StatisticalOutlier

To be honest, I don't have much use for anybody who cannot make a grand entrance down the staircase in a fabulous new gown while the music swells all around them. I'm in this for the clothes only. I'm okay with servants and men being around but only in service of the women and their clothes and their competitiveness. In the boxes, though? I'm all for 100% quiet at any performance, but those boxes aren't like orchestra seats, with strangers crammed all around each other. Did it rise in the west then, too? It sure looked like it was coming up over Central Park.

Star Trek guy, shoeshine guy from Parks & Rec, hunky Australian I see on Graham Norton but I might be confusing him with his brother, no clue. Simple!

Late to the game because I just got Hulu. I've never had enough internet to stream, and always regretted that I simply had no access to certain shows, including Reservoir Dogs. So I jumped on this when I got better internet. Boy, am I glad. The episode with Elora and her dad? Mr. Outlier and I watched it as part of a block of the final four episodes last night, and when it ended, we just sat there in stunned silence. I finally said, "I think that might be the best thing I've ever seen on TV." We both picked up on that. The way that played out in a limited amount of time was masterful. I believed every word of it. I can't imagine anyone doing a better job of portraying Elora's dad than Ethan Hawke. (Hmm...the long walk-and-talk down the street is more than a little reminiscent of the "Before" movies, now that I think about it. Not that he needs a niche, but this might be it.) Or me. I assumed it had something to do with Quakers' peaceable ways, but I looked it up just to make sure I wasn't completely wrong and I see the history there. I agree, a nice touch. Along with the one, which someone mentioned and I hadn't noticed, where Elora was loading stuff into the truck her dad had for sale. (I never could keep track of what cars she was driving--glad to see she's got a permanent one.) That's one thing I really appreciate about this show. Under the veneer of entertainment, it taught me a lot about this community and gave me some real insight. It's the same way with movies--I like watching movies made in countries other than the U.S. just to see how other people live. I understand it's from the vantage point of just that writer or director and could therefore be completely biased and possibly totally bogus. And it's not intended to portray, say, Finnish culture as a whole, much less explain it. But it gives me a little peep to do with what I want/can. I do think Reservation Dogs had an educational purpose that many of the "foreign" movies I see don't. But it was so deftly handled that it never seemed like it, and it obviously wasn't the only reason for its existence; it was, for me, first and foremost a fantastic show about a group of people I became interested in. I'll confess that I don't have a spiritual bone in my body. I just don't "get" any of that. I think life ends at death, period, so the notion of spirits and everything in that realm flies right over my head. The idea of sacred lands means nothing to me. But after watching this show I kind of get it. Fortunately, I'm not the type to go up to someone complaining about encroachment on their sacred lands and say, "Eh, get over it." So outwardly, there's no change in my approach. But inwardly, I kind of get it. And that could qualify as a near miracle.

Thanks for this. When I saw "presidential endorsement" I thought, Biden puts out a favorite movie list??? And Polite Society is on it?? I have to say Obama has pretty good taste in movies, by my standards. I looked at his 2022 list, too, and in both years, the only ones he likes that I haven't seen are those that I couldn't see because hey didn't play where I was or I chose not to see for reasons unrelated to their quality. Maybe Polite Society is the 2023 version of Emily the Criminal on his 2022 list.

So...Sailorgirl26 declares the nautical dress to be the standout outfit in the episode. Surprise, surprise. 😀 (I also thought it was the standout, but I always gravitate to navy and white and pleats based on the uniform I wore in Catholic school.)

Most people go with rechargeable. I don't mind using batteries, especially after I figured that once you pull off the adhesive tab, they'll last about a week whether you're using them or not--they discharge just sitting there. But if you put the tab back on and cover the little holes on the battery (or use a piece of scotch tape), the batteries don't discharge just sitting there. Nobody will ever tell you that because that goes against the mandate that you must wear your hearing aids all the time. But I use mine only in certain situations, and hated it when I'd have to put in new batteries for what I knew would be only one use. Rechargeable gets around all of that, obviously. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time I get new ones, there won't be any non-rechargeable ones, which will make my choice easier by not having a choice, but I kind of hate becoming reliant on something that can fail, when the other option is just to carry a spare tiny little battery around with me and pop it in if the hearing aid goes dead when I'm out and about. I also prefer DOS to Windows. My main advice is to keep your expectations low. The holy grail is understanding speech in noise, and the manufacturers promise a lot, but there's only so much technology can do (see my description upthread about how noise-cancelling headphones don't work for intermittently barking dogs). Hearing aids might make it easier to hear speech in noise, but if you read the literature, you think all background noise gets suppressed and it's as if you're in a quiet room with the person you're talking to. That's just not the case. So just focus on whether the hearing aids make things better for you in the situations you're in. They will never sound as good as natural hearing, but it can be an acceptable trade-off for being able to hear what's being said at all. It will most definitely not be like when a kid first gets glasses and instantly notices there are individual leaves on trees.

She thinks she wants to know why he's not attracted to her, but she might very well change her mind if he actually lays it out. I wonder if it has to do with everybody in the past cutting contact entirely, so she never even has the opportunity to find out what they didn't like about her. This time she does, so she's pressing for it. But that also means she's never actually experienced it, and it's possible that what he says would hurt her very much. Watch out what you ask for. Failure to consummate a marriage is not grounds for annulment. But if he says he's bothered by Emily's sexual history, isn't that slut shaming? And wouldn't that be slut shaming? I'm asking an honest question. At what point can I say, "I don't like that particular behavior" without being branded a shamer? It sounds like everybody's doing this under their own free will, which I heartily endorse. And frankly, even a ring doesn't prevent anyone from leaving at a moment's notice--you just take care of the paperwork after you've split. And maybe being able to leave on a moment's notice and cut off contact entirely, without later paperwork, might be better. And a promise? Right.

So much for "with age comes wisdom."

I just don't understand how someone who would slurp semen-tainted bathwater out of a bathtub's drain could be repulsed by runny fried eggs.

What I remember is that he said his dad doesn't drink water--he drinks vodka.

Well, I went to the MTA site once again, just to quadruple-check that I had it right, and nope. I got it wrong. I was somehow looking at the first Thursday of the month, when I needed the second Thursday, which is listed as 2nd and 4th Thursday of the month. Tragically, I can't really blame the website. Short of doing a calendar showing the schedule for each day of a given month, it's about as clear as they can make it. And no doubt I'll end up not trying to meet up with the mobile office van after all. Typical.

I felt like that guy in school who, when the teacher said, "Tomorrow we'll cover chapter six," would raise his hand and say, "Mr. Teacher? Tomorrow is Saturday." Groan. But then I thought there was a chance you really had mixed it up. I just went though an ordeal on NYC's MTA website relating to the schedule for their mobile office van, where it's at X address on the first and third Wednesday of the month, and Y address on the second and fourth Thursday of the month, for about 100 addresses. And of course I'll be there on the second Thursday but the next day is the third Friday. It was more than my little brain could handle.

Not to solve your peeve, but they make super glue in single-use teeny little tubes, like 6 or 8 to a package. It's our super glue of choice now.

Tomorrow is the second Wednesday of this month, not the third. Not that the extra week or of worry will do you any good.

Two couples from the same season have had their marriages annulled, and my recollection is that it was the same judge in both cases. There was no opinion issued but one of the women did a verbal account of the hearing and it seemed to be a case of the judge saying, "Eh, nobody's harmed if I grant this annulment so I'll do it" even though it didn't actually meet the requirements of the statute. I don't remember which woman it was, but even she seemed pretty confused about the whole thing, and was concerned only about the result. Annulment is a strange situation in the MAFS scenario because annulment is a remedy for being induced into marriage by fraud, in which case the marriage is considered never to have existed. But with MAFS, the participants aren't tricked into marrying someone--they agree to marry the stranger without knowing anything about them. A MAFS marriage is completely outside the typical marriage situation, where two people who know each other agree to marry each other; in that case, if one of them has been lying about things that would have caused the other party to refuse to marry them, then there might be grounds for an annulment. And generally, things that happen after the marriage (e.g. adultery or lying about losing your job) aren't grounds for annulment because annulment goes to the validity of the marriage when the marriage was entered into. What happens afterward doesn't matter; that's what divorce is for.

While I, too, hate how Pastor Cal in particular tells people to let attraction grow, or fake it until you make it, or whatever, I have to acknowledge that I once worked in a cubicle where the opening was across from the opening to this guy's cubicle, and we became friends. Suddenly two years later I saw him with different, and very unexpected, eyes. I summoned up the courage to tell him, and we were together for like five years. So I know for a fact that attraction can grow, and appear out of nowhere, but I still don't like Pastor Cal's exhortations. This comes up pretty much every season. State laws vary on the requirements for an annulment, but they're generally based on the existence of deceit or fraud perpetrated by one party on the other, and lack of consummation has nothing to do with it, even though you hear that all the time. (What is it about marriage? You also hear that people are declared common law married if they live together for X years even though that's never the case.)

He certainly did, to the point that I found it a little bit obtrusive. It was like he was given the opportunity to throw everything up on the screen he'd ever dreamed of, and ran with it. Once I acknowledged that that's how it was going to be, I enjoyed the ride. Except the R.E.M. song--that was a little much. But I loved the part where they meet; I'm not sure it was chemistry I was seeing, but something registered. And the scene were Felicia had those two visitors when she was sick was brutal. Carey Mulligan acted the hell out of that, just with her eyes, and I felt so sorry for her, and for everyone else who's had to endure something like that--well meaning but actually terrible.

Thank you. I now remember the opening scene, of Elizabeth arriving at the house, and I definitely remember the hot dog comment. To me, it was funny but was more important for setting the tone, as you said. I've always thought I could just have a couple of books, a couple of movies, and a few issues of The New Yorker and I'd be set for life--just repeat them over and over. Mr. Outlier often works on his computer while I watch TV, and he's heard me gasp at the end of a movie, and he'll tell me, "You gasped when you saw it three days ago, too."

What are the gags at the beginning and the end? As I posted upthread, I often remember things from a movie, like that Gracie mentioned being paid for her story at some point in the past. But the opening and closing scenes? Almost never. It's an annoying defect in my brain.

Looks like? I don't think her hair grew a foot between the honeymoon and when they filmed the aftershow. Brennan was a really good sport when her extensions were all matted and gross, but I'm thinking he might have just been being polite. I know I was horrified watching her getting them cut out, and would question my wife's judgment if she chose to go down the extension path again. That sounds more like justifications for being mean, not negating her being mean.

I posted upthread during a different gray hair discussion that I'm 66 with brown hair and still have only a tiny sprinkling of gray hair, with more on my sideburns (are they sideburns on a woman?). I actually wish it would go gray because I'm sure everybody thinks I dye it, and I kind of pride myself on not succumbing to any of the pressures heaped on women. Plus as I'm struggling to go uphill on my mountainbike or do something challenging in a pilates class I want people to know how old I am. I'm a big fan of low expectations. 😀

They tried that on the honeymoon, and her extensions did not play well with the outdoor activities.

Good lord that movie stunk. It was refreshing to hear Ben M. say Sirk was disappointed in it--he wanted it to be shot in color and he wanted to end like the book did, i.e. not a happy ending. I loved that the two of them reunited and went into the house to wait for their children to get back...from the high school graduation ceremony for one of them. I'm not big on ceremonies but even I thought they should have scurried on over there to at least make a showing. He'd already bowed out of giving the commencement address because of the drama surrounding his wife shooting her side piece. P-U. (Is that how you spell it??)

Gracie mentioned selling her story to a magazine or whatever, and I assume that's where they got the money for the house. And I'm guessing that they're getting paid for the story by the people making the movie, too, but I'm not sure how that works. But she for sure said she'd sold her story before.

At first I agreed with you, that there was no reason to present anything other than the true-ish story, especially when you consider the fallout. But then I realized we're in a new era. If we fall in love with the golly shucks naive man fumbling his way around, the show is a success. But if we hate him when this turns out not be the truth, the show is arguably actually more successful because the goal is no longer ratings, but "engagement" (the social media kind of engagement, not getting down on one knee). And as we've learned, nothing fuels engagement like outrage. So with what they did, they were in a no-lose position: they'd end up with either a conventionally successful show, or even better, a show that causes all the outrage and engagement social media can handle. Also, if Gerry is going to keep dying his hair that kind of bronze color, he needs to get different hearing aids. Oldsters often pick their hearing aids to match their hair color, in an effort to disguise them, and the silver is no longer working for him. On the other hand, at least they're not that godawful "flesh" color.