Posts by Sam Watson

Keith Gonzalez said:The discussion fits perfectly within the scope of this thread, especially if you're referring to that whole thing about living water. ☕

Hahahaha 🤣🤣 god, give me strength 🤣

Anyway, I have to give credit where it’s due to that group of enthusiasts who, through sheer persistence, are actually making a dent on the global stage. Sure, you’re going to run into plenty of bottom-of-the-barrel reviews and "criticism" that isn't worth the screen it's written on, but there's some decent stuff in there too, if you look hard enough. To me, this whole site feels like a new generation stepping up to take the reins from those old-school, jaded critics like Polimac, Pavičić, and Radić, along with a handful of other names you might not recognize yet.

I find myself scrolling through this site every so often, and it honestly feels like this crew is making waves on a global scale, doesn't it? It seems like their lead guy, Sven Mikulec, is constantly landing these sit-downs with absolute icons—just recently he sat down with Friedkin and caused quite a stir; even the major international outlets picked up his interview he penned for C&B. What’s everyone’s take on Fak in general?

Does anyone actually know this group, or am I just seeing a bunch of ambitious young professionals trying to make a name for themselves?

I have to say, this movie actually looks pretty solid to me. 😁

If nothing else, it’s a pretty decent photo. Honestly, though, I don’t see anything provocative here—just a blatant attempt to squeeze profit out of a legacy that's already seen better days.

jadedrifter17 said:When it comes to Spielberg, all I see is a technician—just math, budgets, and calculations. I don't see any soul, no raw spirit, none of that uncompromising art that actually provokes you, hits you in the gut, or stirs up genuine empathy.

p.s. Oh, and about that plane... yeah, doesn't smell right, my Nidzo. Njegoš once wrote:
A merchant lies to you with a smile
a woman lies by weeping tears
but no one lies to a Turk on a major matter.😁

It seems to me that you’re just hung up on the name, staring at the massive brand Spielberg has built out of his own identity while ignoring a pretty vital reality: he isn't a bad director by any stretch. Most of the scripts for his biggest hits are penned by other incredible artists—specifically, some of the greatest filmmakers working today, like the Coen brothers. At his core, Spielberg is a director; even though he left his mark as a writer on films like The Goonies and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, he isn't one of those rare, multi-talented freaks of nature like Luis Buñuel, François Truffaut (who actually acted in Close Encounters of the Third Kind), David Cronenberg, or David Lynch. Isn't it a bit foolish to compare him to them and conclude he's a bad director? It's clearly a matter of talent, perhaps even genius. His goal isn't to leave you mesmerized by his intellect, nor is he trying to lay bare his inner workings for an audience the way the aforementioned directors do, so in that sense, you have a point—he is a craftsman. But why is there a problem with that, when so few people actually know how to direct a movie? Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal, Jurassic Park, Jaws, Saving Private Ryan, Duel—they are all fantastic films.

Maybe what's actually bothering you is something else entirely, like the fact that he's a Jew and the wealthiest living director, but if that's the case, shouldn't you be just as bothered by everything else coming out of Hollywood, given that almost every major studio under that leadership is run by Jews?

jadedrifter17 said:Yo, where you at, Nidzo, you legend? How's the war against those Russian propagandists going?

Well, they just shot down a plane over Turkey, so things are moving along nicely. 😁

What's your problem with Spielberg?

How could a Spielberg film even be bad? 🤷

It’s the kind of thing you just sit through and watch. ☕

Scott Allen33 said:An invasion of Sci-Fi movies? That's just what you call it when you only ever watch summer blockbusters. You could probably start a whole thread about an "invasion of zombie horrors" if you wanted to.

If you step away from the Hollywood bubble for even a second, you'll find plenty of decent, grounded films if you actually bother to look. ☕

+1

To me, it feels more like a drama invasion. 😬

Noah Roberts46 said:Bradley Cooper. 🤮🙂

I'm with you there, 😁

but honestly, I can't help but gravitate toward anything with a culinary theme, especially since those kinds of movies are actually pretty rare, so things like The flavors of the Palace, Like a chef, and Chef always catch my eye because I have a bit of a weakness for food porn, don't we? 😁
I don't doubt this one will be interesting enough, but then again, there's just Cooper... 👎

Smart move. 👍 Thanks.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:If you were being sarcastic when you called them "eminent newspapers"—given how much you clearly know about their lack of journalistic integrity and basic literacy—then why bother posting a snippet from them in the first place? And why are you suddenly dragging other outlets like Index, New York Daily, and Daily Fail into this conversation now?

I was reading that article early in the morning when I made a gesture—one that ended up getting the whole thread shut down—to point out how absurd it was to blow something like this out of proportion. I shared another link, which led to a page on The Dodo, a site that actually knows its birds, just to show that they didn't even mention the poor thing being killed. So, maybe I was wrong about that. Maybe I misread the situation. 🤔 You can't exactly read my mind, you know? Honestly, ever since I read that news story, I haven't been able to get it out of my head.

I dropped those links after the thread was locked because I figured people would just use search engines anyway; most of this stuff is pretty easy to verify if you actually bother to look. I’m not one of those people trying to peddle anti-science propaganda—far from it, considering I spend my time studying these things myself, much like what I deal with coming out of my technical and natural science courses—but I have to say, this whole situation with the bird left me feeling pretty shaken. Is it just me, or is this entire topic worth debating on a much deeper level than just the fate of a single bird? In this instance, that bird was essentially an accidental Jan Palach; sure, nothing caught fire, but the poor thing flew right into the path of that scientist.

Look, this whole thing is being looked into, so if I were you, I’d just lay low. If they decide to open a formal inquiry and you start throwing around arguments fueled by nothing but tabloid trash, you're going to find yourself facing a suspension. Is it really worth getting canned over some sensationalist nonsense?

God, I'm pissed off. 🕺 So now I know.

Look, everyone, can we please stop treating me like an idiot, just like you're doing to everyone else here? Since when did you all get the right to discredit me this way? I've provided the links in English, so I'm not sure what part of that isn't clicking for you. 🤷

Here’s more:

The New York Post: http://www.nytimes.com/news/interesting...and-killed-1029832(By the way, that image in the thread header is a clip from the Post, and when I referred to "eminent newspapers," I was being sarcastic—a concept that our resident forum "scientists" clearly aren't equipped to grasp.)
Index: http://www.index.com/news/article/b...o-/847705.aspx

New York Daily: Another Cecil? Researcher for New York museum kills rare bird in name of science, draws outrage from PETA
Daily Mail: American scientist tracks down one of world's rarest birds and then KILLS IT for 'research'

and so on...

I want the moderator to step up. Zachary Mendoza2, why the silence? Why'd you shut the thread down?

I need to edit the post and integrate this statement:

Zachary Mendoza2 said:What kind of nonsense is this? The Scientific American article actually says this:
It doesn't say anywhere that they killed the bird, and that photo you posted is just anti-science trolling. These major American dailies don't belong in a discussion about debunking myths.
Lock.http://www.forum.us/showpost.php?p=55907628&postcount=6

🤣 🤣 What an epic fail. 😁

shadowpilot6 said:Sam, that’s neither a link nor even the text you thought you posted.
This is what you actually put up:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-photographed/

The actual link is buried inside that one. I messed up by posting the blog URL instead of the direct source, but does it really matter? We're all just circling the drain here anyway, and honestly, shouldn't the moderator have figured that out on their own, unless they had some reason to go digging through the thread in the first place?

Hey everyone,

The sheer arrogance required to censor a moderator who just throws around terms like "anti-scientific trolling" while discrediting the author is honestly beyond belief, especially when they shut down the Science and Ethics thread with such a pseudo-intellectual explanation:

What kind of nonsense is this? The article in Scientific American says this:

It doesn't say anywhere that they killed the bird, and the photo you posted is just anti-scientific trolling. This belongs in a tabloid paper debunking myths, not here.
Lock.

The topic is perfectly legitimate:

Update: A previous version of this post indicated that the moustached kingfisher was later released. The Dodo has confirmed with Dr. Filardi that the bird was collected as a specimen for additional study. This decision to not merely photograph, but to kill the bird, has sparked criticism for what many see as the needless taking of a rare animal's life.

As Marc Bekoff, Professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, pointed out in a subsequent op-ed, the killing of animals for the sake of science is an all-too-common practice — one, he argues, which "simply needs to stop."

https://www.thedodo.com/first-photos...366744674.html

For obvious reasons, I’m looking for an apology from the moderator for these accusations, a reversal of the ban for trolling, and for the thread to be reopened.

There seems to be a lot of censorship going on lately, along with people venting their frustrations on other users and shutting down topics that actually deserve a debate.

I can't help but think the moderator would be much more effective if they actually took the time to read the texts thoroughly—unless, of course, there's a language barrier standing in the way.

You're talking nonsense; I watched that movie myself. It’s been out for a few hours now.

Jack Murphy5 said:Where did you watch it?

Since we're talking about Netflix, they actually pulled it from the platform just a few hours ago...

rustydrifter10 said:This isn't just about complaining over deleted posts. If you want to make a claim, you need to provide actual evidence; if certain posts were wiped, you should at least know which thread they were in or roughly what page or date they disappeared from. Just read the rules in this PDF: don't go throwing accusations around unless you actually intend to back them up with something concrete.

Alright, I get where you're coming from.

Restore all the posts that weren't banned, specifically those deleted between October 14, 2013, and today, October 14, 2015. You don't need to dump them into a PDF; just link them through a dedicated link integrated into the forum system. I assume you have a user profile for everyone where all their entries can be gathered in one spot, so surely you have a profile for the PDF itself—in this case, the CIA's profile—where every single post is clearly visible, including the ones that were deleted.

During that timeframe, there are only 19 pages filled with threads, which works out to just over 1,000 topics.

Will that work?

William Bennett53 said:Hey everyone, you’ve been missing in action since yesterday... Either back up that complaint with some actual substance and get specific, or we might as well just pack it up and head home. I realize we’re right in the thick of election season, but honestly, why should we bother looking to politicians for any kind of guidance when they spend all their time being completely insincere and hurling accusations at one another?

I don't know how you manage to type all that out with such wit, but you clearly have a knack for it. How exactly are we supposed to recover those deleted posts? I suppose we’re stuck looking to you to verify them, since none of us seem to have access to that option.

Of course the mods back each other up; it would be pretty stupid if they didn't. That’s just called solidarity. And we're just as solid.

All our questions really boil down to one thing: why act this way? Why go around deleting even mediocre posts, effectively psychologically bullying the members, while simultaneously triggering a massive backlash among the rest of the community—those PDF types—whenever actual issues arise, causing people to drop like flies?

Do you mods even understand what it feels like to be banned, or what it's like to get screwed over while you're banned, knowing you can't do a single damn thing because someone can just end you with a single click whenever they feel like it, regardless of whether you actually had a point to make?