bfh

Julie Andrews

The Princess Diaries

Hector Elizondo

The author's name is Cormac McCarthy. All the quotes were taken from No Country for Old Men.

Dooj, since you came the closest, I would like to pass it to you, if you are so inclined.

Rain Man?

Yes! And with only one vague clue - Wow!

Sorry GSG, dooj beat ya to it - but not by much.

You guys are good...

Dooj, your turn.

Is this the author of No Country for Old Men?

Yes!

Two brothers go on a road trip to Las Vegas.

Rocky?

-How's it having Gideon around?

-You can have him back whenever you would like.

-This is Special Agent Dr. Reid.

- Oh, you look too young to have gone to medical school.

- They are Ph.D.'s, three of them.

- What, are you a genius or something?

-I don't believe that intelligence can be accurately quantified, but I do have an IQ of 187, an eidetic memory, can read 20,000 words per minute.

[pause] Yes, I'm a genius.

-Garcia?

-Penelope...? The tech with the glasses...?

-The room... the one with all the screens?

- I like her. She's great.

-Yeah Reid, why are you still afraid of the dark?

-Because of the inherent absence of light!

Eddie Murphy

I Spy

Owen Wilson

More:

The car that hit Chigurh in the intersection three blocks from the house was a ten year old Buick that had run a stop sign.

There were no skidmarks at the site and the vehicle had made no attempt to stop...He crawled out of the passenger side door

and staggered to the sidewalk and sat in the grass of someone's lawn and looked at his arm. Bone sticking up under the skin. Not good.

A woman in a housedress ran out screaming.

Two teenage boys were standing there looking at him.

Are you all right, mister?

Yeah, he said. I'm all right. Let me just sit here a minute.

There's an ambulance comin. Man over yonder went to call one.

All right.

You sure you're all right.

Chigurh looked at them. What will you take for that shirt? he said.

Hints:

In 2008 (80th Oscars ceremony), the movie adaptation of this novel garnered 8 Academy Award nominations and subsequently won in 4 categories.

One of this author's novels was chosen as an Oprah's Book Club selection.

More:

He lowered the binoculars and looked over the country at large. Then he raised them again.

There looked to be men lying on the ground. He jacked his boots into the rocks and adjusted the focus.

The vehicles were four wheel drive trucks and Broncos with big all-terrain tires and winches and racks of rooflights.

The men appeared to be dead.

The third vehicle was a Bronco with lifted suspension and dark smoked windows.

He reached up and opened the driver side door. There was a man sitting in the seat looking at him.

Moss stumbled back, leveling the rifle. The man's face was bloody. He moved his lips dryly. Agua, cuate, he said. Agua, por dios.

Nope, not Hightower.

No, not Faulkner.

This is a contemporary (male) author who is still writing and publishing his work.

Here's more:

It's an odd thing when you think about it. The opportunities for abuse are just about everwhere.

There's no requirements in the Texas State Constitution for bein a sheriff. Not a one. There is no such thing as a county law.

You think about a job where you have pretty much the same authority as God and there is no requirements put upon you

and you are charged with preservin nonexistent laws and you tell me if that's peculiar or not. Because I say that it is.

Does it work? Yes. Ninety percent of the time. It takes very little to govern good people. Very little.

And bad people cant be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.

More:

-This job... how do you stomach it?

-The people I go after are cowards. They often prey upon the weaker members of society, such as women and children.

There is nothing I would rather do than put the bastards away.

-So tell me, what does keep young Dr. Reid awake at night? Wait, let me guess. Memorizing some obscure textbook?

No, no, no. Working on cold fusion? No, I got it, I got it, I got it. Watching Star Trek and laughing at all the physics mistakes?

-Actually, there aren't that many scientific errors in Star Trek, especially considering how long ago it was made.

There are certain improbabilities, but not that many outright errors.

-Right.

-Oracle of Quantico - speak if you deign to hear truth!

-Font of all Knowledge, check my flow!

-Rainmaker, how wet do you want it?

"I'm in the Mood"John Lee Hooker & Bonnie Raitt

You've got a problem. Deadbolt's the number one password crack-resistant software out there. You're gonna have to get inside this guy's head to get the password.

I thought I was calling the office of Supreme Genius.

Well, gorgeous, you've been re-routed to the office of Too Frickin' Bad.

Look, I don't speak smartass.

Confucius once said, "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."

New Author:

They say the eyes are the windows to the soul. I dont know what them eyes was the windows to and I guess I'd as soon not know.

But there is another view of the world out there and other eyes to see it and that's where this is goin.

It has done brought me to a place in my life I would not of thought I'd of come to. Somewhere out there

is a true and living prophet of destruction and I dont want to confront him. I know he's real. I have seen his work.

I walked in front of those eyes once. I wont do it again.

Waysider, you are correct.

Your turn.

Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" k. d. lang

"Constant Craving" k.d. lang

That sounds like a fake commercial for a product named Shimmer.

Sounds like something from the early days of SNL, with Akroyd, Chase, Belushi, Gilda, and Lorraine.

So...Saturday Night Live?

So, it looks like no one wants this free post.

Okay, I'll take it...

New Song:

I like to dream, yes, yes, right between my sound machine

Edited to be correct for the thread!

Kirsten Dunst

Mona Lisa Smile

Julia Roberts

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte?

gee bfh,

i wish you were as concerned about the source (and accuracy) of your own information that you posted about animal infanticide as you are about the article that rhino posted...

peace,

jen-o

jen-o:

You said in post # 83:

"Now who do you think i'm gonna trust and believe: you and your opinions (and wikipedia) or God and His opinion?"

Hence the reason that I didn't bother documenting my sources for you. What would be the point?

p.s. i don't see anyone disputing the content of the article, only questioning the author's credentials, credibility, and the style of her writing (i.e. she didn't include whether the research articles she referenced were peer reviewed, and who paid for it)...

most of the article seems to be based on deductive reasoning (and common sense)... the facts provided can be independently verified, and references to researchers are provided for further verification... (looks like a normal article to me)

Why dispute the content of the article when the information contained in the article is outdated?

That seems to me to be an exercise in futility. There is nothing cited that is more recent than the late 1980's,

even though the article was written in 1993. In the social sciences, a twenty year time span changes a number

of social markers because that is considered to be the length of a generation.

And believe it or not, I am skeptical of the scholarship of an article that uses Disney movies (Dumbo and Bambi),

a children's book (no name and author given), Hallmark cards, Murphy Brown, and a bumper sticker to support a (psuedo) social-scientific thesis.

Peer review has nothing to do with style of writing, neither does financial remuneration, for that matter.

Peer review is a process of subjecting a person's work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who

are experts in the same field. For instance, in post #220, lindyhopper uses a quote from the

"Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics", normally articles published in these

types of journals are peer reviewed prior to publication.

Style of writing typically refers to grammar, composition, form, and the way in which the author uses words.

A good reference book is Strunk and White's, The Elements of Style.

Then there is documentation style, which refers to a system of citations.

The three most widely used documentation styles in the US are: Modern Language Association (MLA),

American Psychological Association (APA), and Chicago.

Bottom line, the article is an opinion piece dressed up as science and published in the "Atlantic Monthly."

It is by no means a serious social scientific article, with the attending research, that would be published

in a professional or academic journal. Therefore, it's usefulness as "evidence" is questionable, as is the evidence itself.

the mark of a good professor is the ability to boil it down to the bottom line... and make it so simple that a child could understand it...

anyway, nice chatting with you....

peace,

jen-o

Actually, the mark of a good professor is to challenge students preconceptions and teach them to think critically

with the goal being that the student can think for themselves and ask pertinent questions.

Not, as in TWI, spoon fed the students baby pabulum and expect them to engage in black and white thinking and become good little parrots.

The article was in "The Atlantic Monthly", which seem reputable. The evidence was from many researchers which the author named and quoted. You have presented nothing. For a post on the internet, I think I've done plenty.

You continue questioning it and pretending I have to answer your 50 questions, or else it is all false. This seems a dishonest approach.

Rhino:

50 questions? Well, that's a big fat exaggeration. I counted them - I asked 10 questions.

And no, you don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to.

I'm not questioning you so much as I'm questioning the scholarship of the article.

No, it's not a dishonest approach, it's a scientific approach or an academic approach.

I fail to see how questioning Ms. Whitehead's scholarship and the veracity of her sources,

that you referred to as "evidence," as being dishonest. Furthermore, the article is simply outdated.

I find it disingenuous to present as "evidence" an opinion piece that has a thinly veiled agenda.

The agenda being that "the dissolution of intact two-parent families is harmful to large numbers

of children, [and the] increasing numbers of single-parent and stepparent families dramatically weakens and undermines society."

Thus, Ms. Whitehead's argument, as well as her logic and her sources, will be skewed in that direction in order to support her thesis.

I believe it might also be what causes you to make such statements as:

"But it seems to prove not only that the blood parent instinctively protects very strongly,

but also that those "foster parents or adopted parents" care very much less, and look out for their own first."

"I think there is evidence that there is a higher incidence of abuse from non blood "parents".

Hence the phrase "beat him like a red-headed step-child". It is only natural."

Both of the above quotes are from your post # 103.

Quite frankly, I find the above statements to be not only inflammatory rhetoric,

but highly insulting to all adoptive, step, and foster parents. I know that there are

both adoptive parents and step-parents who frequent this board, would you say that to their face?

Most adoptive and step-parents do the absolute best they can raising their children, and yes,

most of them consider them their children. These 'unnatural' parents have feed, clothed, provided shelter,

educated, loved, and taken care of their children, what did the so-called natural parents do?

Moreover, I don't understand why you object so strongly to questions.

Maybe if I had asked more questions instead of blindly accepting as truth what some 'expert' told me,

I wouldn't have become involved in a cult.