MovieChat Forums > Popcorn Kernel > Replies
Popcorn Kernel's Replies
Cooking at home I usually add a little while cooking, and a little bit more just before eating. The timing of when you add the salt makes a difference. Salt added while cooking will taste different than salt added at the end before eating.
At a restaurant I usually taste it first, not worrying about insulting any 'chef' because the chef is not there watching me and I don't eat at fancy places. But usually it's already very salty and doesn't need more.
Salt is not bad for everyone, it's bad for people with high blood pressure. If your blood pressure is normal then you can go ahead and eat what you like. Salt will not GIVE you HBP. It's just bad if you already have HBP. People don't always understand these doietary health rules are not one size fits all. Like they think gluten is bad for everyone. Nope. If you have celiac disease then it's bad for you, but if you don't have celiac disease then gluten is a healthy source of protein. I love gluten and gluten loves me.
This forum does not have signatures on new posts, but jim did import all the posts from the old IMDB so those archived posts still have their signatures.
That's why it looks a lot like the old one, because all the old content is imported from the priginal imdb.
I generally like foods to be the colors they naturally are , at their peak of ripeness or freshness. Off-colors in nature are a clue that the food has spoiled or is not safe to eat. That's why people don't like green steak- because green meat would be meat that has spoiled and will make you violently ill.
The reason we make a mental exception for cookies and candy, is that these type of food are not found in nature so they don't have a natural color. And usually they use a color that mimics the flavor it is supposed to be. We get a lot of flavor cues from the color.
My late mother had killed all her taste buds (and sense of smell) from a lifetime of smoking, so she really couldn't taste much. One time for Christmas I made some vanilla cookies but colored them red and green to look prettier on the platter. She took a green one and asked "is this mint?" I said no, it's vanilla. She took a bite and said "are you sure it's not mint? it's green." She didn't taste or smell any mint but her brain was expecting mint because of the color.
I have another theory about those rape-revenge movies.
It's a kind of exploitation and pandering. It lets people watch a violent rape but then they tack on a revenge ending where the bad guys get killed, so that people can feel better about watching the first half. You couldn't get away with a movie that just showed the atrocities, it would be too much like snuff porn. But if you add a revenge storyline then you can justify the gratuitous violence.
Look up the word ' catharsis'.
I don't mean this as an insult, I just mean it straightforwardly because you said English is not your native language and I do not know the translation for it in Russian.
It's actually a greek word so maybe it's the same, but anyway.
The concept of catharsis has been a primary purpose of drama since ancient greece. Movies like you mentioned make use of this concept. The idea is that seeing extreme emotions enacted in a play (or movie), which we know is make-believe and no one is really dying, can get blow off steam, can release some tension and get that out of your system without needing to go out and do the thing in real life.
It's not meant to inspire you to go do it, or to think that real life problems can be wrapped up in 2 hours with a neat little bow.
Killing a rapist does not erase the crimes they committed. The damage was done and adding more violence on top of it isn't going to undo it. Killing a murderer won't bring back the person they murdered. Prevention is much more practical but less cinematic.
I do not know it all. No one knows it all. The more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.
Daffy Duck is the best! he is just total anarchy. Bugs is more like the sly smartass who outsmarts Elmer Fudd with guile, but Daffy just bombards Elmer with nonsense and chaos and Elmer can't stand up to it.
The humor in those cartoons is so smart and subversive, it still stands up. When they were first made the intended audience was not children, it was grownups who were at movie theaters watching Warner Brothers gangster movies and film noir.
Potato Gratin
with lots of cheese and toasted breadcrumbs on top all bubbly crispy golden.
from childhood?
classic Loony Toons and Merry Melodys, for sure. Warner Bros studio. the cartoons were much older than me, they were all made before I was born but they were on every Saturday morning.
Then as an adult I was able to appreciate them more, they have a lot of movie caricatures and parodies and inside jokes that flew over my head as a kid.
from adulthood: Ren & Stimpy. specially season 1.
also simpsons and family guy and southpark.
Three is no such thing as "normal, good men here who have no problems with being good people "
All men and all women have problems in life. Different problems, of course, but there is no "normal" perfect person who never has struggles with trying to be "good", however you define that word!
No. I don't have any answers, but I know a terrible idea when I see it. It's a lot easier to know what will definitely NOT work than to know what will work. The problems in the world are complicated. Most reasonable people know that mass murder isn't going to solve anything. It doesn't take a genius to know that. (and I am not a genius)
I do think though, that the less someone knows about any subject, the simpler or easier they THINK it is. Then the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.
Sorry for using 45 as an example i know you like him. But when he got in office and he said "Health care is complicated- who knew it was so complicated?"
Well, everyone knew. Anyone with sense knew. But he thought he could fix it in a week.
North Korea is complicated. The economy is complicated. Everything is connected and everything affects something else. You pull one straw out of the pile, and a section far away collapses. I don't have answers. I am scared of anyone who thinks they have simple answers to complicated problems.
Killing people does not solve problems in 99% of situations. The problems in our country and in the world are way deeper than just individual people's crimes (or mistakes or weaknesses or moral failings.) They are systemic.
I'm not going to say all killing is equally bad- If your life is immediately in legit danger at that moment, and there is no other way to survive, then killing can be defensible but just appointing yourself the judge of who lives and who dies will NEVER end well. And you are proposing MASS murder, not just single instances of self defense or even executions after trials. What you want is much worse than any of those other types of killing.
In someone else's judgement, you might be the undesirable type who should just be killed. That's how arbitrary your judgement is.
Things would end up worse than before. That's what would happen.
I thought so but just double checking. I got the notification so you never know.
gotta go get my pie out of the oven!
Yes, more accurately, Moore is a Hebephilie.
Hebephilia is a sexual interest in people that have gone through puberty but are still not legal adults. This word is not widely known though, so most people use 'pedophile' to cover all underage minors, although technically it really only covers pre-pubescent children.
There is a difference between a 4 year old and a 14 year old, but legally a 30 year old man should not be fucking either of them or grabbing their privates.
I suppose in cave man times when your lifespan was only 30 years, people did start breeding as soon as they were biologically able, so there would be nothing unseemly about attraction to a 14 year old. But the 70's was not that long ago and I was alive then and trust me, 14 year olds were jail bait and adults did not touch them unless you were also around that age and then it was pretty normal for let's say a 15 year old boy to date a 14 year old girl.
His story about asking the parents permission is almost admission that he was 'dating' minors. If you date an adult, you only need HER permission.
it's so true that the Clintons and the Dem party in whole has moved so far right that they are about where Republicans were in the 60s or 70s. Meanwhile republicans have also moved right from where they were, that there is really no mainstream party anymore that is liberal. That word is flung as an insult towards anyone who is left of the John Birch society, but today's dems really are not liberals anymore. They are centrists. On some social litmus test issues like gay marriage or reproductive choice, they can masquerade as liberal, but on economic issues and even defense and foreign policy, they are corporate centrists.
I really wouldn't even call trump a republican, (not a traditional one, anyway). It was convenient for him to run as one and he can exploit certain republican platforms, but he's not a true conservative.
It seems like both parties are almost meaningless anymore,
So I heard she went to the mall and rode the escalator with that filthy hair dragging on the floor and it gets stuck in the escalator mechanism, and pulls her into those big metal steps as they fold up.
She tries and tried to pull herself free, but she cannot get loose. As the machine keeps going and it's getting closer to the top, her head is pulled closer and closer to the steps. She's terrified but powerless. She has a knife in her purse but she is so in love with her stupid hair that she refuses to cut herself free. Little children stand around horrified and crying while her head is pulled into the big metal teeth and they chew up her face. Blood everywhere. CGI cartoon blood.
RIP wig lady
Months later, the mall puts up a sign on the escalators saying badly drawn CGI fetish models are not allowed to ride this escalator.
continued-
I am trying to imagine a hypothetical situation in which the tables were turned and 2 factors were true IN MY MIND:
A. I believed the accusations against 'my' parties candidate
and
B. I still believed the other guy (or woman) from the other party was worse.
and
C. It was too late to choose another candidate for 'my' party and it was too late to mount a serious write in campaign that would not just split the vote and hand it to the 'other party'.
This is a very thoughtful post.
In the recent situation with Roy Moore, some Alabama voters have said they don't believe the accusations so they would still vote for him. We are not going to be discussing those people right now. But some have actually said they DO believe it and they are STILL voting for him. So that got me thinking. If they think a child molester (remember this is the groups that does believe the accusations, so for the purposes of this "what if" post, let's assume he is guilty) is still better than a democrat, How could I understand that position? And I tried to think, under what circumstances would I vote for someone who [b]I really believed[/b] was a child molester. And they would have to be very extreme circumstances , because most people agree that child molesting is one of the worst things a person can do. But you'd have to also believe the other option was even worse. You might be faced with a terrible dilemma (even if your beliefs might be inaccurate, either about Moore's guilt or about the other candidate). So in your mind you are choosing the lesser of two evils. And just not voting doesn't get you off the moral hook either because by not voting, you are also affecting the outcome. It's a hard position to be in, where no matter what you do, the outcome will be bad ( bad in your own mind, not necessarily in the real world).
I don't think your hypothetical case with Franken is as tough of a choice because there's a wide spectrum of sexual abuse, and they are at different points in the spectrum (i.e. not equal) , but it is still a good thought experiment to imagine a dilemma in which you would feel forced to vote for someone you believed was guilty of something terrible.
I know this is just going to make a bunch of people say things like ' but he denies it" or 'the yearbook was forged" or other details. Read my post again please before doing this. I am not debating who did what. (cont)
You think I don't know the meaning of those terms? Or were you talking to the OP?
Swallows carried the coconuts to Oak Island.