skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I'll be brief:
"UFO Hunters" on the History Channel (which has pretty much hit the same quality of programming the TLC achieved long ago)....
Two people, allegedly contacted by aliens.
One of them has a rare blood abnormality.
How can we prove that there's a connection between them, and therefore they really are being contacted by aliens?
... wait for it:
Blood tests for both. If both people have the same blood abnormality, BAM! Aliens are real, and they're visiting Earth to conduct anal probes.
Oh, and even better: Close the show with a reference to Voyager I.
And then, a program that opens with the following (I paraphrase):
The following program provides theories about an historical event that is shrouded in mystery. We use reenactments, dramatizations, and old tyme footage (can you tell which is which?) to provide information, and then you, the American public, with your 5th-grade education and your pear-sharp wit, can draw your own conclusions.
[EDIT]
I'd like to add that Stanton Friedman is one of the freakiest looking guys I've ever seen, and may serve as evidence of an alien-human hybrid operation.
[EDIT]
Let me regale you with another example (is that really something one can be "regaled" with?) of poor textbook writing from my GIS text. The authors are discussing maps, and the issue of map scale - that is, the ratio that tells how much of real life distance is represented by a specified unit of measure on the map. One common way to show the scale is with a representative fraction (RF)....
This is a simple ratio in the form of 1:1,000,000 or 1/1,000,000. In an RF, the number on the left side is the map distance, and its value is always unity.
Unity. Not 1 (or one). Presumably that would be too.... pedestrian? I mean after all, we're academics. We're supposed to be smarter than other people, and we ought to express ourselves in such a way as to make clear how smart we are. Am I right? By using the term unity in its mathematical sense as a reference to the numerical value of 1, we show the reader, who has never met us, that the tops of all our hats have worn thin in the center.
Then, just for giggles, let's look at the brief mention of temporal scale as it applies to maps: "The unit of measurement of a temporal scale can be years, months, days, hours, minutes, or seconds." But nothing else, apparently. Decades, centuries, and larger units are not to be used (it would seem).
I went for a few days there early this month with no entries. I was feeling like crap and avoiding the world, spending as much time as possible unconscious. Now in the past 3 days I've made 9 posts (out of the 13 for this month). Granted, a couple of them are of the Tourette's variety, but still. I'm wondering if friends will be staging an intervention and sending me into a 12-step program. I'm concerned about my ability to control my blogging. I keep telling myself, "I can tell when I've had enough. I can quit when I want to. I'm in control, really." But I'm not sure if I believe it.
Will ours be one of the thousands of homes torn apart by blogging? If I over-blog, will I become abusive and mean? Is this going to affect my ability to hold a job? Can those people over there smell the blog on my breath? Is that an alien-Elvis hybrid watching me from that unmarked government surveillance vehicle!?
AAAAAGGGGHHHH!
We just [redacted] [redacted]. It was [redacted].
Spoiler warning
[redacted] becomes [redacted], and [redacted]. [redacted] [redacted] looking for [redacted]. And [redacted] [redacted] [redacted], left to [redacted]. The [redacted] [redacted], and [redacted]. [redacted] become [redacted] on [redacted], and [redacted] is [redacted] [redacted].
[redacted] returns, and [redacted] [redacted]. Of course, [redacted]. [redacted] [redacted] the [redacted], [redacted].
[redacted] is revealed to be [redacted] (Yeah, I [redacted] too). [redacted] decides [redacted], and [redacted], but [redacted] [redacted].
End spoilers
Now we just have to wait for [redacted].
The latest installment in [redacted] was the first of [redacted]. All I can say is Wow. It was among the best things I've ever seen on television. Ben & I have also been watching some of the old [redacted] stories, and while they are enjoyable and interesting to watch, they suffer in quality when compared to the current incarnation of the program. I think, primarily, there are subtle aspects of character development, and the relationships among the characters, that weren't there in the older stories (at least the ones that I've seen). The escapades of [redacted] are very much plot-driven, and while the story itself is key in any series, the new series does a better job of character development.
I just tried this "Which Star Trek Character Are You?" quiz. The results are disappointing.
Your results:
You are An Expendable Character (Redshirt)
Since your accomplishments are seldom noticed,
and you are rarely thought of, you are expendable.
That doesn't mean your job isn't important but if you
were in Star Trek you would be killed off in the first
episode you appeared in.
