Leaderboard

I know for a fact that some vaccinations cause problems but this is true of any medication. A small percentage will always have side effects. It's unfortunate, however the good for all is worth the risk I believe. Anti-vax people should go around with hats saying "Let's Make Polio Great Again!" When I was at school we had our jabs at school and if we missed the day then we had to provide proof that we got them from a doctor. I think my mum may even still have my vaccination card. As for flat-earthers, morons one and all.

Looks like Tim and Banshee were indeed successful in their quest for some emergency bandwidth allocation, hooray!

I think that it's partially a result of us having so much access to so much more information than we can even process that it seems incredibly hard to determine what is actually true and what isn't. People filter. And because it's absolutely impossible to verify everything for yourself, you always have to rely on trust at some point. And there seems to be growing distrust in established authorities and experts, be they political, scientific, media, etc. Once a person has settled down inside their own little bubble where life makes sense, it's incredibly hard to reach them there. They are quite literally in another reality. That's why, for example, I think it doesn't matter one bit what investigations do or do not find out about Trump; those people who would believe it would never vote for him anyway and his supporters wouldn't believe any evidence, no matter how sound. I am not saying that the above mentioned distrust is unwarranted, btw. I went to university long enough to catch more than a glimpse at the ugly side of the scientific community. I am far from happy with the work of most politicians and whenever I have read a media report about something I witnessed first hand I have always been shocked at the inaccuracy of the information. What I don't understand, however, is why people who won't believe, say, BBC news, think that something they read on Facebook is more credible. Where does this idea come from that because one source is wrong another must be right? It's all a muddle. Which Dickens character says that? Darn, I have to get back to reading my classics, it's escaped my mind.

Re Vaccines: I think we've been living without pests for too long. Losing a child to one of those diseases is much too rare. A mother who lost a kid or two to polio and co., wouldn't think about risks of vaccination. I'm just patiently waiting for the first death case from measles that has its big comeback around the world. Flat Earthers - I don't know what to say. It's a failure of education systems. Of common sense. Of logic. Of brain cells. But sometimes it seem to me like an overreaction to a perceived "dictatorship" of education and science. The tendency for overzealous militant religiosity, seeing climate change as a conspiracy of new industries, the adoration for idiocy aka trumpism. Brexit. It all shows that people don't want to hear scientific explanations anymore, they don't want to think and look for facts, they feel like the educated "upper class" have all the control. Which I think is a big, big failure of the education system leaving the less talented/intelligent behind. And maybe the perceived dehumanisation of the political and social systems. Maybe we've done something wrong in the last years. Or maybe it's a natural process of different philosophies fighting for domination. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Counter-Enlightenment

I think BBC Sherlock seriously dialed down on John Watson's intrinsic optimism and warm/outgoing nature with people. Their version of Watson is quite an angry, maladjusted and isolated little dude who does not seem to enjoy his calling as a medical man very much. ACD's Watson did, of course, respond to the excitement and danger of being a close associate of Sherlock Holmes, and he thrived on their dangerous adventures together. But the notion that John is so intrinsically damaged himself that he is only attracted to dangerous and damaged individuals is Mofftiss's invention. Mofftiss's rebuilding of Mary from a quintessentially nurturing and proper Victorian wife into a callous ninja assassin was particularly inventive. There's the line where John, devastated by the reveal of his wife's true identity asks Sherlock, "But why is *she* like that? (ie, 'dangeous'). Sherlock's reply: "She's like that because *you chose her*" This statement does not hold up the evidence of the two preceding episodes since we met Mary. John was completely blindsided by her lethal past and skill set because he'd had no evidence of it in all the months, or years he had known her. Amanda Abbington herself was just as blindsided by Mary's true colors as John was . . and why? Because, the writers hadn't put anything like that *in*. Okay, so she knows what a skip code is and has a good memory for details like hotel room numbers. Many people do. I knew what a skip code is and I never trained with the CIA. I just like to read espionage thrillers. My feeling is, between the introduction of Mary in Ep. 1 and her 'reveal' in Ep. 3, the decision was made to change horses completely on her character. John Watson has Sherlock Holmes for all the danger, excitement and unpredictability he craves. Which is precisely why he would not have to seek it out in a potential wife, not even subliminally. Mary is supposed to represent the well-ordered hearth and home Hobbity side of Watson, while his escapades with SH illustrate his swashbuckling ex-soldier side. Moftiss's version of a Watson who continually gravitates to dangerous, imbalanced people for his primary relationships makes JW on some level, unbalanced . .which I think strays far from the original intent.

When we lived in upstate New York, I noticed that when the cardinals sang in the spring they had a Swedish accent (which would have made more sense in Minnesota), compared to the ones I'd heard back here in Indiana. It's called pigeon English.

Oh dear, poor you. 15 years is impressive and I'm sure you and he had lots of love to share in all that time, but still, it is never enough, I know. Do you have pics to share or does it hurt too much yet? To answer your question, I'm sitting here typing this with tears in my eyes, and Diva passed in 2008 and Basic in 2014 so no, it never goes away completely, or at least it didn't for me. But with time, I managed to smile more as I remembered the many happy moments and the pain faded to just a dull ache. My heart goes out to you, the first few months, when you still listen automatically when you come home and wonder at first why there is no sound of paws rapidly approaching, are the worst.

Not to keep bashing the TJLC movement, but I just saw a thing (here) that summed it up nicely: someone did an analysis of the wedding scene, claiming that Sherlock was filmed constantly blocking our view of Mary, which meant that the filmmakers were saying that the wedding was between Sherlock and John. So someone else went in and cherry-picked all the scenes where Sherlock was blocking John … ergo, the wedding was between Sherlock and Mary! Except this person's conclusion was … it doesn't mean anything, it's just what happens when you film someone walking around. And that's how I view most of the TJLC theories … they present only the evidence that supports their conclusion, and ignore or deny anything that doesn't. But that's people for you, I guess.

I've lost many a kitty, I'm afraid. I'm the opposite of Carol … when I was younger it was sad, yeah, but as I aged each loss became harder to bear. There's been a few times I resisted getting another cat just because I didn't want to go through the pain of loss again … but I'm always happier with a cat around. I have a new little friend now, and she and I are also still getting used to each other. I don't think she'll ever be a cuddler, either, but she's already started bossing me around, (Feed me! Play with me! Play with me! Play with me! ) so I think we'll have a good life together. And I will grieve when she's gone, and eventually get another …..

Yes, it's pretty idiotic to think about the impact. We were almost there to eradicate polio. Now towns, school etc started to ban anti-vaccine to try to minimise new measles outbreak, chicken pox etc. It's like the brains of many can't keep up with medical advancement. And all those efforts would be compromised greatly. As for flat-earthers, it was in the news (sigh) that there is a planned expedition for them to go Antartica and..wait for it...... to touch the wall, as in the edge of the world. It is very suspicious to me that the spoke person or whatever, is probably just a media wh*re (no Janine, not you) who hitchhikes on the society, that unfortunately, exists. So, if I remember correctly, the earth is actually contained in some kind of dome, their wall as the edge and end of the world. The sun and moon are inside this dome, well it's a HUGE DOME!

I think Basil is looking particularly Sherlocky here.

This didn't get a mention in The Guardian or The Times. That's just wrong. Am I going to have to resort to the Mail now? 😱

That sounds lovely, Douglas, especially that they thought to include a few of his curls. One of our cats had distinctive two-tone whiskers, so when I would find one on the floor, I'd know for sure that it was hers. I once taped a couple of them to the inside of a kitchen cupboard just for kicks, and they're still there, even though she's been gone for almost ten years now.

Hi Caya, Aw: that's lovely: about Basic! And I know what you mean; Well, we had our little Sasha cremated by a company who specialises in that sort of thing, and now we've got Sasha's Ashes in a little Ceramic Urn here at home with us; and they even gave us a Certificate with his name on it, and also with his date of Birth (12th of December, 2003) and his Date of Passing (21st of January, 2019): and also with some of his curly white hair attached!

Having a backyard cemetery helps at times, though - I recently found one of Basic's favourite sticks (our cellar just might be slightly untidy ) which she must have hidden when my parent's dog was visiting and then forgotten, and I put it on the place where we buried her (where she loved to lie when she was still alive). Now when I pass it I see the stick and smile, seeing her lie there in my memory. I promise, the time will come for you as well, when the smile is stronger than the pain when you think of Sasha.

I've previously mentioned getting signals from our departed cats -- such as a few weeks after Val died, Walter started doing one of Val's unique stunts -- and they had never met! (Because Val had feline leukemia, so had to be kept separate.) I suspect that the people who've been urging you to get another dog right away think it'd be a "replacement" -- not realizing that each individual (of any species) is unique. Caya is right, you'll know when you're ready, or else a dog will just show up and adopt you. I must admit to becoming more philosophical over the years, because cats go by so quickly. At this point there are more cats out in our little back-yard cemetery (seven) than there are in the house (five). I still remember each one wistfully, and grieve each time another one passes on, but it's gradually becoming less traumatic.

Thank you for sharing your and Sasha's story with us, Douglas. I know talking about it isn't easy - it's not for me, and it's been years, how much worse must it be after a couple months. I understand that you need time to grieve till you can even think of getting another dog. You'll know when you're ready, I promise. The moment will come when there's another dog who you come across (even if it's just a picture) and they won't let go of your hearts and minds till you bring them home with you, like we did with our former Turkish street dog hellion, Lilly, who has since kept us busy. And I understand what you mean about signs. I am quite happily agnostic, but I choose to believe in the Rainbow Bridge because damn life would be way too depressing otherwise.

The sound animals make, in different languages. By James Chapman. [Link]

[Link]

[Link]

There was that 1990s movie, Disclosure, starring Michael Douglas & Demi Moore as his man-eating boss that first opened the woman-on-man harassment dialogue, goodness, 25 years before #MeToo. I liked parts of the movie a lot but it suffered from 1. having Michael Douglas as the male lead . . I don't know about any other women here but MD has never been a sexually desirable target for me, and 2. tried to mash together sexual politics with . . very primitive virtual reality technology and it just didn't really work. It was kind of like an attempt at a '90s update of Hitchcock set in the PACNW and just not terribly good Hitch . .but I digress . . My issue with the current whistleblowing climate is two-fold . . 1. Not all infractions are created equal. 2. When it comes to sexual misdeeds, an allegation seems as good as proof. For generations, victims of real brutal sexual assaults have been afraid to come forward and report a crime because the ones who did were victimized all over again by a system that called them liars or else loose women who were asking for it and hence, complicit in their own assaults. Now the pendulum has swung the other way completely and it's enough to try someone in the kangaroo court of public opinion and throw away the key by announcing on Twitter that X 'made a sexually suggestive remark to me at a party in 1987.' Done and dusted, that man's toast. While systematic and pervasive threats of unwanted sexual attentions are nothing that anyone should stay quiet about, guys (let's just say guys for now, since so far it has just been guys) are all being tarred with the Harvey Weinstein brush and that is hardly fair. Once upon a time, there was such a thing as an innocuous joke or kidding around, but now in the #MeToo era, there can not be any more innocuous kidding around. Nada. No mas. Not ever. Because one can just never tell the magnitude of the psychic trauma that can be inflicted upon a young woman by having a banana waved at her from *across the room*. That kind of thing could require years' worth of very expensive therapy. In the case of Craig McLachlan, 41/2 years elapsed between the alleged incidents during a 2014 tour of the Rocky Horror Show and the involved women actually filing a lawsuit in January of 2018. The plaintiffs did not seek any legal remedy for their assertion that they had been violated by Mr. McLachlan, nor did they start using terms like 'sexual predator', oddly enough, until Craig's post-Rocky Horror Show project, the Dr. Blake Mysteries, was well-established and highly received, making Mr. McLachlan an even more high-profile and wealthier star in Australia than when the alleged incidents took place. One cannot help but be skeptical as to the timing, no?

In a society as large and complex as ours, I regretfully suspect that we do need politicians -- even though the inevitable downside is that they won't all behave in a manner we would consider sensible.

As you said, John didn't choose Mary because she was "dangerous." She was then passing for "normal," and he chose that. He was likewise smitten with Dr. Sarah Sawyer, apparently a very wholesome woman. So even though the Moftisses claim that he's "attracted to danger," their own story lines don't bear them out. We do see John become a darker character from His Last Vow onwards -- but considering what he's going through, how many people would retain a positive outlook? I don't necessarily think the writers changed their minds, though. Their concept of "fooling" the audience bears a very close resemblance to my concept of lying. Sure, they throw a few feeble "clues" around, but that only shows that they're planning all along to pull the rug out from under us later on.