Embarrassing Chapters in US History, Part 4

hm..

what gave you the impression I would have liked this movie?

I'm a committed skeptic. I think that probably comes across more than anything else in my comments and quizzes. I don't believe in ghosts, or witches, or gods, or any similar nonsense. Movies do not scare me. Not The Ring. Certainly not Freddy. And absolutely not The Blair Witch- which my cousin and I could not stop laughing through. We were in hysterics the whole time. The movie was just SO cheesy and dumb. The concept that it was "found footage" was ridiculous. And if it WAS actually real footage, then nothing scary or creepy happened in the movie because in real life there are no witches. So I think this dumb concept only works if you already believe in supernatural BS like this. I hated Blair Witch because nothing happens in the movie. The acting is *actrocious*. The script just unbelievably bad. The sound of sticks breaking isn't scary. Piles of rocks are not scary. Getting lost because you threw your map

in the river isn't scary. It's not believable, either. I can't stand any of these found footage movies. They just don't work as a concept and I believe they've been adopted because they're easy to make, you can do one for an extremely small budget, hiring no-name/no-talent actors, with hiring a writer being optional sense there is only the vaguest glimmer of a plot. And it's just so contrived the ways that they keep inventing (dumb) reasons for the characters to film everything.

Anyway... I hated this movie and there's no amount of chances I could give it that would change my mind. But I'm happy that you enjoyed it. Best thing I got out of it was that my friends and I for years could say any random line from the film and everybody would just bust out laughing. My favorite was probably "it's the SAME LOG!!!"

oh, and forgot to say.. it's not because I lack imagination it's because I like films that are well made, that have a strong narrative or interesting direction style, good character development, an interesting story to tell etc. Blair Witch had NONE of that... it was just supposed to be spooky. And to be spooked by this movie you don't need an imagination you need to be afraid of things that don't exist (and also be able to ignore the horrible acting and script which both take you out of what's happening on screen).

I hate scary movies that have nothing to say, no good story, no interesting characters, just... trying to scare you or gross you out. I hate the Saw movies. Just disgusting torture porn. Or Hostel. Even worse. I hate movies like The Ring or The Grudge that only exist to creep you out, even though I respect their attempts at telling something like a story. I hate the ones that try to make you jump and nothing else.

Since I don't get scared at movies... there has to be something more than jumps, gore, or general spookiness. I liked Scream because it was irreverent, self-mocking, fresh and funny. I liked Alien and Jurassic Park because they were well-directed, terse, suspenseful movies with characters we cared about in dangerous situations, and also they were smart sci-fi with innovative special FX. Same could be said of The Terminator, which at its core is a love story. The only movie I can remember feeling a little scared or creeped out by was Fire in the Sky, which I watched probably 20 years ago. Or Poltergeist, which I saw when I was 4. That's pretty much it. Though the bit in Pet Semetary where the kid cuts the man's achilles tendon grossed me out and for years I'd sometimes put my feet on the floor next to my bed and get the willies thinking about it. Still, I didn't like that movie.

After 8 years of commenting here, while other members come and go, there's a whole bunch of those. I wish that QuizMaster would change the way that all user comments vanish and instead do that thing other sites do where comments from deleted accounts remain but the name of the person commenting gets replaced with "deleted account" or something like that.

I actually did look it up many months ago per your recommendation. And while you may have a point I just didn't fel like changing the quiz. It seems like Stella's story was abused by certain politicians, at the urging of their corporate donors, to push for "tort reform" so that it would become more difficult to sue companies for large amounts of money. And that kind of sucks. But I still feel like, even if the story was abused and misrepresented, it points to an underlying fact that Americans do in fact tend to be over litigious. Or... you could choose to look at this incident as embarrassing for spotlighting how corporate interests in the United States can so strongly flavor everyone's opinion (including my own?). I think I'll leave the question as is and leave the object of embarrassment open to interpretation.

You could also say the embarrassing bit was the criminal negligence of large corporations like McDonald's that would lead to things like an old woman giving herself 3rd degree burns. I don't think the way the clue is worded points toward any one thing being the source of the embarrassment.

prove it

When people say that you can't prove there is no god the definition for god that they are using is one that is so vague and amorphous as to be meaningless. Yes, of course, if there exists some being that is invisible, that does not interact with the world in any discernible way making it completely undetectable, that has no properties we are aware of or can comprehend... there's no point trying to prove or disprove such an entity.

On the other hand, if you're talking about the Christian god who is very clearly described in the Bible, and if we are to assume that the Bible is a reliable source of information about this character, then we can disprove the existence of that god quite easily with simple logical proofs. The descriptions of the god Yahweh/Jehovah/Jesus are internally inconsistent and make certain claims about reality, history etc that we know are wrong.

But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about Evolution. Evolution is observable scientific fact.