elements Of A Criminal Threat
“The difference between a true threat and protected expression,” Judge Kozinski wrote, “is this: A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls. . . . Yet the opinion points to no evidence that defendants who prepared the posters would have been understood by a reasonable listener as saying that they will cause the harm. . . . Given this lack of evidence, the posters can be viewed, at most, as a call to arms for other abortion protesters to harm plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Brandenburg, encouragement or even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment. . . .”1242 Moreover, the Court held in Claiborne that “[t]he mere fact the statements could be understood ‘as intending to create a fear of violence’ was insufficient to make them ‘true threats’ under Watts.”1243
| NobodysHome |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most I can say without getting overly political is that there is a certain class of people in this country who have basically gotten themselves into a position where they can say anything they want with almost zero consequences because if they are at all opposed they cry that they're being persecuted.
If the things these people said were said by almost any other group, the Powers That Be would be on their doorsteps like Sophie on a tennis ball.
But that's all I'll say about that.
I honestly think it's more than just that. We've been anesthetized to incendiary speech by the internet to the point that many public orations delivered in 2020 would've been prosecuted in 1970.
Which leads to the next obvious question: Why aren't they?
(1) Does someone have to file a complaint? If so, to whom do they file? And do they have to have proof of standing?
(2) What are the investigatory obligations of the department receiving the complaint, if any?
I'm just consistently surprised at what public figures can say these days. I'm old.
| CrystalSeas |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overview
The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In the case, a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken." The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”