|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 4:49:55 GMT
Yeah, no. All the conspiracy arguments have been definitively debunked by everyone from Mythbusters to Adam Conover. Of course, I know such proof convinces none of the conspiracy theorists. Can't use evidence to convince someone of something they didn't need evidence to believe to begin with. Starring Charles Bronson as Eva Yojimbo and Toshiro Mifune as Arlon10. Sometimes it's best to call it a draw. I'd much rather be played by Mifune, but the Mifune of Yojimbo/Sanjuro and Seven Samurai:
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 4:51:20 GMT
Eva: You have not read what I wrote either, as wiki = encyclopedia. They were NOT accepted in my uni. days.
I know Wikipedia is like an encyclopedia. That had nothing to do with my original point, though.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 23, 2019 4:53:14 GMT
Starring Charles Bronson as Eva Yojimbo and Toshiro Mifune as Arlon10. Sometimes it's best to call it a draw. I'd much rather be played by Mifune, but the Mifune of Yojimbo/Sanjuro and Seven Samurai: Well, who wouldn't?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 4:54:52 GMT
I'd much rather be played by Mifune, but the Mifune of Yojimbo/Sanjuro and Seven Samurai: Well, who wouldn't? He was such a powerful actor. People talk about naturalism and realism when it comes to acting, but give me someone with Mifune's electric personality any day. He just owned whatever scene/film he was in, regardless of how far away from "natural" he got.
|
|
Raxivace
New Member
@raxivace
Posts: 40
Likes: 19
|
Post by Raxivace on Dec 23, 2019 5:15:12 GMT
He was such a powerful actor. People talk about naturalism and realism when it comes to acting, but give me someone with Mifune's electric personality any day. He just owned whatever scene/film he was in, regardless of how far away from "natural" he got. I think what helps with many of Mifune's larger than life performances is that often they still feel like an acting choice that his characters themselves are making, that they're intentionally putting on a big persona.
Like Kikuchiyo in Seven Samurai or especially the bandit in Rashomon are very much trying to sell everyone around them (And themselves too I think) that they're these big bold people you should pay attention to, and not just the audience watching the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 5:18:53 GMT
He was such a powerful actor. People talk about naturalism and realism when it comes to acting, but give me someone with Mifune's electric personality any day. He just owned whatever scene/film he was in, regardless of how far away from "natural" he got. I think what helps with many of Mifune's larger than life performances is that often they still feel like an acting choice that his characters themselves are making, that they're intentionally putting on a big persona.
Like Kikuchiyo in Seven Samurai or especially the bandit in Rashomon are very much trying to sell everyone around them (And themselves too I think) that they're these big bold people you should pay attention to, and not just the audience watching the movie.
Very true. Mifune could certainly dial it back when he wanted, but I always felt he was best in those larger-than-life roles. I'm sure it helped that Kurosawa was more influenced by Noh and other traditional Japanese theater rather than film acting, so he undoubtedly encouraged Mifune to go big much of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 23, 2019 7:18:05 GMT
Hint: Things are not "facts" simply because you believe they are, or anyone else believes they are. So it's not a fact that satellites were developed by the space program? What "space program" do you mean? Perhaps the one responding to Sputnik 1, a satellite? As I explained several times already satellites are for communications on Earth. Having taken some of our thunder at improving transoceanic communications we had to show those Russians something, like ... like ... like putting a man on the moon, take that! It was Telstar 1 several years later (than Sputnik) that both received transmissions from Earth and relayed them back to other points on Earth for hire. (Or so history claims, right The Herald Erjen ?) Any more questions?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 23, 2019 7:42:32 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said: [ full text here] < clip >
Wikipedia uses sources. THOSE SOURCES ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE AS REFERENCES. Basically I'm trying to say that Wikipedia is a great place for getting a list of such sources, like a scholarly bibliography. As long as a Wiki article has those sources, it's also generally quite reliable (that reliability is separate from whether it's acceptable as a source in academia itself). I have a complaint about your concept of a "source." Wikipedia does not have any analysis, never mind good analysis, of the raw facts. I believe I can safely assume that their "sources" do not either, although it could take decades to hunt it all down with all the buck passing. It is obvious that you, yourself have difficulty separating raw data from proper analysis of it, which results in your present confusion.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 23, 2019 7:51:01 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said: [ full text here] < clip >
Wikipedia uses sources. THOSE SOURCES ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE AS REFERENCES. Basically I'm trying to say that Wikipedia is a great place for getting a list of such sources, like a scholarly bibliography. As long as a Wiki article has those sources, it's also generally quite reliable (that reliability is separate from whether it's acceptable as a source in academia itself). I have a complaint about your concept of a "source." Wikipedia does not have any analysis, never mind good analysis, of the raw facts. I believe I can safely assume that their "sources" do not either, although it could take decades to hunt it all down with all the buck passing. It is obvious that you, yourself have difficulty separating raw data from proper analysis of it, which results in your present confusion. Once again, this is reminiscent of the old board when Skyhawk0 tried to convince me that homosexuality is inherent on the grounds that most people think it is. The majority rules, even if the majority is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 23, 2019 17:36:44 GMT
So it's not a fact that satellites were developed by the space program? What "space program" do you mean? Perhaps the one responding to Sputnik 1, a satellite? As I explained several times already satellites are for communications on Earth. Having taken some of our thunder at improving transoceanic communications we had to show those Russians something, like ... like ... like putting a man on the moon, take that! It was Telstar 1 several years later (than Sputnik) that both received transmissions from Earth and relayed them back to other points on Earth for hire. (Or so history claims, right The Herald Erjen ?) Any more questions? Right. So history claims.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 23, 2019 20:20:19 GMT
My opinion? I never gave any opinion, you spoke about the practical use of the space program and heavily implied that the only contribution was orange juice, I responded with a huge list of the contributions that the space program has made. I have not made any statements of opinion, I have provided facts. Is there an opinion of mine you would like to ask about? Indeed you only linked the opinions of Wikipedia, which I explained is typically wrong in the realm of opinions. It is no surprise you cannot defend any opinions whatsoever. Hint: Things are not "facts" simply because you believe they are, or anyone else believes they are. I actually recently contributed financially to Wikipedia because I often depend on them for the raw facts. I have utterly no use for their analysis of anything. You can explain anything you like, but you are verifiably 100% WRONG. The wikipedia pages I linked are very well sourced, and if you knew anything at all about research you would have seen that. if you are willing to explicitly ask me to defend a stated opinion of mine please go ahead and ask, but as long as you continue to confuse verifiable lists of things with opinions then I am afraid you will continue to look like a complete moron when discussing this.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 23, 2019 20:23:31 GMT
Eva: You have not read what I wrote either, as wiki = encyclopedia. They were NOT accepted in my uni. days.
I know Wikipedia is like an encyclopedia. That had nothing to do with my original point, though. Hold on, are you suggesting that Maya, Erjen and Arlon have to make up fictional points the person they are responding to has made so as to be able to say something they can tell themselves is valuable and interesting? But that would mean that every conversation with them would get diverted away from the topic and would end up being about claims they are making about something you never said. I find it hard to believe that anyone, let alone three people, could be that shallow and disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 23, 2019 23:31:46 GMT
Indeed you only linked the opinions of Wikipedia, which I explained is typically wrong in the realm of opinions. It is no surprise you cannot defend any opinions whatsoever. Hint: Things are not "facts" simply because you believe they are, or anyone else believes they are. I actually recently contributed financially to Wikipedia because I often depend on them for the raw facts. I have utterly no use for their analysis of anything. You can explain anything you like, but you are verifiably 100% WRONG. The wikipedia pages I linked are very well sourced, and if you knew anything at all about research you would have seen that. if you are willing to explicitly ask me to defend a stated opinion of mine please go ahead and ask, but as long as you continue to confuse verifiable lists of things with opinions then I am afraid you will continue to look like a complete moron when discussing this. There's a lot of that going around, so much maybe no one will notice. Here's an interesting movie, Contact. Jodie Foster plays Eleanor Arroway a woman whose interest in space probably depends on her father's interest in ham radio. An exciting thing about Sputnik was that ham radio operators in the United States could pick up its signals. There was no "space program" till a year later. This helps illustrate the point that communications on Earth were the driving force behind satellites that cannot do anything else really. I suppose it can always be amusing when retarded atheist kids on the internet argue on Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 23:57:17 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said: [ full text here] < clip >
Wikipedia uses sources. THOSE SOURCES ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE AS REFERENCES. Basically I'm trying to say that Wikipedia is a great place for getting a list of such sources, like a scholarly bibliography. As long as a Wiki article has those sources, it's also generally quite reliable (that reliability is separate from whether it's acceptable as a source in academia itself). I have a complaint about your concept of a "source." Wikipedia does not have any analysis, never mind good analysis, of the raw facts. I believe I can safely assume that their "sources" do not either, although it could take decades to hunt it all down with all the buck passing. It is obvious that you, yourself have difficulty separating raw data from proper analysis of it, which results in your present confusion. Wikipedia is like an Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia are repositories of facts, not of analysis. However, Wikipedia often cites analysis from other people as I've noted from reading several pages on music, film, and literature. Besides, this debate was not over any analysis, but over whether space programs contributed anything to mankind beyond Tang. That's a matter of fact, not analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 24, 2019 0:00:29 GMT
So it's not a fact that satellites were developed by the space program? What "space program" do you mean? Perhaps the one responding to Sputnik 1, a satellite? What do you mean what "space program" do "I" mean? you're the one who originally said the space program contributed nothing but Tang, so what space program did YOU mean?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 24, 2019 0:06:48 GMT
What "space program" do you mean? Perhaps the one responding to Sputnik 1, a satellite? What do you mean what "space program" do "I" mean? you're the one who originally said the space program contributed nothing but Tang, so what space program did YOU mean? How about the space program you believe contributed anything other than Tang for starters?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 24, 2019 0:21:07 GMT
What do you mean what "space program" do "I" mean? you're the one who originally said the space program contributed nothing but Tang, so what space program did YOU mean? How about the space program you believe contributed anything other than Tang for starters? I didn't say I believed they did contribute anything: I was asking the simple question to you so you could lucidly respond to gadreel's claim that the space program contributed satellites.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 24, 2019 0:57:44 GMT
How about the space program you believe contributed anything other than Tang for starters? I didn't say I believed they did contribute anything: I was asking the simple question to you so you could lucidly respond to gadreel's claim that the space program contributed satellites. I'm sorry. I get you two mixed up when both of you are here. I have no idea why. You obviously have different user names and avatars.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 24, 2019 1:14:03 GMT
I have a complaint about your concept of a "source." Wikipedia does not have any analysis, never mind good analysis, of the raw facts. I believe I can safely assume that their "sources" do not either, although it could take decades to hunt it all down with all the buck passing. It is obvious that you, yourself have difficulty separating raw data from proper analysis of it, which results in your present confusion. Wikipedia is like an Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia are repositories of facts, not of analysis. However, Wikipedia often cites analysis from other people as I've noted from reading several pages on music, film, and literature. Besides, this debate was not over any analysis, but over whether space programs contributed anything to mankind beyond Tang. That's a matter of fact, not analysis. In real life if you try to use "IMDb" as a source you will be met with peals of derisive laughter. About the same thing will happen if you use Wikipedia analysis for anything other than movies. Movies are totally a matter of personal preferences so you are safe there. Donald Trump is certainly no scientist, but if Democrats think they can beat him with Joe Biden they simply have no idea what is really happening. They are mindlessly repeating some narrative they do not understand, which is all you ever do.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 24, 2019 2:05:08 GMT
You can explain anything you like, but you are verifiably 100% WRONG. The wikipedia pages I linked are very well sourced, and if you knew anything at all about research you would have seen that. if you are willing to explicitly ask me to defend a stated opinion of mine please go ahead and ask, but as long as you continue to confuse verifiable lists of things with opinions then I am afraid you will continue to look like a complete moron when discussing this. There's a lot of that going around, so much maybe no one will notice. Here's an interesting movie, Contact. Jodie Foster plays Eleanor Arroway a woman whose interest in space probably depends on her father's interest in ham radio. An exciting thing about Sputnik was that ham radio operators in the United States could pick up its signals. There was no "space program" till a year later. This helps illustrate the point that communications on Earth were the driving force behind satellites that cannot do anything else really. I suppose it can always be amusing when retarded atheist kids on the internet argue on Wikipedia. The Russian space program started in the 1930's, Sputnik was launched in 57. Maybe you should be sure you know things before you comment on them.
|
|