Badmovies.org Forum

Breaking spaghetti before cooking is a big no-no according to most chefs, cooks and foodies. They are supposed to be that long, and consumed that long.

Do you care?

Do you break your spaghetti?

I almost always break spaghetti in half so it will fit into the pot all at once.

I always break it up. I use angel hair pasta...

Yes. How would you fit it in the pot?

No, I like it when it's long.

Since I use a small, deep pan to boil the noodles, I snap them in half before dropping them in.

Yes, but what about your spaghetti?  :twirl:

Yes -- it's easier to get all of it into the pot in smaller pieces

May anyone propose a daily random question here, or based on the poll, is the topic limited to spaghetti breakage (and length)? Because boy do I have a head full of random questions.

We can do random questions here. I'll try to edit the title.

Why do people think Machiavelli was so great? The man was kicked out of power quite easily and failed to get back into politics.

I never thought he was so great. In fact I never think about him at all!

Machiavelli: seldom read, often misquoted, overrated. Physician heal thyself. (His ideas didn't get him that far.)

I read a selection from THE PRINCE to my world history class every year.
It's intriguing, to say the least.

Considering that history shows few tyrants escape bad ends, I think I'd go with taking my chances of being loved over feared. You know, my long-term approach in here, for instance.  :wink:

Well, he did make the point that it is most desirable to be both; and that above all, one must avoid being hated.

Why would it be desirable to be feared? What kinda s**t is that?  :question:

Men will sooner obey a prince they fear than one they love; and they are quicker to betray one they love than one they fear.

That's Machiavelli's take, anyway.

I disagree with him there. Fear can be useful in the short term, but people will try to destroy what they fear sooner or later. Most people do not set out to destroy that which they love, although they may do so as a result of unintended consequences.

Who was the best entertainer in the 80s... Prince or Michael Jackson?

Neither. Prince was the better of those two.

Prince was awesome, Michael Jackson was my favorite though.

If an aircraft goes into a dive and reaches terminal velocity, how do mercury switches still work?

Michael was better, in their day both were excellent.

What do you mean, an African or European mercury switch?

1-i'm the twister in the poll.
2- is he the guy that makes perfume? it smells like skunk cabbage.
3-prince, hands own, far&away.
4-huh?

why does mexican peppermint gum taste good when the american version doesn't?

The sap that comes from a certain tree in Mexico is called chicle. It's used to make mexican gum.

wow! thank you ronny, i had no idea. that is REALLY cool!

 ^ That's where the brand name Chiclets came from.

that is too cool..do you know what they use here? it does NOT taste the same at all, even when i was a kid it didn't.

Would you rather become a vegan for the rest of your life, or be able to eat whatever you wanted, except once a year at some random moment a person would walk up and punch you in the nose?

I would take the punch.

I would go vegan and tell them I'd take the punch anyway, cuz fuggem.

But then I'm in a self-destructive mood tonight.

Take the punch. Of course that happens anyway... :lookingup:

A genie offers you a choice, five years of perfect happiness followed by painless death, or take a chance and live out the remainder of your natural life as it would otherwise unfold, good, bad, and ugly?

(I'd take my chances with what comes.)

I'd ask for some time to think about it, then come back when I was getting on a bit, maybe got a terminal disease or something and then take option A. Otherwise B all the way.

Nice try, Alex. The genie usually twists the wish, not the other way around.

It's really "perfect" happiness? Bliss we could never, ever hope to achieve in life either by pure luck or hard work? Option A seems like an easy choice, especially at my age.

Congratulations, your town has voted you executioner for a day and you want to be found worthy of the honor! Now what's the most creative form of capital punishment you can come up with, using only real world materials (no ice dragon breath enemas!)? It's your special day---and someone else's too!---so go for it.

Here's some inspirational music while you think:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS9441I6OZ4#)

I have the skin flayed off them, carefully avoiding veins and arteries and then chuck them in a vat of vinegar.

Or I cut their eyelids off and stake them out in the desert.

Or I lock them in a room with only pies made from a polar bears liver to eat.

I did consider endless reruns of Keeping up with the Kardashians but decided that was too cruel.

1- i'll take the punch.
2-B
3- i'd be a dismal failure, they'd know better than to vote me in.

Which of these is an urban legend, and which is only too stupidly true?

A. A woman in Great Smoky Mountains National Park dipped her toddler's fingers in honey, hoping a bear that had approached the family's picnic table would lick away the sweet treat while she filmed the incident, but the bear instead bit off the child's hand.

B. Mary Queen of Scots served pickled frogs at the feast for her second marriage, a gift from her former brother-in-law, the King of France, which so disgusted her guests that rumors began to fly that she was a witch who ate unholy things.

  ^ I reckon the first one is true.
Because people are stupid.

(https://i.imgur.com/3F6drH1.png) (https://lunapic.com)

And the second one sounds like something your crazy mind would think about!

EDIT: If it's the other way around- I'll eat my hat!

(https://i.imgur.com/LEareCd.gif) (https://lunapic.com)

Ding-ding-ding! And we have a weiner!

Four people.  No more.

Never.  One should never volunteer one's self to Hell for someone who belongs there. 

^ What he said.

I think it is possible to love and to fear the same person. 

Hmmm, in a purely theoretical basis lets examine this case.

I would suggest looking first at your sources of information. In this case, you have a rather one-sided book which is full of grandiose claims of power about the subject. My conclusion from it would be that much like for example Roman writings about the various peoples that they came in conflict with, that the bible is somewhat biased towards one side, enough so that it is effectively a piece of propaganda designed to encourage supporters to follow its version of events. If you can tie your argument in with any known historical events it can be used to make your narrative appear authentic and plausible.

In this, it would indicate to me, that the various claims to omniscience and omnipotence have been somewhat overstated by this factions proponents. A jealous god who had the power to remove a potential rival for worship would surely use that power and indeed is described several times as violently disposing of those opposed to its wishes. This would lead me to conclude that the  powers ascribed to the deity were overstated, in the same way, ancient rivals would artificially inflate the prowess of their enemies in order to make their own side seem more powerful by having defeated such worthy foes, and when they were unable to defeat them, often attributed almost supernatural powers to their foes or why in more modern times, hostile nations with the power to wipe each other out have not went to war with each other.

In other words, were god to clash with the devil, he could not be assured of victory and therefore has settled into a proxy war wherein the sides seek to attract the most souls (literally) to its cause in the hope that in the end, the numerical superiority might would be enough to secure victory, or at least give the enemy pause for thought and doubt his own chances for achieving a win. You could argue it is a matter of free will, however, our increasing understanding of the human brain is currently pointing toward a model where we have surprisingly little free will how we react to any given situation is in fact pre-determined decided by a combination of our genetic make-up and experience rather than being a conscious assessment of each new situation, which diminishes the free will argument not to mention that the primary source of information (the bible) is distinctly anti-free will with its whole do I say or be punished theme.

There, that is my take on it anyway.

because lucifer was his favored son before the fall.

Because He gave man free will. 

Friday asked Robinson Crusoe the same thing in the 1954 movie...

Well, Biblically speaking, Satan HAS been defeated and will be destroyed . . . in God's good time.
But for man to fully exercise his gift of free will, there has to be another side to choose.

When's the last time you took a moment to strike up a person-to-person conversation with a homeless person?

 ^ Sunday. My son is homeless at the moment. He's living in his truck. I told him he could crash at my house- he don't want to. He says he would rather be uncomfortable, because it gives him motivation.

Yesterday. Since he could afford to buy cigarettes I told him I wasn't giving him any money.

Reminds me of a story a friend told me. She was leaving a McDonalds and there was a homeless person begging for $1 so he could go inside and buy a Hamburger as he "hasn't eaten in days". She had just bought a few and gave him a burger. As she walked away he threw the burger after her missing her head by inches.

We have a homeless shelter of sorts in our town. People living there have to pay a monthly rent (about €100). The housing is meant as a temporary solution and only has one toilet and one bathtub. It is inhabited mostly by alcoholics and a few younger jobless people. I know a guy who's been living there for five years. He told me he is waiting for his parents (both in their seventies) to die so he can move into their house and collect the inheritance.

There is a homeless guy who begs in the town next to the one I grew up in. He has been given a fully furnished house but walked out of it as he prefers being homeless.

I kind of figure even if a person is homeless for negative reasons like drugs or indolence, that person is living through the consequences of those choices in a tough scenario, being on the streets, so even when I don't give someone money I try to at least treat that person politely, remembering it's still a human being. (I have encountered some vile homeless people, though.)

One scenario that's haunted me for sixteen years, there was this funny homeless guy in Austin, his name was LaMont, and everybody liked him, seemed an old soul sort, kind of reminded me of a sitcom character who'd be billed as Homeless Black Dude #4, and one day I found out LaMont had third-degree burns all over his body because the makeshift shelter he stayed in caught on fire while he was passed out drunk. He died after two weeks. That was awful.

this afternoon. the gentleman who i save aluminum cans for tapped on the door to say thank you, we chatted about Y&R for a few minutes and he said he'd try to come by and rake out my flower garden this weekend. i've known him for about 10 years, he's a very nice guy. he just can't be inside for long.

Who is worserererer, Cousin Oliver or Scrappy Doo?

oooo...that's a tough one... hhmmm... i'd have to go with cousin oliver, i think. :cheers:

"When I was an atheist I said the argument against God was that the world was cruel and unjust, then it came to me to consider how I arrived at that thought. A man cannot know a line is crooked lest he first have some notion of straight."

CS Lewis said this, or very close to this in his work Mere Christianity, and for some reason I woke up today thinking about that, the notion of conscience, of "should" and how much these ideas would seem contrary to a universe governed strictly by the logic of survival of the fittest. In a natural world ruled only by the strong surviving, where did altruism come from?

Is it yet another evidence of God?

Nah, altruism has benefits towards the survival of the species as a whole rather than the individual and can be witnessesd across a variety of species but not universally so. If god had a hand in it, I would imagine it would either be confined to solely his supposed favourite children or present across the full spectrum of life, not present more or less randomly.

^ What he said!

Thanks for your thoughtful answer, Alex, but I'd have to question what you wrote. I am not sure one sees altruism in nature so much as definable acts of species preservation overriding self-preservation, which is common. The other day for instance I watched a mother leopard stay on the ground fighting hyenas til her two cubs were safely up a tree, then she climbed herself: that's species preservation in action, however heroic or noble her courage. (She was brave!)

Altruism in non-humans.... I don't know. Self-sacrifice can be a feature of species preservation, and a dog nobly dying for his master contains a certain amount of that but altruism.... There I don't know, since the dog may or may not be dying out of love but is likely seeing it as protecting his (human) pack leader, assuring the pack lives on.

Despite psychologists trying to say altruism is a myth and altruistic acts are motivated by the pleasure they bring in the one undertaking them, I would say altruism does exist and is only found among humans, since it requires a certain amount of conscious reflection to do something that rewards another yet transcends mere species preservation. To bestow something good without any perceivable self-reward, that is by definition altruism. If "mortal sin" requires understanding and reflection, doesn't a selfless virtue also require understanding, if only in allowing the doer to understand that the deed is in fact "selfless"?

Perhaps the truest examples of altruism are those on a small scale in which life and death (and therefore possibly species preservation) do not come into play in the matter.

What about someone grudgingly and uncheerfully giving someone else her Play Station 4 "just because" without any return expected and without much happiness coming in return, but done simply because it seemed like the right thing to do?

How would that further the species and how would that profit the joyless giver since it was sacrificial and did not provide happiness to her? What would be a natural motivation in an act of grudging charity except some X-factor within humans that comes out as "should"?

How would blind nature, noteworthy mostly for cruelty, manufacture "should" in a scenario that does not further a species or even an individual?

Me...honestly I see something higher as answer to the puzzling equation, though I could of course be wrong.

Don't forget that there is increasing proof that we have no such thing as free will, although it has not yet been proven conclusively. Altruism, in this case, is reduced to a series of impulses generated either as a response to nature (because such acts are hard-wired into our DNA), or nurture, because we are brought up with examples of this around us. Many of the most 'successful' people in the world have reached their position by simply lacking this instinct and being able to screw over other people with no feelings of guilt. They achieve this success however, at the expense of the species as a whole.

I would say many animals are quite capable of a rich emotional life. Animals can certainly feel hate and fear. Love is simply a series of chemical reactions in the brain. I see no reason, despite the declarations of various religions that animals have no soul that they can't experience the finer emotions in life too. Indeed we are just beginning to understand just how much many species feel. We give ourselves too much credit and the rest of the world not enough if we declare that only we can experience these things. Where is the profit from a species point of view when a Dolphin saves a drowning human? Or when an animal adopts a baby/cub/whatever from another species? Elephants have been known to remember people who have shown kindness and cruelty to them with decades passing in between encounters. And yet these creatures are also capable of acts of violence. Dolphins have been known to engage in acts of torture against Porpoises which may be the best-known example. Clearly there is some function by which these animals choose when to kill and when to be kind.

In answer to your point about someone letting someone else play a computer game, I find that answer remarkably simple. You are still contributing, on however a small scale to the development of another living being by showing it kindness, and thus engaging in what is a species-wide imperative for what we would define as (mostly) correctly functioning people, much as our very own Trevor does when he is being Uncle Zombie.

Neither altruism or its absence is unique to the human race. We, in our hubris like, to tell ourselves we are something special. Sometimes we come up with very complicated ways to try and convince ourselves it is true but is it really? Or are we just assuming it is because we say so? Despite what is said, we have no concrete proof to deny other creatures that which we attribute ourselves. We are just animals, who happened to evolve in a certain way that specialised in one particular organ while other animals went down other routes. We were not alone on that path, as there is plenty of evidence of other species of humans who were either wiped out or bred into the homo sapiens we know today. Those other species showed evidence of the same kinds of family life we experienced, and I would be very surprised if they did not experience the same range of feelings as we do. It is just a shame that we don't seem to have any pureblood versions running around today.

^ What he said. Animals love me. My dog loves me.
To be so arrogant that God meant us to be the Master Animal is ...arrogant.   We are the best in the universe? And why is that?
" Because the bible tells me so!"
Well, that's a good argument!
That is some magical thinking s**t there.

Ah, if only I could give you karma RC.

We are the masters of animals because the world is ruled by survival of the fittest and we are the fittest and therefore we are superior. If we weren't it'd be self-evident because something else would become apex predator over us. QED. And if you notice I did say dogs love. Of course dogs love. Even cats love...themselves.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say you believe in evolution and then deny the global apex species when its domination is so glaringly obvious. In fact given that nature drives species on in competition without mercy, the very fact you seem to be troubled by the notion of your species' dominance argues my case that we have a conscience that seems to transcend nature, and it's coming out in your compassion toward lesser beings that nature alone would want you to dominate.

I was more trying to argue to altruism is a feature of species beyond the human race and indeed that animals are capable of showing mercy beyond their species boundary. I am not troubled by our dominance, but instead what we do with it, and our lack of forethought and that engaging in acts that benefit others without benefiting themselves is wider spread in nature than we give it credit for. I do not believe we are as special as we like to think. We are merely a species that has become overly dominant and have become a threat to not only the existence of other creatures but to our continued existence as a species. This is something we need to address before it is addressed for us. It may well be that science will come up with some miracle cure for the various problems we are going to increasingly face, or it may be that the problems we are creating will accelerate beyond our ability to compensate for.

My money is on that we come up with something that temporarily fixes things, but causes more problems further down the line.

None of that convinces me that their is an invisible Being in the universe that created us like some comic book Watcher.
 I may be a weirdo, but I don't drink that Kool-Aid.
And I don't want or care if you change your mind about this or that. I just don't like when someone tries to push it on me. That's annoying. I got churches knocking on my door. I'm polite and say some dumb s**t, like " I gotta wash dishes." or if they are real pushy I invite them in, and put on  back round music. I did it with Jehovahs. To their credit, they sat down for a minute. I said nothing.
I'm not a Atheist, a Satanist, or any "ist". It's all nuts. Religion seems to me just to be politics.
Christians and Muslims shed lots of blood trying to force folks to bow to their god. f**k that.
All religion is based on control.
It's used as a tool.  Religion is politics then, its politics now.
By the way- did I ever say I believe in evolution? You just assumed I do.  In fact you don't know jack s**t, when it comes down to it. And neither do I. And the only way we find out is when were dead! That works out well!  :drink:

The only thing I believe is that the human race, if it was created by a god,-well...he f**ked up!
In his own image? We are? Good job ,God! Thank you for your Invisible Holy bulls**t!


http://youtu.be/PSZxmZmBfnU (http://youtu.be/PSZxmZmBfnU)
   

when i see a feral cat suckling possum babies with her own because mama possum got run over. THAT is altruism. possums are kitten killers, yet she still took in those babies and saved their lives.

Thank you dear!  :thumbup:
Critters love!

I had feral kittens and possums and coons under my old shed back when I lived in the house by the woods on Walker Street. Coyotes too! And I lived near town!  
Now me and Tiana bought a house in town, and coyotes are here too!  :bouncegiggle:
And bats in the attic what like to come down and scare the s**t out of us sometimes. I got to scare it out with a broom!

I wonder if you could catch a coyote and tame it to be your friend?  :question:
( I don't think so myself. I think they would hate it!)

That's my Question of the Day!

Can a wild coyote be tamed?  :question:

I know of people who tried to raise and keep wild rabbits. At a certain age they start to bite and avoid being touched when held captive.

Which book series do you like better A Song of Ice and Fire or The Lord of the Rings?

Ice & Fire. I found Lord of the Rings a tough read to get through and if I am entirely honest, overrated. I think just because people had managed to plow through the entire thing they said good things about it. Not saying it was bad, but I don't think of it as the crowning achievement of fantasy literature.

I love both, they each have great characters and engrossing storylines in a grand scale. One is about love and honor, the other about sex and violence. In many ways they're two very different sorts of series.

The first time I read LOTR I was fourteen. It expanded my mind, swept me off into places I dearly loved and told a story that had tremendous meaning to me as few stories have since. The most recent time I re-read LOTR I could still feel the magical pull of sentimentality, but I wasn't prepared for how much effort it seemed to take me to get through novels I once adored re-reading.

Martin's series isn't finished, he might blow it at the end, and the journey so far has felt uneven, at times brilliant, at other times semi-dull, whereas Tolkien maintained a constant level of sound story-telling.  Martin's world feels bigger, more functioning, more alive, its citizens more grounded, their motivations more explicable.

While Tolkien suggests vile deeds, Martin plunges into them with descriptive delight, which is both good and bad.

So which is better? Once upon a time I'd have said no fantasy series could ever unseat LOTR in my affections, and I'd have been right, I love Middle Earth more than Westeros, but ASOIAF might actually be the better series when sentimentality is set aside.

I felt that LotR really dragged for part of it. When the Hobbits are climbing up the mountain and end up in Shelob's lair is normally where I read up to and then get bored, give up and have to come back to again and try and read again in a couple of years. Eventually, when I was going through basic training and had nowhere else to go and nothing else to do I managed to finally power through the whole book.

I find LotR unique in fantasy novels in that the heroes never at any point meet the big bad. It is for better or worse, the benchmark against which all other fantasy novels are measured. My favourite part is where the Hobbits encounter the Barrow Wights, and my least favourite is the bits where the Hobbits are wandering around on their own. Martin, well I was reading his stuff and got to the Red Wedding. It would be six months before I picked that book up again, but that isn't because I was bored with the story. He isn't my favourite fantasy author (I am not sure I have a single favourite author. It very much depends on my mood. Howard if I am in the mood for something brainless and fun, Fritz Leiber if I want something odd, Gemmell, for something well written (the Rigante novels actually had an emotional effect on me by the end) and so on).

Curiously, I have never reread The Lord of the Rings. I did try to once. I had recently found out the Ian McKellan was gay, which normally would be neither here nor there, but I got to the part of the story where Gandalf and Frodo were sitting on a hillside with their pipes and they start blowing rings. That put an unwelcome mental image in my head and I've never went back to the book.

I'm a hard core LOTR fan - I've read the books probably 25-30 times and love the rich descriptions and scene-setting as much as I do the unforgettable characters.
Martin's books are entertaining; hard, gritty, and some scenes heartbreaking.  There is little honor or decency in his world; squalor, treachery and cruelty rule the day.  There's enough of that in real life, IMO.

A fantasy series I have always enjoyed are the Thomas Covenant novels by Stephen R. Donaldson.  The original trilogy - LORD FOUL'S BANE, THE ILLEARTH WAR, and THE POWER THAT PRESERVES - will always be my favorites, but the second and third series are quite good as well.  Donaldson creates an unforgettable world with vivid, rich characters, an immortal, lurking evil, and a tragic antihero who is summoned from his doomed life as a leper to save this fantasy world he dares not let himself fully believe in.  If you've never read them, I highly recommend them.

Do you think the ultimate impact in loss of human life to this terrible pandemic will be greater than projected, less than projected, or the projections will likely get it right?

I'll bet it's either one or the other, or maybe all 3!

I think it will be less than forecast but still an awful event that is going to disrupt life and send out ripples for a long time. Along with many others I've said for years we were due for a pandemic, and being right was a suckfest.

If the social distancing thing is listened to, then I reckon it will be slightly below predicted figures. If not, then it is a numbers game until each countries health care system can't cope anymore. I can't see it going over 5% tops, and it should be a percentile below that.

But mines is an uneducated guess.

Half of the 3000 people on my FB feed seem to think it's either "just like the flu" or a "Democrat hoax to crash the economy and defeat Trump."
Until that segment of the population takes it seriously, it's going to keep spreading.

far too may "ifs" but i think it will be far greater.

When's the last time you did something that in retrospect scared you?

Climbing over a ravine on a bridge made out of poles and ropes by my teammates.

When I fired a shotgun at my head. The gun kicked and the slug went into the ceiling.
That was over 20 years ago. Otherwise- nothing.

I finally did something the other day to confront my uneasiness around horses by taking my littlest to see some truly gentle and obviously intelligent specimens of said beast, and it was fine, but later it spooked me to think about going there and doing that. I know horses are big twitchy, toothy, jittery creatures many times stronger than me that become hellions when spooked, but my strange fear of them has never made sense and I should get over it.

^ ER- your not alone in your fear of horses...

(https://i.imgur.com/Hhm3Kkx.gif) (https://lunapic.com)

Washing my hands at work with soap and sanitizer, 3-4 times per hour, eight hours a day for the last two weeks. Now the back of my hands are raw, red and hurt. Not sure if that is scary or simply silly.

Good skills on those drills claws. I thought I was bad doing it twice an hour at work.

Holding an Australian Death Adder because I thought it was a small, harmless snake.

That dog's a kindred spirit.

Dude, nothing from Australia is harmless.  :bouncegiggle: You are lucky to find a snake though, because the spiders eat most of them.

traversing the stairs up to the bathroom and back down to my bedroom in the basement at my sister's house at christmas. for a week. with a handrail that only covered 1/2 of the stairs, no top rail, no bottom rail. turns at both ends.
never again!

Ever eaten a crushed up orange popsicle in vanilla ice cream?   :cheers:

Actually I have. I used to love adding stuff to vanilla ice cream like crumbled chocolate chip cookies, a slice of cheesecake swirled in the ice cream, chopped reese's peanut butter cups, butterfingers or combination of other things. We were creative long before Ben & Jerry's.

Do you know where the blind spot in your eye is? (Mine seems to be....well if my left eye were a clock, mine would be around where the eight is.)

Here, here's a video I just found. Forward to a minute.

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRxdFuPSp98#)

Though we never got to see him in person, while we were in Christchurch, New Zealand some years ago, we picked up a booklet called Snippets of Wisdom from the Wizard of Christchurch. One bit was that in nature all the best things are slow to develop, and since men develop more slowly than women, men were therefore better than women.

Discuss?

i am SO NOT answering that as one of the few women on this board, lol!  :teddyr: :bouncegiggle: :cheers:

That makes no dam sense at all.

It's horsesh!t.   :thumbdown: :smile:

Well said! You all may now have cake.

Today's question: Would you rather lose your sense of balance or lose your sense of smell?

Lost both this week.
Not much fun at all.

f**k me, bro, you're dealing with some serious stuff....wow, sorry to hear that. I hope there's someone who can help look out for you if you need to call on him or her. In terms of having basic supplies there, you doing all right?

i have very little of either, born that way, but i'd rather completely lose my sense of smell.

what's better, a wall mounted coat rack, or a coat tree?

A coat tree.
Because you can dance with it!

(https://i.imgur.com/Wk92B7w.gif) (https://lunapic.com)

We had several coat trees and they all fell over at some point. Wall mounted all the way!

Never had a coat tree, but it strikes me as something that would always be in the way.

Wall-mounted. A coat tree whacked me in the head once when I was a kid.

I've had a standing coat tree and it fell down so often we just leaned it up against the wall in the end.  I prefer decorative wall hooks.

Do you think it's a good time for drive-in movies make a come-back now?

^ Yes! We have one about 15 miles from here!

https://sunsethartford.com/

Yes it is. Drive-ins should never have gone away.

thank you for backing me up on deciding on the wall mount! and ronny, in your honor, and fred's, i'll keep the old coat tree for dancing, but the pegs( what few are left) are gone first, lol!  :cheers:


our drivein should be opening the first weekend of april, if they do, it'll be truly cool!

Will basic cable still be a significant player in the media landscape in 2030?

I've never watched Seinfeld, it wasn't a very popular show on German TV and I had no interest in seeing it because it was dubbed in German (I refuse to watch German dubbed movies or series, they sound awful and corny by default, and struggle to translate words or phrases that only make sense in English).

I've noticed over the years that on message boards people post the "Seinfeld" theme as a response to someone. For example, somebody started a thread and was reminded that a similar thread already exists, his response was the Seinfeld theme. I get it when someone posts the Benny Hill tune, but I'm totally lost with the usage of the Seinfeld theme.

Can a Seinfeld expert fill me in? knowyourmeme.com wasn't of any help at all.

I've never heard if this, could it be a specific in-joke on that one board?

It's a possibility I guess, but it still doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think so. Technology is changing so much.

Streaming seems to be the way forward at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised though if in ten years something else has came along to replace it.

I have both.
I find both very decorative & functional............................................

...............Of course, you get more hooks with a wall mount, but a coat tree is better for your coats & hats if you've bee out in the rain, IMO.