+1 To Everything You Said. 

I feel sick. If something like this happened in Norway, the public outcry would be so loud your eardrums ruptured. And people still have the nerve to say that rape culture and male privilege doesn’t exist in so-called “civilized” nations? 

This “principal” would embrace and encourage hijabs and niqabs.

What was so bad about Stephanie’s outfit that she was being punished for it? Her exposed collarbone. Her mother was called to the school but even after giving her daughter a scarf, the outfit was still deemed inappropriate.

This may have been the last straw though, as the Kentucky students’ latest effort to fight back may actually get the dress code changed.

“Wisdom hairs”. I’m gonna use that. I started greying in my teens. 

Jensen teasing Jared about his gray wisdom hairs. (X)

Now drag your friend NoVax DjoCovid about his utterly problematic views, please.

ANDY

…Sharif loved gambling, so they’d invariably lose all their money at the casino. “We once did about nine months’ wages in one night”, said O’toole. “And then got up to the usual things young men get up to”. Asked by a journalist if that entailed getting up to no good O’toole gave a grin a replied “Oh, darling, do you consider it to be no good? We consider it very good indeed”

I’ve honestly come to the end of my patience with this show. No more.

Supernatural 11.10

When it was first suggested that Lucifer may be making a return to Supernatural, I was among the first to express some skepticism. Not only did it strike me as lazy writing, to resurrect a villain defeated five seasons before, I also had no confidence that this writing team could do the character justice. Experience is instructive, and I fully expected that Carver’s version of Lucifer would be as shallow and spiritless as many of his other villains have been. If it seemed that I was more upset by that thought, than I have been by the treatment of other villains, that is because I believe that the Lucifer of Classic Supernatural, and the story told around him, is such a powerful and complete piece of writing. A piece of writing that I did not want to see subjected to Carver’s usual vandalism.

Unexpectedly, however, I was given cause to doubt my gut instinct on the subject. The first half of season 11 aired, and I was pleasantly surprised. Suddenly it wasn’t the plastic, tawdry junk I had been subjected to for the preceding three seasons. There were episodes that I enjoyed; there was compelling writing, and engaging characters, and Sam and Dean looked a little bit more like Sam and Dean than they had in a long time. For a moment, that ridiculously little flame of hope burning deep in my fannish heart, leapt. Perhaps Carver had clued in to just what a disaster he had made of the show, had recovered his soul and had become again the writer that had given us AVSC and Mystery Spot.

Of course, I should have listened to my gut. Whatever goodwill was earned by episodes 1-9 of season 11, it was disintegrated by the contrived garbage I watched last night.

The only redeeming feature of “The Devil in the Details”, was the acting. With one notable exception, everyone was on their A-game. Pelegrino and Padaelcki were mesmerizing together, and Jensen Ackles was as much Dean as I have ever seen. Even the ridiculous Pantomime Dames of Supernatural, Crowley and his mother, earn a mention for their solid performance (the nonsensical pre-credit sequence notwithstanding). And, I suppose, I should also credit the “broments”. Dean’s “have you met me” line was perfect, and Sam’s strong statement of faith in his brother was a particularly satisfying moment, following as it did four seasons where one might have been forgiven for thinking the brothers really didn’t like each other. If I hesitate to laud those gems of fraternal devotion, it’s because the totality of the episode had the effect of making those moments feel like obligations. They were added because that’s the “Supernatural formula”, and it’s what the fans’ expect. In other words, poor currency that didn’t purchase nearly enough goodwill to endure the remainder of the episode.

I’m not even sure where to begin with my substantive criticism, because there was so much that disappointed, or straight-out offended me. I suppose Lucifer is the obvious jumping point. My principal concern when I heard the Devil was returning for a major part in season 11, was a conviction (not disproved) that Carver would not be able to do that character justice, but worse would completely negate everything that had gone before. The Winchester’s war with the Morningstar was a complete, and powerful story; “Swan Song” the perfect denouement to the drama and pathos of season 5. That fight needed no further elaboration, it needed no further examination. It was perfect: Sam and Dean defeated the Devil, and they did it with brotherly love. Perfection doesn’t require elaboration. Resurrecting the Devil after that would be like Sauron climbing out of the rubble of Mount Doom, or the Emperor clawing his way back up the Death Star’s reactor shaft, or Voldemort appearing on the back of Lucius Malfoy’s head; in other words, a piece of poor quality fanfic, that rendered the trauma and sacrifice of the heroes completely nugatory.

That is, of course, exactly what I think happened last night. In one episode, Jeremy Carver and his team have succeeded in completely invalidating everything that Sam and Dean fought and died for. And for what benefit? The totality of the dialogue in 11.10 was a redux of themes in season 5; almost verbatim in some places. That doesn’t even deserve the title of elaboration; it’s naked, lazy plagiarism. Even more offensive than that, was the opportunity the writers took to make their voices heard through the dialogue. The whole sequence of Lucifer’s play, to the backdrop of Sam and Amelia, was overwhelmingly redolent of Jeremy Carver’s known, and particular, opinion on the brothers and their relationship. I didn’t hear Lucifer speaking in that sequence, I heard Jeremy Carver via Andrew Dabb. Writing 101 teaches that the writer’s voice should never be heard, not even in the narrative; it’s for your characters to communicate your argument, if you have one to make, and communicate it subtly. Not as a piece of anvil-dropping that amounted to nothing so much as a rebuttal to criticism. This is what I heard in that dialogue; not an expression of Lucifer’s character, but an argument directed at the fandom, or at best, a piece of very thin apologia for the character’s resurrection.

Invalidating Sam’s 140 years in hell, and enduring Carver’s lecture, are of course, not the only reasons why resurrecting Lucifer is a bad idea. The other obvious problem is the appalling creative laziness it implies. Apparently, this writing team is completely bereft of ideas for antagonists, themes and characterization. It is an appalling thing to acknowledge, that since Carver took over, the only original villain of the Supernatural universe, is its most irritating, Metatron. Almost all of the female villains – Eve, Abaddon, Rowena, Amara – are near carbon copies of each other, because again apparently the writing team can’t contemplate any female roles that aren’t a version of “sassy hot bad ass, usually with a thing for Dean”. Not a single one of those villains, comes even remotely close to the delicious menace of Meg, or Yellow Eyes, or Lilith or Alistair. Devoid of the skills, or the inclination, to give us an original, powerful antagonists, the season 11 writing team resurrects Lucifer, and rehashes season 5 for us. I’m not inclined to be grateful. If they were going to bring an old villain back, they could at least have given us Alistair or Meg. Certainly, we need another female character now that they’ve killed off Rowena. I was no fan of the Pantomime Witch, but again her death served no purpose other than to show how awful the Devil was (we know, he’s the Devil, we saw him a lot in season 5, remember?), and has successfully reduced female representation on Supernatural to a bit-part reaper, and the cameos of Sheriff Mills and Donna.

Of course, Lucifer wasn’t the only angel to suffer at the hands of the writer’s lack of inspiration. There was Castiel, too. Castiel. What on Earth, is the fucking point? If Castiel is so boring, so irrelevant, that the only way you can make him interesting, is by making him into Lucifer, then you have to start wondering whether it’s worth keeping him. Does he contribute anything, anything at all, to the story, now? Because, it seems that the only time Castiel is relevant, is when he’s not Castiel. Is that meant to be irony? Perhaps his motivation is meant to be ironic; after all he’s making the exact same mistake he made in season 6. More redux from the inspired creative team at Supernatural. It would be funny if it wasn’t so infuriating.

What wasn’t funny was the pre-credit sequence I mentioned earlier. Other than a brief piece of exposition, that could have been disposed of in a line, this added nothing. All I got from it was an excruciating feeling of second hand embarrassment, and an inclination of how the rest of the episode was going to go.

In summary, then, and speaking plainly, the episode was awful. I hesitate to describe it as contrived garbage, because I seem to use that phrase often in relation to this show, and I don’t want to be guilty of a lack of imagination. But contrived it was, and I think that’s Supernatural’s enduring and apparently insurmountable problem. It absolutely is a flaw in the writing, but more specifically a flaw in how the writing is approached. Episodes of Supernatural are no longer flowing, organic pieces of storytelling. They’re Lego Kit writing: a preconceived piece of shallow spectacle, built from little perfectly formed bricks of wow. The ambition here is not to tell a story; it’s to amaze, it’s to impress with the next piece of Dramatic Dialogue, to scintillate with the next piece of awesome SFX; to show how cool-awesome the next Big Bad is. The same gaudy pieces stuck together repeatedly, following a check-list, and packaged to impress us with its style.

The problem is, there is no story beyond the formula it’s built from. The Emperor really does have no clothes.

If it’s the the Impala, I’ll throw a fit. Baby is the third main character. She has been more integral to the plot during the show’s ten year run than Castiel, Crowley or any of the side characters.

Here’s another idea. Let the bunker blow up instead and get the boys back on the road, where they belong. The only way this current batch of writers can think of in order to create drama is by fabricating a contrived conflict between the brothers, adding to a neverending cycle of guilt and resentment and unresolved issues. It’s a lazy plot device which is recycled to death at by this point. Why not have them united against a common enemy rather than fighting each other, for a change? 

Jensen volunteered during his lounge, when asked about giving us a minor spoiler, that another fan favourite will die, and that he has no idea how the writers are going to dig themselves out of that one. 

Count me worried now.

I love everything about this post

Tennis' popularity has been rising for the past few decades. Yet, with the high-profile superstardom it brought and the elegant image it projected, it is often easy to overlook why it is actually one of the most physically and mentally demanding sports to play on a professional level.

Here are a few major points that make it stand out:

There is no time limit in tennis. Uniquely rare in individual sports, tennis matches are won by points (winning 2 sets out of 3 or 3 sets out of 5), which means the match is going to be played until a winner is reached and the time it takes to finish one point is wholly dependent on rally length. The longest tennis match ever recorded is a first round Wimbledon 2010 match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut, lasting for 11 hours and 5 minutes played over three days. The longest grand slam final (one that is played in one sitting) is the 5 hours and 53 minutes Australian Open 2012 match between Nadal and Djokovic. After the match, both could barely stand for the trophy ceremony.

Tennis matches cannot be won by a simple stroke of luck in the right moment, as its scoring measures consistency, requiring the highest level of physical fitness throughout the entirety of the match. Unlike simple accumulative score such as in football, tennis has a quirky rule that only allows players to win a game or a set if they won it consecutively twice. For instance, once players reached "deuce" (a 40-40 score) in a game, they would have to win two points in a row to win the game. If they win one and lose the next point, the result would always go back to deuce (neutral), no matter how long it takes.

Tennis is the only sports that are played in different surfaces. The four grand slams are played in hard courts, clay courts, and grass courts. The surfaces are incredibly crucial to the way the game plays out, as the ball bounced completely different both speed-wise and touch-wise on each, creating an immense variability in playing possibilites. Professional tennis players that go on tour have to switch between surfaces many times during a year, having to readjust their game completely once a new surface season began.

Breaking into the top rankings in tennis is a herculean task precisely because it was made to be so. Unlike in other sports such as football, tournament draws in tennis are not random, they are based on ranking seedings. This means that the top two ranked players are always positioned at opposite ends of the draws (i.e., they are only able to meet in the finals) and subsequently with the next in line. The quality of play thus always improves the closer you get to the end of the tournament. However, it also means that low-ranked players have to defeat the top 10 consecutively to actually win the tournament. This is very rare, and when it does happen it usually marks a new era of players, just as when Roger Federer upset Pete Sampras to win his first Wimbledon in 2003.

Tennis is, perhaps even more than a physical sport, a mental one. Sports analysts have noted that the majority of players in the top 50 have equally good forehands and backhands, except for rare cases such as the big three (i.e., Federer, Nadal, Djokovic), or service masters (e.g., Serena Williams, John Isner, etc.). What differentiates the superstars is mental strength during long and critical matches (e.g., championship or match points) because of the high chance of comeback that the scoring and no time-limit provides. For instance, Rafael Nadal won his 2022 Australian Open coming back after down 2 sets and a break point.

Tennis, especially in singles, is one of the loneliest, most individually competitive sports there is. Unlike team sports such as football or baseball, coaching during matches are highly forbidden and can lead to penalties. This means each player has zero contact with anyone during the usually 2 to 5 hours matches they play, relying solely on their own mental capacity, problem solving skills, and strategy decision.

Professional tennis is not only physically demanding it is also incredibly complicated technique-wise. There is an incredible array of shots available to play (a flat or topspin shot, a serve, a forehand, a backhand, a slice backhand, a drop-shot, etc.) and each has a different grip. Professional tennis playes usually change the way they hold their rackets mid-point, and has to vary them greatly to ensure different outcomes for each shot.

Strangely, unlike team sports such as football, tennis players share locker rooms with all their fellow competitors every tournament. Some tournaments such as Wimbledon even gather the top 20 players in a separate locker room. This means that rivals who play each other the most, especially in finals (as all the others would've left the locker room) would see each other more often than others. Top 50 players travelling around the world to play the competitive ATP (male) and WTA (female) world tour see their rivals and peers more than their own family. As tennis does not allow draws, when a tournament is over, the winner and the loser have to commiserate and celebrate in the same room.

This high amount of contact that players need to endure with each other, however, also elevates the standard of sportsmanship in the sports and have produced some of the most unique dynamics. Bonded through shared experiences of the worst and best moments in their lives, some maintained relationships lasting decades perhaps fittingly proving that in the end, even the most competitive sports cannot best our humane traits of friendship, respect, and love.

I visited the museum last month, and my initial reaction to NOT!Lady Eva from the Milverton dramatization was that she looks exactly like Terry Jones in drag. That really affected the experience, I tell you. I kept hearing ‘he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy’ in my head throughout the rest of the exhibit. 

I Have Beheld the Sherlock Holmes Museum.

I knew it would be cheesy. I was hoping it would be the right kind of cheesy. My hopes were fulfilled beyond my wildest dreams.

If you are planning to visit this place one day, and don’t want spoilers, let me just offer you the following advice: Go early. At noon, when we were finally admitted after waiting for at least half an hour in the broiling sun, the queue was already down the block. Since the museum itself takes about half an hour (we did it in 20 minutes due to time pressure…it’s a long story), I don’t recommend waiting in line for it any longer than that. It’s a tall, narrow, old-fashioned townhouse, so they don’t let in more than about 15 people at a time.

All right. Let me tell you about this ‘museum.’ 

Keep reading

There’s no way this bunck of secod-rate performers willl outdo the Norwegian parodies (executed by some of Norway’s best comedians).

https://youtu.be/vPLsFTOpCRU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aMU4g2B_Wo

https://youtu.be/Cv0oCQrQCZ4

That Hillywood show is now asking fans to help them raise 25k to create a new parody video.

Wow, just wow

What exactly do they need money for? THEY are the ‘stars’ of the parodies. Their sets are cheap cardboard. I”m sure extras are their friends, so what exactly do they pay for? 

This kinda looks familiar, I'm not sure it's recent? Could be wrong, though.

x