Re: CTS community mail
- From: Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:31:35 +0200
I don't really understand the controversy about the scene, but then again I
didn't read anything about the movie before I watched it. I suppose many
people would feel it's gratuitous.
Your interpretation resonates with how I feel about it - it's seems to be a
metaphor for her psyche, and all things not apparent to someone looking
from the outside.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Ryan Williams <ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Easily her best imo. What's your take on the controversial scene *lol*
> Without giving too much away, l felt it was a role reversal of sorts,
> demonstrating who was holding all the cards all along, exerting dominance,
> etc. If there was ever any doubt about it up until that point, that scene
> pretty much did away with it. Quite disturbing but pivotal to providing
> greater insight into the character in question.
> On 30 Dec 2014 21:13, "Ilitirit Sama" <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> You were right about Gone Girl. Great performance by Rosamund Pike.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Ryan Williams <ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of Taken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1RMkMY8idI
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM, lindsey kiviets <lindseyak@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ya i dunno , it smells alot like taken.
>>>>
>>>> i dont like revenge movies.
>>>>
>>>> I watched the croods, good cartoon movie. The voice of the father
>>>> sounded so familiar , turns out it was nicholas cage, lol
>>>>
>>>> I lost at jhb vs cpt 5v5 in bb, i need to hold dat L. cant really talk
>>>> smack now in xrd thread. I just need to silently poon all.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 16:59:39 +0200
>>>> Subject: Re: CTS community mail
>>>> From: ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> Just finished watching John Wick. The movie is kinda mediocre but the
>>>> action scenes are top notch.
>>>> On 30 Dec 2014 13:39, "Ilitirit Sama" <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Finally made SMB my bitch. They even have this helpful message at the
>>>> end telling you "Congrats! You have finished everying in NSMB!"
>>>>
>>>> On to Bayonetta 2 now. Man, what a game. I can see myself playing
>>>> this for a while.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stupid lol of the day:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3QcfZhYBzo&feature=youtu.be
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Ryan Williams <ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *LOL*
>>>>
>>>> That Jean though...
>>>>
>>>> And Professor X looks (and sounds) like Dr. Evil *lol*
>>>> On 29 Dec 2014 21:02, "lindsey kiviets" <lindseyak@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-iMVsi0IuY
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:59:16 +0200
>>>> Subject: Re: CTS community mail
>>>> From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> If you want to get really technical (read: anal) you can say that you'd
>>>> also have to prove that married and unmarried are mutually exclusive
>>>> states.
>>>>
>>>> Consider polygamy: You can be married to 4 women, but then you divorce
>>>> 1. To unmarry someone means to undo a marriage them. So technically in
>>>> this case you are married and unmarried.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:30 PM, sameegh jardine <sameegh@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> lol, hadn't considered that possibility :P
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Correct, except if you use Constructive Logic. In that case you would
>>>> be required to prove that Alice, Bob and Charlie are indeed a married or
>>>> unmarried person, and you would not be able to use the Law of the Excluded
>>>> Middle or Double Negation.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic
>>>>
>>>> Why is this important? Because Alice, Bob and Charlie may in fact be
>>>> the name of animals (not people), which would either mean the answer is
>>>> False or undecidable.
>>>>
>>>> But we are reasonable folk after all, so we can appeal to Occam's Razor
>>>> to handle that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 9:25 PM, sameegh jardine <sameegh@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, because irrespective of Alice's status the question being asked
>>>> will be held true for either the first or second statement.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> By the way, here's a riddle:
>>>>
>>>> Bob is looking at Alice. Alice is looking at Charlie. Bob is married.
>>>> Charlie is not.
>>>>
>>>> Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Other related posts:
