#my tags for this era are so inconsistent I really need to figure out what I'm doing 😭😭😭

[forthegothicheroine]

The King in Yellow, 1949

Much of this story is true.  Warnings in the tags.

When I had pneumonia in my early teens, my mother brought home an armful of VHS tapes from the library to alleviate my misery.  Knowing my snobbish preferences, she had grabbed copies of whatever she found in black and white.  I remember something musical that I suspect was Busby Berkeley, I remember Mildred Pierce (a bad choice, as it turned out- the plot includes a young girl dying of pneumonia), and I remember a period piece called The King.  I faded in and out of consciousness while I watched it, but it soothed me while I was awake and filled my fever dreams with sparkling images.  I could never find it at the library again, nor at Hollywood Video or even early Netflix (once my father got the subscription service where you could order practically every DVD.)  It was a bit odd that it seemed to be so obscure, given that it starred old Hollywood legend Ingrid Bergman (and, although I initially forgot it, Marlene Dietrich.)  But even big stars make films that fall by the wayside in public memory, and it seemed that this was one of them.  Google was no help, and at the time that was that.

I didn’t see the film again until I was watching Turner Classic Movies at my grandparents’ house.  I loved watching that channel with them while filling out the crossword puzzle that came in their little TCM catalogue (all of it based on movie trivia, the only kind of crossword puzzle I’ve ever been any good at.)  I recognized a certain scene where Bergman stood on a balcony, looking sadly at the moon.  Her face had an expression of unutterable melancholy, and the crescent moon reflected in each of her eyes, giving the impression of two moons in one sky.  I had very little time to catch up on what I’d missed before we had to go meet my cousins at the local Italian restaurant.  I knew logically that the movie would be long over by the time we returned, but I turned on the channel anyway.  Of course it had moved on to the lesser known Alfred Hitchcock film Stage Fright, but then I heard Marlene Dietrich sing before I could reach the remote to turn the tv off in disappointment.  I knew that I had heard her sing before, and I knew it had been in The King.

Dietrich’s singing often comes across as somewhat campy today, with its Rs pronounced as Ws and it’s up-and-down tone.  Madeline Kahn parodied it brilliantly in Blazing Saddles, such that it was a bit of a disappointment when I finally saw Dietrich’s western Destry Rides Again and found it to be lifeless and inconsistent next to the parody.  Still, we remember her voice for a reason, and when I remembered it that night, I knew that its sardonic loneliness had rung through The King and made me shiver in my dreams.

The TCM schedule didn’t list The King in its time slot, but something else.  If I had taken down the name, maybe it would have helped me find it.  Sometimes the same movie runs under multiple names.

I didn’t see the film all the way through for many years, after I graduated college.  I had found a web page that listed public domain film noir, including one called The Masked Guest.  The website described it as a costume noir, and I curiously clicked on the link.  Once I took in the credits running on the youtube window, my eyes grew wide and I did not move from my place on the bed until the movie had run its course.

The credits did indeed list it as The Masked Guest, but I recognized the strange repeating design on the title cards.  They told me that in addition to starring Dietrich and Bergman, it was directed by Fritz Lang, and a character called The King was credited to “???”  (I hadn’t seen that kind of credit since the first Karloff Frankenstein.)  When the King finally appears on screen, though, it is unmistakably Orson Welles’s voice that booms out from behind his elaborate costume.

Here are the things I understand about The King, or The Masked Guest, or The Man in Yellow, or any other title I’ve found for it on public domain archive searches.  Dietrich and Bergman play princesses named Cassilda and Camilla, respectively.  Though Dietrich’s accent is German and Bergman’s is Swedish, they blend together to give the film the impression of being set somewhere on the map that I can’t quite find.  The scenery and camera angles are very Freudian, with a great deal of archways and pillars.

The first act of The King involves frankly dull romantic plotlines, and the only thing that really saved it was the feeling that the suitors were supposed to be insipid, a suspicion lended credence by the fact that the love interests were listed so low on the credits.  Dietrich is the scandalous sister and Bergman is the responsible one, though each takes on aspects of the other as the film goes on.  Dietrich sings her song at a party, dressed in a fake 17th century gown and leaning against a piano.  Although just a moment ago she had been laughing and joking with her gentleman friends, her song takes an abruptly serious tone (not seductive, not sentimental) as she tells the story of a city lost to time and memory.  Bergman slips away from the party and onto the balcony, where we see that wonderful shot of the moon in her eyes.  Is she mourning?  Is she longing?

Dietrich cuts off the song by abruptly screaming “Not on us, King!  Not on us!”  She flees the party weeping and shaking, and from there on the film goes mad.

Though uncommon, it is not unknown for movies to switch between black and white and color, done most famously in The Wizard of Oz.  The film The King recalls here is the silent Phantom of the Opera, which had a masqued ball scene tinted in shades of red and green that tried to provide a whole spectrum of color.  The effect is even odder in the masqued ball scene in The King- the only color that appears is yellow, highlighting things like candlelight, Dietrich’s hair, a passing gown, a vase of tulips.  It also highlights one particular masked figure, whose expressionless mask was decorated with a black pattern against a sickening yellow canvas- the same pattern I had seen in the opening credits.  The color of his costume causes him to stand out from the crown even when he is far off in the background, just one head among many others.  It must have taken long and painstaking hours of work to color in every frame.

Dietrich still seems broken up days after her song, though Bergman tries to coax her into joining the dance.  Finally, at midnight, Dietrich goes out to face the party, but only to demand that every guest remove their mask.  The yellow man with a voice that once warned America about a Martian invasion tells her that he wears no mask.  Bergman reacts with disbelief, but Dietrich starts laughing like a woman unhinged.  As she laughs, the yellow hue seeps out of the King’s clothing and face- if that really is his face- and begins to color the entire ballroom crowd.  I think that what follows is bloodshed, but if there is any carnage (doubtful under the Production Code censorship), the blood must be tainted yellow and splashed across the camera like daubs of paint.  Dietrich’s laughing face is doubled and tripled on screen until it dissipates, but even when it has faded offscreen, it feels as if her ghost continues to watch the proceedings.  

By the end of the scene (filled with German Expressionist camera angles and mad violin screeching), only Bergman remains alive, cowering behind a grandfather clock.  It does not hide her for long.  The King steps towards her and extends his hand.  Reluctantly, but with a fatalistic expression, Bergman takes his hand.  They walk away together hand in hand.  The screen shifts back into black and white, and then the credits roll before we can get a good look at all the bodies in the scene.  The credits say it was based on a play called The King in Yellow, although Raymond Chandler of all people apparently had a hand in the screenplay.

As I said, that’s what I think I understand.  It’s an oddly experimental art film for the era, and it may be awaiting rediscovery by the film festival crowd.  I feel as if I alone know about it, though that obviously isn’t true.  It is my little secret; I tell myself that my husband doesn’t need me to show it to him, it would be too odd for his taste.  I’ve rewatched it many times, even if it seems like each time I search for it I have to find a different video platform or torrent.  Naturally, no subscription site has it available.  Maybe I am the last person who will ever watch it.  Maybe no one will ever think to look for it again after me, and it will be completely forgotten.

When I was hospitalized, they let me use my laptop at night before I went to sleep (no power cord, though, in case I tried to hang myself.)  I found a youtube link for The Man in Yellow, and I watched it every night.  It wasn’t a soothing sort of movie, but having it in my mind all day and then watching it in the evening allowed me to think as opposed to crying endlessly while the other patients shot me awkward looks.  I clutched the childhood stuffed animals my mother brought me when she visited, and I always held them extra tight when the masquerade scene started.

I watched the movie when I had to move away from my beloved San Francisco.  I watched the movie when I lost the last of my grandparents.  I watched the movie when a doctor unwisely took me off my medication and I couldn’t manage to eat for a month.  I watched the movie when the whole world got sick and we all locked ourselves away from each other.  I don’t mind that I don’t entirely know what it means.  I don’t mind the nightmares.  In the hospital they kept telling us about mindfulness exercises, and maybe the fact that I can focus on every aspect of the film so closely that all else falls away is the reason I keep coming back to it.  I’m being mindful.  I’m not letting any stray thoughts invade my head.  I’m just watching and waiting for the next beat of every scene, leading inexorably to that yellow-stained bloodbath.

Streaming media doesn’t last forever, and each time I find The King, I worry that it will be the last time I ever can find it.  My efforts to download it have so far been unsuccessful, odd considering that it is in the public domain.

When I watch The King, I am once again a child in my bedroom being cared for in the throes of agonizing sickness.  I am once again sitting on the couch with my grandparents in front of the tv, both of them alive and lucid again.  I am once again in the hospital, all alone except for my stuffed animals and the staff trying to keep me alive.  The film reflects in my eyes like the crescent moon in Ingrid Bergman’s gaze.  It sings to me.

I am determined to find a way to obtain The King under any name so that I never have to worry about losing it.  During some of the worst times in my life, it is the only thing that has kept me sane.

[charachanplz]

Ok I need to let this out of my chest or I WILL blow up and never get over this. So the Cuphead Show was finally given a proper trailer and release date, and most people on the twitter and tumblr tags are hyped about it, which is really good! a very happy celebration!

However, I also see, here or there, someone going out of the way to complain that it doesn't LOOK like the 30s. Cuphead was a game that felt like playing a cartoon from the golden age, why does this show look ugly, or too modern, or etc etc you get the idea. Someone even called it "like every other Netflix show" and just

Maybe trying to recreate old animation from the era isn't this show's purpose. It was the game's purpose, but not the show's. Maybe they wanted to expand or play around with the setting and characters they got. Maybe they just figured they got a franchise here, and wanted to expand to a cartoon, because that's what they were inspired by, and let the animation team get creative with what they have. Maybe they wanted more money and wanted to make something profitable. I do not know, all I know is that they're not doing the same thing they did with the game.

Probably because that would probably be an eternal, never ending development hell.

Like, think about it. we're talking about an animation style that's 90 to 100 years old, that mostly looks the way it does because it uses techniques not used as much, since they take so fucking long to work on. They had to color every cell through photoshop so they didn't take eternity to finish the game, and they only did that because it would have the same effect to traditional coloring. Studio MDHR were meticulous as hell with this game's style, even purposely adding in little mistakes in the animation to make it extra authentic. I have absolute respect for that kind of dedication, but I also understand if another studio wouldn't want to do that as well, with how much time and money it costs.

Hell, Cuphead diehard fans should KNOW how time consuming and expensive this process is. The brothers had to mortgage their HOME to afford the development of the game, that's basically a common fun fact. The original teaser trailer came out in 2013, while the game came out in 2017. That's, what? 4-5 years of development? Same thing happened with the DLC. Announced in 2018, and it's only NOW releasing in 2022, if it doesn't get delayed again. It's that time consuming. And this isn't something they can speed up for a tv show using modern technology, because, to be blunt, animation nerds are absolutely anal about accuracy.

I'm know this, I'M an animation nerd, and I get anal over inaccuracies. Remember Magic Portals? It tried to do the same thing Cuphead did, and its trailer got ripped apart on sight. People noticed the tweening, the slow animation, the inconsistent time period, and they hit it ALL in their criticisms and mockery of the game. I'm not a fan of Magic Portals myself, I don't really felt comfortable with what felt like a copy cat coming way too early in Cuphead's popularity, but I think the backlash it got could reflect what would've happened if the show tried to be era accurate while also trying to be quicker about it. It looks too digital, they're using tweening here, puppets there, this is obviously a reused asset, they wouldn't hear the end of it. Animation nerds would pick it apart and NOT be satisfied unless it is pitch perfect.

But ignoring animation, would you WANT to watch a show similar to 1930s shorts? Like, 100 or so shorts of random bullshit happening, events disjointed and only kinda following a storyline, characters constantly changing their look because pre-production was not really a thing during that time? That's not going to happen; both audiences and studios have WAY different standards now than what they had in the animation industry's infancy. A studio wouldn't just let the team go loose without preplanning, and more importantly? It wouldn't have that much of an audience. Wow! people who like animation history! That is not a big nor particularly mainstream crowd. If you could get the furries with anthro characters, maybe it'd do better, but cuphead isn't really known for its vast cast of walking talking animals. That show would BOMB with the average Netflix user if it was like that.

So, essentially, you'd have a show that'd be difficult and time consuming to produce, taking up a bunch of money, with no guarantee it'll get that money back through views. It'd be a suicide project.

Look, you can not like The Cuphead Show's style. You can skip it, find other shows to watch, maybe even play/watch the game again, and marvel at what its dev team's dedication and love for the legacy of animation has created. But it's unrealistic to sit there and expect a modern studio to use a pricey, tedious animation style, to create a show that maybe only you would watch.

[mandi-cakes]

Apologies to those who follow me and don’t know or care about Inuyasha/Yashahime stuff. Feel free to ignore, block the tags, whatever. LOL. My spouse and I can’t help ourselves, we’ve been rewatching and theorizing and debunking sh!t regarding HNY since the weekend. Tbh I can’t guarantee my posting habits until season 1 (or the series as a whole) is either over or things get explained with new information; whichever comes first. Honestly, imo the Inuyasha/Yashahime fandom is being trolled so hard right now. Or at least that's what I'm hoping. Until I see otherwise, I'm calling the latest Yashahime episode Fake News; the one and only way I'll ever use that term. There's one too many inconsistencies and contradictions going around for me to just accept any of it as fact. I have posts in my feed already stating what I think, particularly this one. People can have their opinions, I don’t really care. I’m just annoyed atm because there’s missing information and plain ol’ misinformation, and I can’t be teased like that--my Sherlock Holmes way of playing detective won’t allow it. So, until the picture is fully realized; clearly and without any doubt:

Riku is lying/spouting half-truths, because he doesn’t know what the truth is. There is already one contradiction that casts doubt on what he’s said. A lot of the events that occurred in ep 15 are based on his assumptions, and very little is actually valid. He is literally and figuratively fishing at the end of the episode--meaning he is baiting the audience with what he claims to know.

The timeline is what was stated in ep 3, I’m sticking to that until it’s revealed otherwise. “Eighteen years mean nothing to me”... The 18 years Riku talks about in ep15 starts when he commissions the new black pearl, after Inuyasha and Kagome try to in the og series. Like so: The pearl is commissioned by Riku 3 months before Kagome gets sent back through the well. For 3 years Kagome is stuck is stuck in the modern era. The fight with Roothead happens 6 months after her return. The pearl is delivered 1 month after Roothead. This would mean the twins were born 3 months after the delivery of the pearl (a year after the well permanently closes, with Moroha’s birth following soon after the twins or around the same time). Towa is sent to the modern era when she is 4 years old, and return when she is 14.

Towa and Setsuna were born 1 year after Kagome’s return, which throw’s Rin’s alleged ‘older age’ into question. Although it doesn’t help that her age hasn’t been officially stated, with my assumption being that she was 8 or 9 at the time of her debut in Inuyasha, and 11 or 12 by the last ep of Final Act and ep 1 of HNY.

Kaede wasn’t there when the twins were born. That’s a big contradiction to what is supposedly playing out in ep 15. Perhaps she doesn’t know who the mother is either. If she had been present at their birth, she would know Towa’s name (and presumably what her coloring would be compared to Setsuna). In ep 3, Kaede only ever refers to the missing twin as ‘the other one’, and states plainly that the only time she ever saw Sesshomaru was when he was flying overhead with the twins in hand. Riku is only assuming Kaede was present at the birth of the twins because she is Rin’s human guardian. And, assumes Sango and Kagome were there because he spoke to Kagome beforehand. On top of that, Riku wasn’t present at the birth either. He’s assuming that Rin is the mom and Sesshomaru’s alleged wife because she is supposedly the only human he cares for. No one else has stated anything about it...

Those who do know for certain the identity of the twins’ actual mother are Sesshomaru (duh) and Miroku (because Setsuna at one point was told by him that she needed to kill her parents). Possibly Kagome, Inuyasha (by extension), and Sango, and possibly Jaken (considering he follows Sesshomaru like stink on a pig). Although, if Miroku and Sango did know...they most likely didn’t/wouldn’t say because the writers of the show want to drag out this so called ‘surprise’ reveal of the true mom. Perhaps there’s something we don’t know regarding Miroku (why does he want the mother killed?). And obviously Kagome and Inuyasha can’t say anything because they’re trapped.

Nothing in ep 15 regarding the twins’ birth and their ‘mother’ can be considered valid. Riku is a liar, and doesn’t know sh!t about anything. We will likely not get any new information in ep 16. It’s possible the writers are waiting until the season finale to make a true reveal; that is, if they don’t drag it out even further.

PS - LOL, my spouse thinks the twins don’t have a true mother because they’re dream babies made through Treekyo. And I joked that Sesshomaru birthed them through mitosis XD

[apathetic-revenant]

alright I have had this Doctor Who rant building up in me for years and I gotta get it out eventually so I might as well go ahead and do it

this rant is about why I stopped watching the show after season 7 and it’s not gonna be complimentary so I will put it under a cut and not in the tag so no one has to read it that doesn’t want to. 

also it is very long. 

some background: I started watch Doctor Who when I was thirteen. because I have a knack for picking the worst place to start a series, the first episode I ever fully watched was Human Nature. it was very confusing, but I was entranced. I immediately went to the internet and looked up as much as I could find about the show, and before the next episode had even aired I was already whole-heartedly in love with it.

Doctor Who was very important to me for the next several years. it was something to hold onto through some pretty difficult times. it could be quite hard to watch in the US (let alone to get a hold of merch or novels) but I grabbed every scrap of it that I could. Doctor Who was something that I found solace in when everything else seemed absolutely awful.

so it really hurt to fall out of love with it. but I did. 

now I’m fully willing to admit that a lot of what happened had to do with very personal, specific circumstances for me, and truthfully I don’t know how much of it applies to anyone else at all. but...I don’t think that makes my feelings about it entirely invalid either.

I was sad to see RTD and Ten--my first Doctor--go, but I was very excited for Steven Moffat to take over. I thought that the episodes that he had written were some of the best in the show, and I was looking forward to what he would do with more free rein. but he disappointed me in a lot of ways.

I don’t like Moffat’s writing, not anymore. I think he did well under the constraints of only writing one story a season, but not when given control over the entire show. I think his overarching plot lines are grandiose, over-complicated, are more concerned with building themselves up than delivering a satisfying resolution, and show a tendency to think that stories get more interesting the larger they are in scale, which is sometimes true but certainly not always. I think he spends too much time talking things up--his characters, his stories--resulting in a lot of telling and not enough showing. I think the occasional bombastic reminder of how old/powerful/smart/morally conflicted/whatever the Doctor is is fine enough, but that Moffat turned the dial on that up so much that I got sick of hearing people talk about the Doctor at all, which is not a good thing for the protagonist of the show. I think he hamstrung his own monsters by insisting on bringing them back over and over on increasingly larger scales so that something that was originally scary because it was mysterious and unknown become banal through over-exposure. I think his characterization is extremely poor, resulting in characters that are either inconsistent, two-dimensional, or both. I think he relied too much on using Time Travel Rules for dramatic effect, which doesn’t work too well when said Rules were made up just for that episode and aren’t consistent. I think he has a deeply irritating tendency to extend his control not just over his own era but on the entire show: ret-conning the Time War to what he thought it should be, writing characters that are not just the most important person ever to the Doctor he is writing, but to every Doctor there’s ever been. 

but. 

all that is just writing. I think it’s bad writing, and not writing that I at all enjoyed, but just bad writing on its own doesn’t really offend me. Doctor Who has had plenty of bad writing in the past and it’s carried on quite well regardless, and even if I don’t like it, well, if other people do then that’s good for them and I can live and let live.

the problem is that bad writing is not all that I disliked about the show under Moffat’s tenure. it is not what made me truly and deeply uncomfortable with the show as it went on until I had to stop watching it altogether.

here’s where the personal bit starts to come in. see, I’m asexual. at thirteen, I don’t think I really knew that yet, but I had started to twig that there was something a bit different about me. I didn’t seem to be feeling all the things thirteen year olds were usually supposed to be feeling. I read YA books describing puberty in ways that I often felt uncomfortable with and disconnected from. but maybe I was a late bloomer, I thought--I didn’t really have a lot of other information to go on anyway. 

so when I was reading up on the show after watching Human Nature and read that the Doctor typically didn’t show any interest in romance or attraction, I didn’t exactly think “oh, it’s someone like me!” but it definitely drew my attention, even if all I thought was “oh thank god, a show that won’t spend so much time on all that weird boring stuff.”

of course, watching the second part of that two-parter made it pretty clear that while the classic series may have abstained from romance, the new series felt no such restriction. I was disappointed, but not too much, because this was pretty much business as usual and I was very accustomed to it. 

but I’ve never been able, since then, to completely disconnect my experience with watching Doctor Who with my experience of discovering asexuality and what that meant for me. not when it contained the only character I’d yet encountered who even came close to being canonically asexual. not when there was so much discussion in and around the fandom about how the Doctor should be written. not when the show itself was clearly conscious of wanting to prove that whatever had happened in the old series, the new series Doctor was not asexual.

it was little things. like the way, any time I read anything about that infamous kiss in the TV movie, the reaction to it was always characterized as being a silly fandom thing--oh these repressed nerds, fussing about how the Doctor kissing someone violates canon, just goes to show how stuffy and out of touch they are. or the discussions of ‘dancing’ in season one that scornfully made clear that of course the Doctor felt attraction because it’s such a fundamental thing that it’d be weird for even an alien not to feel it. I mean, who could empathize with a character who wasn’t interested in sex?! it was things like the way the EU in the hiatus years tended to play up the Doctor being asexual--all in the service of making him seem more alien, more detached from human emotion. it was things that I never saw anyone complain about, that no one else ever seemed to think was a problem in any way, so I thought the fault must be mine for being uncomfortable with it.

I’m well aware that this did not start with Moffat--the new series was taking part in it from the outset, and I have my own issues with that (I’ve never been able to get onboard with a romance between a 1000+ year old alien and a 19-year-old girl. sorry, I know lots of people love that ship, but I just can’t personally). but it got a lot worse under his tenure.

I watched the TARDIS--a goddamn inanimate blue box--get characterized as the Doctor’s wife, a woman, called ‘sexy’, because for some reason the connection between an alien and their biomechanical time machine needs to map nicely onto a heterosexual relationship. I watched River making orgasm jokes at the camera with a wink, and the sonic screwdriver used to make dick jokes. I watched a parade of female characters that all seemed to fall into the mold of Sexy Flirty Feisty, who all fell hopelessly in love with the Doctor, whose lives revolved around him even from a very young age. 

I remember feeling sick and stunned as I watched a scene where Amy started making out with the Doctor while he tried to get away, a scene that was clearly supposed to be funny. I watched all this at the same time that I was struggling with the idea that I didn’t think I wanted sex at all, feeling like I was weird and wrong for it, like I would eventually have to fall into the right mold and go through the motions no matter how much I didn’t want to, because there didn’t seem to be any room in the world for a person like me. 

but even then, I felt like the problem was more on me. Doctor Who wasn’t really doing anything that every other show I watched didn’t do. it felt selfish to expect the show to cater to me when I was clearly in the vast minority of people. anyway, I didn’t really expect asexual representation. I still don’t. I’d love to have it, but expecting would just be getting my hopes up a lot so they could be dashed over and over again. I know a lot of people still don’t even know that asexuality exists, or what it really is, which is becoming less and less of an excuse as it becomes more well known, but I still don’t ever expect it to be brought up in mainstream pop culture (at this point I pretty much figure I’ll just to have to do it myself). I assumed that this writing on Doctor Who came out of the same place, that they felt fine writing off any sign of asexuality in the old series as being an outdated artifact they were no longer bound to because they didn’t know there was anyone in real life who actually felt like that.

and then I read a quote from Steven Moffat, about Sherlock--another series featuring a character with a distinct lack of interest in sex or romance in the source material. Moffat said that Sherlock was not asexual because that would be boring--no fun at all--and that him intentionally distancing himself from his feelings was much more interesting.

that was the betrayal. that was when I realized--he knew. he knew what asexuality was and he chose not to put it in his work because it was boring. it was not just “I don’t see you.” it was “I see you, I know you exist, but I don’t care.”

all my struggle, my identity, my existence, willfully tossed aside because it was too boring to even think about, compared to the gripping tale of a straight dude who didn’t have time for women because he was too busy being really smart. 

in retrospect it’s not surprising. this was, after all, the same show in which a self-described lesbian falls for a man, I guess to show that Sherlock is just so appealing that women will change sexualities for him. but hey, it goes both ways--this is the same character that, according to Moffat, Sherlock only lost to in the original story because he fancied her and got distracted. obviously nothing else could explain a woman beating Sherlock Holmes. don’t worry, he corrected that little oversight in his show by having Irene have to be rescued by Sherlock, the way things should properly go. 

I guess that was the point where I lost trust in the show. Doctor Who had been there for me through a lot of rough shit, but it was not going to be there for me on this one. it was not going to make me feel more comfortable with myself, feel like I was okay just the way I was, like I could be proud in my own skin. I know it’s helped other people with that, and I am truly happy for them. but I wouldn’t be one of them. not while Moffat was in charge. I was too boring. now, another woman falling in love with the Doctor--now that would be interesting, eh?

I couldn’t trust anymore that any joke about the Doctor not understanding sex--ha ha, those jokes always seemed to go, look at the funny alien acting all confused and ignorant--would be any more than that, a joke, to be tossed aside the moment a tempting bit of lewd humor or romantic moment came up. I couldn’t trust that any female character would appear on the show--or even would have existed in the show’s history--without becoming yet another in the long line of women who fancied the Doctor. maybe the show would do better, maybe it would become something I could feel comfortable with again--but I was done waiting around to find out. 

I stopped watching the show. I went to college. I watched other stuff. I kept on struggling. I still didn’t see myself in media, in lots of ways, but I found people like me on the internet, I read niche fiction and bits of fanfic that finally described my experiences, and I started feeling better about myself. not perfect, but better. 

I wasn’t watching Doctor Who anymore, or Sherlock, but I heard things over time. 

like Moffat passing over three past Doctors, saying that despite them all being ready and capable he wasn’t including them in the 50th Anniversary because he didn’t think they’d want to “struggle into their old costumes” again, managing to simultaneously diss three great actors who’d been contributing to the show for decades and demonstrate a stunning lack of creativity for a sci-fi writer for a show with a large budget by apparently being unwilling to even try to figure out a way to work around them having aged. oh, but McGann got to come back long enough to get killed off. and we would have had Eccleston but he didn’t want to come back for the special that retconned all the work he put into his character as being based on a giant lie, I wonder why? 

like how Sherlock rewrote the ending of a story that originally had the villain finished off by a woman, because as the writers explained in an interview, it was completely unbelievable that that could happen. 

like lots of lovely little comments, about how women only watched Sherlock because they were attracted to Cumberbatch, or watched Doctor Who if the Doctor was hot enough; about how bisexual representation wasn’t needed because bi people were too busy “having fun” to watch TV anyway; about how the idea of a female Doctor was as silly as a male queen. well, fine. I’m personally glad that Steven Moffat dismissed the idea of a female Doctor because I shudder to think how he would have written her. 

I could go on, but I have other stuff to do. you don’t have to take my word for it, though; here’s a nice article to start with. 

I almost didn’t bother watching the newest season, but I made a spur of the moment decision to catch it. and I am enjoying it so far. it’s reminding me of the things I originally loved about the show. I was nervous about how the first female Doctor would be written, but watching Thirteen in action gave me a sense of empowerment I honestly wasn’t expecting. maybe someday I’ll be able to just completely enjoy the show again without having so many conflicting feelings about it. 

probably eventually I’ll go back and watch what I missed. there may be things I enjoy in there. episodes I like. I’ve gotten the impression I would like Capaldi himself. and if I just didn’t like Moffat’s writing, I would be happy to enjoy what I enjoyed and not bother with the rest. I would be willing to believe that he might improve or take a different tack that I enjoyed more. 

but after the things I’ve seen in Moffat’s writing, and the things he has said, I don’t trust him anymore. I don’t feel comfortable enough to ever fully enjoy his writing. I can’t respect him because I know he does not respect me. 

really I guess I should never have been all that surprised. like I said, I don’t really expect to see myself in most media. and plenty of works are worse than Doctor Who. 

I guess Doctor Who was just the only one that got my hopes up first. 

[thinkpurpledrank]

Drank’s Postseason Rotation Preference

Pictured is Alex Wood, clearly confused about what his postseason role will be.

---------------

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Drank can hear you laughing, from wherever you are.

“PLAYOFFS?!?” you scream, in the most Jim Mora-way possible. “WE’RE TALKING ABOUT PLAYOFFS?!?”

Case in point:

LITERALLY PLAYOFFS. LITERALLY GUMBY.

The playoffs are literally two weeks away, and while the Dodgers have been doing whatever they can to sabotage their playoff aspirations, all media sources inform Drank that the Dodgers have already clinched a playoff spot, and are merely a single win or an Arizona loss away from bypassing the play-in game, to the actual tournament of pain. One more win, and the Dodgers’ odds of winning a World Series skyrockets to 12.5%, which is about where it would have been had the Dodgers won 116 games anyway.

I guess we do actually have to talk about playoffs! And now that the Dodgers are pretty much in this tournament of pain, they might as well try to actually figure out the best method to getting wins, preferably at the rate they were getting wins in June and July, and not the last 4 weeks.

To begin, let’s focus on the starting rotation. The rotation had 94 qualified candidates before the year, and then injuries dwindled that number down to roughly 8. Let’s start with the obvious.

GAME 1: CLAYTON KERSHAW

Literally Clayton Kershaw. Need I say more?

Okay, literally Clayton Kershaw not hanging sliders up in the zone to Aaron Altherr. That Kershaw is a bad Kershaw, that really needs to avoid showing up in the postseason, or I might ban the internet and its hot takes from my house forever.

The good news is that, relatively speaking, Kershaw is pretty much the best pitcher in baseball again. And he won’t be pitching on 3-days rest. That’s a start.

GAME 2: YU DARVISH

Darvish has been maddeningly inconsistent since being acquired on August 1st, which at least is better than being Mattingly consistent. His fastball touches 97, his breaking pitches have wicked movement that at least will play as unhittable, and he will lose control of all of his pitches at random times.

Basically, since becoming a Dodger, Darvish has showcased why he has both A) the highest K/9 rate in baseball history, and B) why the Marlins could tag him for 9 runs in a 3-inning span.

The good news is that these regular season results don’t really mean anything. The other good news is that Darvish has the ability to put up a damn fine box line score even if he has no semblance of control with all of his pitches (see his last start in San Francisco). The bad news is that I really, really want good Yu Darvish to show up in October, and I have no idea if that is how it will actually play out.

Be good, Yu.

GAME 3: RICH HILL

Rich Hill is like the left-handed Yu Darvish, in that when his stuff is on point, he has the ability to take a no-hitter into the 9th inning... and sometimes even the 10th inning, before the season then spirals out of control. But unlike Darvish, Hill pretty much relies on 2 pitches in 2 parts of the zone. When it is working, it is an absolute thing of beauty.

In 2017, Hill has had lapses where he loses control, where he might walk 2 or 3 batters in an inning or give up consecutive home runs. When he is on, though, he is arguably the best #3 starter in a field full of really good #3 starters. Going to need that deception to play well, and going to need Hill to play well with the majority of his playoff starts likely to be on the road.

GAME 4: HYUN-JIN RYU

Just like we thought, another dominant left-handed... wait a minute, this guy didn’t make the All-Star team!

You might be wondering why the actual 4th best starter isn’t listed as the 4th best starter. I’ll get to that reasoning in a second. For now, note that Ryu has been perfectly fine as a starting pitcher, who has a .310 OBP against the first two times through the order. Expect 4 or 5 innings out of Ryu, then move onto the next piece.

Yes, I understand what Dave Roberts said. HEAR ME OUT, DAVE.

SUPER HYBRID RELIEVER LEFTY PERSON THAT HAS BECOME VERY VALUABLE FOR POSTSEASON TEAMS: ALEX WOOD

There it is!! Alex Wood--who led baseball in ERA for much of the season, who had elite strikeout rates for most of 2017 compared to the other elites in the game, who even got the anti-NERD crowd excited with his 15-3 record--should come out of the bullpen.

But not in any bad way at all. This is actually quite a prestigious role, if you have only paid attention to how postseason baseball has played out the last few years.

Let us start with the role Andrew Miller played in the 2016 MLB playoffs, when it became cool to be a reliever who could come in during the 5th or 6th inning instead of the 9th. The ability to put out potential fires and massive threats in games where every out and every run is absolutely crucial, is absolutely crucial. Terry Francona and Andrew Miller proved exactly why the save stat is the dumbest fucking stat of all time, because Miller really earned the save (and really, the win on several occasions) by coming in for 2 innings during the middle of a baseball game and shutting down the opposing team’s best hitters, at a moment where the game was pretty much on the line.

That role proved to be so effective, that the Dodgers elected to spend $80 million on a relief pitcher, which I would have never guessed would have ever happened with this front office. That role even proved to be so effective, that the Dodgers were rumored to be dangling some valuable pieces of the farm to bring in another potential dominant lefty reliever in Zach Britton--who was not even good enough to pitch in the 2016 AL wild card game!!

And the carry-over is obvious, as teams are already focusing on implementing that strategy for October. The Yankees, for instance, have like 7 different elite relievers that they can use at any time, and not just have to rely on Chapman metaphorically lodging bullets into garage walls in the 9th inning. The Red Sox have discussed using once-dominant-but-now-injured-a-lot lefty David Price in this role as well. Andrew Miller also figures to be Andrew Miller again come October.

So, if you are the Dodgers, why not Alex Wood?

Mind you, this is not for a loogy position--not when Tony Watson and Tony Cingrani have pitched as well as they have since being acquired. I am talking about using Alex Wood for 1-2 innings in 3 or 4 games of each series.

When Wood first moved to the bullpen to start the year, his fastball velocity touched 93. To pair that with his improved backdoor slider, opposing hitters had no chance. Then, as Alex Wood moved back into the rotation and kept his dominant form, his innings piled up again. Then, as his innings piled up, well...

You can clearly see from this handy chart and screengrab that as time has gone on, Alex Wood’s pitches have gotten less fast. That is a problem, coinciding with a few lackluster starts recently, which has contributed a little bit to the team’s terrifying downfall.

The point is, maybe it would not be the worst idea to put Alex Wood in the bullpen, where maybe you can find that uptick in velocity once again. If you assume Wood pitches 1-2 innings in relief in 3 games of the NLDS, then what you are really banking on is that Wood pitches 4-6 innings with the 93mph fastball, as opposed to 5-6 innings with the 91mph fastball. You are spreading out Wood’s value across the middle innings for multiple games, as opposed to pitting all of Wood’s value into 1 game, as unconventional as that sounds.

Oh, and in case you have not been paying attention to the last 4 weeks, middle relief has been sort of a clusterfuck tire fire. Maybe, in those games, relying on Wood to pitch the 6th and 7th innings before handing the ball to Morrow and Jansen is not the worst idea.

Of course, this does not mean anything if Wood can’t get his fastball velocity back up. But, in Drank’s opinion, it is the best, most wisest solution. Particularly also made by the fact that Ryu and Kenta Maeda have been perfectly acceptable rotation figures this season, despite their recent struggles as well.

Also, like Andrew Miller, Alex Wood is left-handed. Their first names both start with the letter A. They are pretty much clones of each other.

So, maybe, consider that.

Two weeks until Game 1 of the PLAYOFFS!??!? I am so terrifed.

[typologycentral]

What's My Type? Socionics Version

[QUOTE=HBIC;34789314]About four years ago I discovered personality typing, which I’ve somehow never heard of before, and decided to give it a shot since I started to go through a lot of changes at that time and wanted to make sense of myself. I took every MBTI test available and came out ENTP in all of them. I also took many Enneagram tests and came out as a type 8 every time. It all fit me so perfectly at the time, I felt a mixture of elation, giddiness and weirdly fear, because it was so accurate. But very soon after I became active in forums and started to interact with other ENTPs I realized I couldn’t be one, since every single interaction with xNTPs left me either enraged, disgusted or bored. In all these years I’ve come to understand the Enneagram really well and confidently find my tritype and instinctual variants, but never got to find my MBTI type. I then moved to Socionics which I find to be much more interesting, but also confusing and even contradictory in some aspects. I have no idea why this is so important to me, being that I’m fully aware that neither theory is nowhere near perfect. I justify it to others when they ask as being because I want to work on my weak spots and utilize my strong ones to its full potentials which is true, but I don’t think that’s the only reason. I try to tell myself that these letters mean nothing (which they actually don’t), but I’m still obsessed I just need this to end once and for all so I can move on, otherwise my one track mind won’t let me concentrate on other issues. If it helps, my Enneagram tritype is 8w7-7w8-3w4 sx/sp/so. I feel like I need to include this because it makes me very confused since I never know if I'm mistaking my Enneagram traits for Socionics aspects. I can't post any pictures of myself for professional reasons, so we'll have to skip the visual identification. So now onto the questionnaire: Part I: General to specific, specific to general – what does it mean? Big Picture >Details, Details >Big Picture. For example I’ll sintetize what a person’s personality is, and then if anyone asks “What do you mean?” or “Why do you think so?” I’ll explain in detail. Then people will ask (it happens every time so I’m used to it, not only when I’m “explaining” a person, but any subject really) “But HOW do you know that?!” and I’ll give out very specific details and episodes (I have a great memory). What does "logical" mean? What is your understanding? Do you think that it correlates with the common view? To me is something that makes sense and can be explained and understood based on certain principles that any intelligent person could follow, even if they disagree. I have a big disregard for common sense, which in general is so near sighted is almost blind, so no, it doesn’t always correlates to it. How do you explain fractions on the dial of the clock? I don’t see why I would have to do that unless the person is a child in which case I’d say that each fraction is a minute, that an hour has sixty of them ...you know what nevermind. I really don’t have the patience or the ability to explain things to children. What is a rule? What rules do you have to follow? A procedure or a law, depending on the situation. Never really cared for them, but if it makes sense to me I’ll follow then and make sure others do to, unless their actions won’t impact me or others in any way. What is hierarchy? Do you need to follow it? Why or why not? A system of organizing people based on ranks. I’ve Always been acutely aware of them even (and perhaps mostly) when they are hidden or unconsciously existent by the individuals in it. If I’m just “passing through” the system (I don’t have to join it) then I’ll entertain myself by observing it but if I’m forced to join this hierarchical system, then I’ll make sure to get to the top ASAP. But this is just the thoughts I have about it, because weirdly I actually never had to “get to the top”, somehow it has always been handed to me without me (as I perceive) doing anything. It has actually been a very disconcerting occurrence that followed me all my life,because I can’t figure out why the people in the power seem to always want me to be there without proving myself or something like it. In the past it made me really anxious, because I don’t know what they expect from me and because I suffered many witch hunts due to the envy it causes in other people. I don’t see how there’s anything and specially anyone higher than me, that’s why authority is foreign concept to me, except if we’re talking abou the police. I am the only authority in my life, that’s probably because of my Enneagram. What do you think of instructions? Do you use them? Could you write an instruction manual? If so, what type of instruction manual would you most likely write? I read them so I have a general concept of what I’m dealing with, but my past experience proves that following them always results in disaster or mediocrity in my case. I only cook by myself for example, because I know that if i had people with me they’d be shocked with my methods of doing thins and I don’t want to stand their questioning it when they always prize the results so much. I hate this kind of thing really, it’s a hypocrisy. Not, I could never write a manual, I’d never have the patience. I also have bad experiences with it, because whenever I left my mom (IEI) instructions to do anything she would either don’t follow them and things wrong or follow then but get things wrong anyway. So why bother? Please explain: "Freedom is in complying with the laws, but not in ignoring the laws"? Do you agree with the statement? Why? This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Freedom is a state of mind, which is why a man can be in jail and still be free, because it is something partaking the spirit, not the body. There is no greater freedom than total unconditional self love and acceptance. Also not feeling like you need anyone else to complete you or inspire you etc. In terms of actions, freedom is doing what you want because it makes you happy and makes sense to you according to your life philosophy. Tell us how consistent you are. I don’t know because I hear different things? People tell me I have a very strong and defined personality, but at the same time people (frequently the same ones!) tell I’m unpredictable and mysterious? So I don’t know really, I believe I might be consistent in my principles, in who I am but inconsistent in how I am. What is a "standard"? Why do people need it? Is the minimal requirements for something. You need to put your home library in order. How do you feel about this activity? How will you approach this task? Oh my God, it’d easily take me the whole day because I would end up opening the books and rereading them, and then after I realized how late it was I’d just stuff them onto the shelves without no criteria whatsoever. What is work in your opinion? Labor of some sort. Why do people go to work? Mostly because they have no choice but. Others are lucky and do it for their personal enjoyment and fulfillment. Are there any parameters where you can distinguish whether you can do this work or not? Yes. Is it fun/interesting? Is it comfortable (not only physically, but mentally and ethically)? Does it pay well compared tom my efforts? Am I good enough at it? Is there any correlation between quality and quantity? Not necessarily, but I do love having a lot of something, and many options. Tell us if or how the price depends on quality? Obviously not, it’s scam after scam everywhere. How do people determine the quality of work? It’s largely subjective. But of course most people won’t admit to it. How do you determine such quality? If it meets my standards, then it has high quality vem if it doesn’t suit my tastes. How well you can determine the quality of any purchase, do you pay any attention to it? If buying the thing makes sense to me, then what else is there to consider? I don’t shop on impulse, I pay attention to what I buy, be it food or designer clothes. How do you feel if you didn't finish some work? Does it ever happen? What are the reasons? Well it depends on why I didn’t finish it, doesn’t it? I rarely feel guilty even when I don’t have a good reason for it not being finished, I might get anxious to make up for the lost time though. Now if I tried really hard but couldn’t finish it then I’d feel frustrated and mad. What is "interesting work" for you? Please explain in detail. Something I’d do for hours, for free. Something satisfying. You go to the store and see something you're interested in buying; there is a price tag on it. What parameters are you going to use to understand if it's overpriced, underpriced, or priced correctly? Is it in season? Is it beautiful/attractive? Is it good quality? Is it unique? When you work and someone tells you: "You don't do it right." What is your reaction? I’ll usually feel irritated at first, but my reaction from then on depends on how they said it (tone of voice) and who is this person. Do they have any right to meddle in my business without me given then the permission to? There is a professional right next to you. You always see that you can't perform the way they do. Your feelings, thoughts and actions? It depends on whether I feel like I’d want to or should measure up to them or beat them at it. I don’t expect or desire to be better at baking than Buddy Valastro for example, but when it comes tom my area of expertise, I do HATE when someone is obviously better than me. I don’’t hate the person though, ever. My compliments era genuine, but I do Always thing I have to beat them. Part II: When you have to ask someone else to help you with the task, how do you feel? Normal, unless the person is a considered enemy, in which case I’d only ask if it’s between that and death. You need to build a pyramid exactly like in Egypt. Your thoughts, feelings and actions? Why would I have to do that? I don’t have to do anything. I have zero interest in construction or mimicry either, so that’s it. What is beauty? It’s something incredible because it’s an individual experience, but one which we may share. Beauty is the biggest currency we have because it’s so powerful it makes time stops in its tracks even if just for a second, is capable of elevating our spirits and can leave such a strong impression you don’t forget that something/someone for years, or perhaps ever. Do you change your opinion about beauty? Does your understanding correlate with the generally accepted notion? What goes beyond the generally accepted notion? No, what’s beautiful to me today will be tomorrow and probably forever. True beauty comes with grace, though. People might find a certain celebrity beautiful for example, but I’ll never agree with it if my eyes see only plastic beauty but nothing attractive in it. Please describe your understanding of a beautifully dressed person. What is the core of beauty? How do you explain what is beautiful to a person who has never heard about beauty before? I am a true believer in personal seasonal analysis, so if the person is using her designed palette correctly and is dressed in her correct lines (I also believe in David Kibbe) then he/she will be beautiful. I used to believe not everyone could be beautiful, but that was before I saw the light of Sci-Art. I would say that if something’/someone’s can make them emote in a positive way, that’s beauty. Is there a template of understanding what beautiful means for everyone to use? No. Is there such a term as "classical beauty"? Absolutely. In David Kibbe’s system for example they are people who have this symmetrical balanced features like Grace Kelly, Gwyneth Paltrow and Dianna Agron. It has a lot to do with a certain poise and class, na elegante air, maybe even regal. What is comfort? Feeling good and safe. What is coziness? Feeling like you could stay there forever. How do you create your comfort and coziness? I surround myself with my favorite sensory things. How do others evaluate your skill in doing so? Do you agree with them? I don’t do it for others. But they do it for me, I don’t even have to ask, it’s funny. How do you pick your own clothes? I choose something that reflect my mood or will fulfill my intentions, always staying inside my rules of styling (color palette and designs). Do you follow fashion? Why? Do you mean trends? If so, then not, I abhor them. I do subscribe to a lot of fashion magazines, though. And I like to attend runaway shows and things like that. Do you know how to select clothes for different types of figures? Yes, I’m a fairy godmother. How do you cook? Do you follow recipes? Chaotically, but the results are always good, even when according to me, I failed. No, I just do my own thing and it works, so I’m obviously talented. What do others think of your skill? Love it to death and always eat too much, I’ve been accused of being the cause for their extra fat many times. Which is ridiculous, of course, they’re fat because they don’t exercise and eat all the wrong things for them. Are you good at color patterns and mixing them and matching? Yes, it comes easily and I honestly don’t know how it can be difficult. Some things are a matter of taste, but color can make your eyes hurt. If someone is telling you what is beautiful and what is not, what goes with what color and what is not, do you agree with this person? If they are correct, yes. Most people in fashion have no clue though, which is why people think fashion is irrelevant and silly. They taint the art with their incompetence and total lack of talent, they should be doing something else. Tell us how you'd design any room, house or an office. Do you do it yourself or trust someone else to do it? Why? I wouldn’t, Id should them some ideas (like a visual board) and give them information on my tastes and demands. The rest is up to them, I’m paying them for it. How do you know if a person has bad taste? Could you give us an example? Do you always trust your own taste or do you seek opinions from others? If the person can’t dress according to their coloring and body, then they have bad taste because they are making others uncomfortable by looking at them. Also, there are things that era so ugly you can’t justify their use no matter what arguments you come up with. Like neon fur vests, for example. Also, Beyonce’s general fashion choices. I don’t usually ask for input, only when it’s something rather risky and bold. But in the end I’ll go with y opinion. Can you line up human resources and make them do things? Yes, since I was a little kid. What methods do you use? I tell them what to do and they do it. If not it depends on the situation. I might take them out of the equation or force them to do what I want by any means necessary. It very rarely has escalated to that point, though. Can you press people? If so, how does it happen? Sure, I’ll demand why they haven’t done the thing yet or demand they give me the information I want. I’ told I’m very intimidating when I do it. What is incursion? How do you deal with this? When somebody thinks they can invade my territory. I’ll teach them anew and make sure they don’t forget. What does "my people" and "strangers" mean? When do "my people" become "strangers" and why? I don’t think in those terms (the “my people” part), at least not consciously. I guess it’d be my inner circle (close friends) vs people I don’t know a lot or care about. Are there strategies of attack? Can you use them? When is it justified? But of course, how else would the world work? It’s a stupid question. Of course I’ll use them, they are always justified in principle. If there is a threat or something to be obtained, a war begins, it’s only natural. Do you think it's ok to occupy someone else's territory? In what situations? If the person it’s not making good use of it then either they don’t care about it enough or are really incompetent. So I’ll make my move, they might defend their position or yield. What are the methods of volitional force? When is it most effective and in what situations? It’s not a method, it’s something that resides inside of you. You either have it, or you don’t, it’s not something you do. It should be effective all the time, that’s what means to be a powerful individual. How do you protect yourself and your interests? Ruthlessly. You’re not taking anything from me and then walking away, at least not alive. Describe your behavior in the situations of opposition and if you have to use some force? It depends, this is such a vague question. Opposition to what, by whom, where, am I alone or with others...A strategy depends on certain elements. . I’m decente in that I don’t play with my food. If it comes to that then I go for the kill, by striking my enemy’s weakest spot swiftly and preferentially, in public. He’ll be an example, then. Do others think of you as a strong person? Do you think you are a strong person? Yes and yes. But I get tired and feel weak too, like any human. How do you understand if a person is strong? Are there any signs of a strong person? You just know when you meet them. It has zero to do with external factors like physical power or financial and social influence. It’s something inside but that you pick up on immediately, a force. What is the core of any force? Will. Why do people listen to one person, but not the other? Because one person is credible (this has nothing to do with titles) or irresistible and the other is not. It’s as simple as that, it’s all psychological even i f people try to justify it and explain it later. What is boorishness? The worse thing in the world and whoever posee it are among the most disgusting “human beings”. I don’t deal with that kind of trash. Does your understanding of it correlate with the generally accepted notion? Decent people agree with me, unless they are that kind of people who never want to judge anyone, no matter what absurd things they might say or do. No kind of person can be more irritating to me than these supposed “non judgemental” people. How would you explain what boorishness mean to a 10 year old child? Again with the child thing? But a 10 year old knows how to read, I’ll give him the dictionary otherwise he’ll become one of those teenagers that expect you to be their personal Google. How would you explain the same to an adult who does not behave ethically? I’ll tell him/her they’re being despicable since that sort of behaviour is beneath a human being and therefore they deserve no respect. How would you improve the moral of the society? I dythingo not believe in moral, I believe in ethics, which are individual. That is the cause of the global social collapse. The world is filled with human like creatures which are only human in body, but which possess no spirit. Therefore there is no use trying to teach them anything, for they era no capable of understanding ethical problems since they have no conscience. Can you justify somebody's bad behavior by thinking that he/she wasn't taught how to do so? Only if said person is a small child or if they have lived their whole lives into some kind of tribe or other vastly different cultural setting with no contact to what we call “civilization”. Give us your understanding of love. Can you love and punish at the same time? Love is simply the most powerful force in the world which cannot be explained in words but I’ll say what it means to me: it’s what makes something special and precious to you. It’s the difference between my mom and any other woman, she is more valuable than all of them because I love her. When you love something you attribute value to it, which is why we all want to be loved so much. Of course this is an oversimplified explanation of only one of love’s facets, but it’s nonetheless true. Have you heard about the Southern hospitality? Everything is for the guest. There is also a German hospitality – the master of the house is always right. What method is the right one? Try to evaluate without the weight of any cultural aspects, traditions, nations etc. Yes it’s all very nice when you are the guest, but I operate things differently in my house. I actually identify 100% with Germans etiquette and personal ethics, I would never show up unannounced on someone else's house or show up before or after the decided time o four meeting. I expect the same and have no qualms in letting the person whom infringed these rules know that I will not tolerate it. What is sympathy? When do you need to express it? When is it advised not to? It’s akin to pity, you feel bad for them but in this case the person is not seen/felt as weak/pathetic because that could happen to anyone. I will not show sympathy when I don’t feel it because I hate hypocrisy. If I think a person deserved something then I’ll keep my mouth shut even if I do offer help. It happens when a person I love receives the consequences of their bad actions, for example. Are there any norms of behavior in the society? Do you follow them? Do people always have to follow them? Why? Obviously there are and yes, I follow them like any civilized person would. But they depend on culture partially, in my country people are not expected to behave like they do in America for example. I think these rules should be followed if you are in a public setting, but only as far as it doesn’t conflict with his/hers personal values. This way of thinking has caused me many problems since it goes against our traditions. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/socionics/89279-whats-type-socionics-version-new-post.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr

[yahoo-shutdown-corner-blog]

2018 NFL Preview: Can Lions' Matt Patricia reverse a trend from Bill Belichick assistants?

Yahoo Sports is previewing all 32 teams as we get ready for the NFL season, counting down the teams one per weekday in reverse order of our initial 2018 power rankings. No. 1 will be revealed on Aug. 1, the day before the Hall of Fame Game kicks off the preseason.

(Yahoo Sports graphics by Amber Matsumoto)

Bill Belichick, the greatest football coach of this era and perhaps of all time, hasn’t produced one great NFL head coach from his tree.

Bill Walsh had seemingly dozens of assistants move on to NFL success. Paul Brown and Tom Landry had assistants who made great NFL coaches. Bill Parcells had successful coaching offspring, including Belichick. From this era, Andy Reid’s coaching tree has produced some of the league’s best head coaches. Yet, Belichick’s coaching tree is startlingly bare.

Nick Saban has done great at Alabama, but he was an assistant under Belichick a lifetime ago with the Cleveland Browns, and Saban’s one shot at the NFL was a failure. Romeo Crennel failed. People in Denver still curse Josh McDaniels. Eric Mangini was bad. Charlie Weis failed miserably in college. Bill O’Brien is 31-33 with the Texans and he’s clearly the best of the group. Belichick is a step ahead of the NFL in every way, and yet none of his assistants have figured out how to replicate that success.

The Detroit Lions are going to try to break the streak with Matt Patricia.

[Yahoo Fantasy Football leagues are open: Sign up now for free]

Patricia was with Belichick since 2004, the last six seasons as his defensive coordinator. He’s a smart guy; you might have heard a time or 10,000 that he’s an actual rocket scientist. His stint at Lions coach hasn’t gotten off to a great start, to say the least. After everyone knew the Lions would hire him, Patricia’s Patriots defense allowed Nick Foles to become a legend at the Super Bowl. That was minor compared to the disturbing story about a dismissed 1996 sexual assault accusation against him. Patricia denied any wrongdoing and the Lions stuck by him.

Patricia takes over one of the NFL’s toughest jobs. The Lions’ history is remarkable. In a league that is designed so every team has a shot at building a winner in just a few years, the Lions have had almost no success. Detroit has never won the NFC North. The last time it won a division title was 1993, before realignment when it was in the NFC Central. Since 1957 it has won three division titles and one playoff game.

The past four years have actually been OK, based on that. The Lions have gone 36-28 with two playoff appearances, mostly due to Matthew Stafford’s steady improvement and a good cast around him. They still haven’t won a playoff game with Stafford (last playoff win: Jan. 5, 1992), and ownership’s lack of patience led Detroit to dump Jim Caldwell after consecutive 9-7 seasons.

Part of the frustration has to center on not doing more with Stafford. He has become one of the NFL’s better quarterbacks. He has a 96.5 rating over the past three years, which puts him a small step behind the NFL’s elite. The Lions wasted Barry Sanders’ career. They really wasted Calvin Johnson’s career. At least Sanders got to experience one playoff win. Stafford is only 30 years old so he still has a lot of time as a good quarterback, but the Lions have to worry about wasting his career too.

If you scan the roster, the Lions should be optimistic. They have good receivers. They have poured resources into the offensive line and running game. Defensive end Ezekiel Ansah has played at a Pro Bowl level, and cornerback Darius Slay was a first-team All-Pro last season at a loaded position. Stafford is a fine option at the toughest position to fill.

Patricia at least has pieces to work with. I’m not sure why Belichick’s assistants haven’t done much. McDaniels failed in Denver partially because he tried to replicate the worst traits of Belichick – intense secrecy and warring with the media, all while alienating the Broncos’ roster with his love for former Patriots players – while not using many of Belichick’s better traits. There was a report that part of McDaniels’ decision to return to the Patriots and leave the Indianapolis Colts hanging this offseason was that Belichick offered to open up his vault of knowledge to him, which seems to indicate Belichick really hasn’t mentored any of his assistants for the next step. Perhaps Belichick is so brilliant at what he does, it’s impossible to pick it up even if you’re around him every day. And, like McDaniels in Denver, his assistants end up copying the wrong things that have nothing to do with winning football games. Perhaps it’s a small sample size of failures. It’s a strange mystery.

“I’ll say this, there’s only one Coach Belichick, that’s it,” Patricia said at his introductory news conference. “He’s amazing. He’s in New England. I’m Matt Patricia. I’m kind of my own person. I’m my own guy. I’ve got my own style.”

No matter the reason for the history of Belichick assistants flopping, it makes Patricia interesting to track. At some point, just by the luck of the draw, one of Belichick’s assistants will become a highly successful NFL head coach. Detroit is banking on Patricia being the first.

Detroit Lions head coach Matt Patricia watches his team during practice. (AP)

The Lions didn’t do much in free agency. They signed linebackers Christian Jones and Devon Kennard, and they’re mediocre options. Running back LeGarrette Blount is good at his role, although it’s fairly limited. The team’s big move was giving the franchise tag to defensive end Ezekiel Ansah, which was necessary. The Lions didn’t lose much, either. The draft was solid and unspectacular. Center Frank Ragnow was a smart first-round pick for a team that can’t seem to figure out its offensive line problems. There were better backs on the board when the Lions moved up for Auburn’s Kerryon Johnson, though Johnson is talented and fills a need. There’s really not much to get excited about here, either way.

GRADE: C

Surprisingly, the Lions haven’t really missed future Hall of Fame receiver Calvin Johnson since his retirement. They’ve done a great job giving Matthew Stafford viable targets to throw to. Golden Tate is a reliable possession machine with the ability to hit a big play. Marvin Jones was another strong free-agent addition. He went from A.J. Green’s sidekick in Cincinnati to one of the NFL’s best receivers in Detroit. And the Lions seem to have struck it big on 2017 draftee Kenny Golladay, who would be starting for many NFL teams but has to be a high-level third option in this offense. There’s no tight end to make defenses worry, and that’s not ideal, but the receivers the Lions have are tremendous.

Lions fans booed Eric Ebron last season, but they might miss him now that he’s gone. Ebron, a disappointing first-round pick, was cut due to salary-cap reasons and the Lions have no clear replacement. It’s not mandatory to have a good tight end, especially when you have plenty of good receivers, but the Lions have one of the thinnest tight end depth charts in the league. Detroit signed Luke Willson, formerly of the Seattle Seahawks, ex-Atlanta Falcons blocking tight end Levine Toilolo and still have 2017 fourth-round pick Michael Roberts. None of them have a 400-yard season in the NFL. Maybe Roberts emerges or Willson does well with a larger role, or the Lions have enough elsewhere that they won’t need much from the tight end. But that position is probably the biggest weakness on the roster.

The NFL is more than just the quarterback, but quarterback is where every conversation has to start. And the Lions have a good one. There are probably “quarterback wins” zealots out there who don’t appreciate Stafford, but he’s the Lions’ best hope. Over the past three seasons Stafford has averaged 4,345 yards, 28 touchdowns and 11 interceptions while completing 66.1 percent of his passes. Put it this way: It’s not like Stafford is the reason the Lions haven’t won in the playoffs. Stafford has improved a lot the past few years, and a case can be made he’s the NFL’s most underrated quarterback. He’s underrated because the Lions have had little team success, but football is a team game.

The Lions gave Ezekiel Ansah the franchise tag. Did they do so because he’s worth the price, or because they didn’t have any better option? Ansah is good, but inconsistent. He followed up a 14.5-sack, Pro Bowl season in 2015 with an injury-filled two-sack season in 2016. Last season he had 12 sacks, but nine of them came in three games against a pair of awful offensive lines (New York Giants, Cincinnati Bengals) and a Green Bay Packers team with Brett Hundley and nothing to play for in Week 17. Not that three-sack games are bad, but the Lions need more than the three sacks he produced in the team’s other 13 games, especially given his $17.1 million price tag this season. In fairness, Ansah gets more offensive attention than anyone else in the front seven. Anthony Zettel had six-and-a-half sacks last season and Kerry Hyder had eight two years ago before missing 2017 with a torn Achilles, so Ansah has some help. But Ansah is probably the only one on the line with a Pro Bowl ceiling.

From Yahoo’s Scott Pianowski: “Kenny Golladay could have been an impact player as a rookie, but a balky hamstring limited him to 48 targets. Nonetheless, he made plenty of splash plays, averaging 17 yards per reception and scoring three times (he also had two preseason touchdowns). The Lions have two steady, fantasy-proven wideouts in Golden Tate and Marvin Jones, and they’ll probably be solid investments again. But the Lions were a mess when trying to convert touchdowns from just outside the end zone last year, and that’s where the lanky Golladay (6-foot-4, 213 pounds) could shine.

“The Lions don’t have a pass-catching threat at tight end, so this is an offense that could, theoretically, support three fantasy wideouts. Golladay is an excellent late-round choice, when plausible upside is the primary thing you’re after.”

[Booms/Busts: Fantasy outlook on the Lions.]

[Yahoo Fantasy Football leagues are open: Sign up now for free]

It’s time for everyone’s favorite segment of the NFL offseason preview countdown: Guess how many games it has been since the Lions had a 100-yard rusher! One of the amazing streaks in the NFL continued for another year when the Lions failed to have a 100-yard rusher last season. The answer to the trivia question remains Reggie Bush, who had the last 100-yard game for the Lions on Thanksgiving of 2013. The Lions have gone 68 games without a 100-yard rusher. According to Football Perspective the all-time record is 72 games set by the Washington Redskins in the 1960s. The Dallas Cowboys have had 34 100-yard rushing games since the Lions’ last one, according to Football Perspective. The Lions drafted Kerryon Johnson, signed LeGarrette Blount and still have Ameer Abdullah and Theo Riddick. If they don’t have a 100-yard rusher this season, something is seriously wrong. But that one stat is a good reminder: If you’re blaming Matthew Stafford for the Lions’ lack of success, you haven’t noticed the deficiencies around him.

WHAT’S MATT PATRICIA’S CORE PHILOSOPHY, AND HOW DOES IT FIT THIS LIONS TEAM?

Matt Patricia offered a glimpse into his vision for the Lions when he was introduced as the team’s head coach.

“From a philosophical standpoint, what I’ll tell you is this,” Patricia said. “When you build — and this is really both sides of the ball — you want to build from the ball out, OK? So start at the ball, and work out. You always want to be strong in the middle of your defense. So anybody who plays through the core, whether it’s the linebackers or safeties, they’re critically important to what you’re trying to do. And that was one thing we were able to do consistently over the years in New England.”

He’ll have time to build that, and the first-round pick of center Frank Ragnow shows a commitment to that inside-out philosophy. What Patricia inherited isn’t a great fit for what he wants to do. Defensive tackle A’Shawn Robinson hasn’t done much yet. Former first-round pick Sylvester Williams was signed and could start alongside Robinson, but he hasn’t done much either. Middle linebacker Jarrad Davis, a 2017 first-round pick, had his rookie struggles. However, he could blossom in Patricia’s defense. Things look OK at safety, where Glover Quin is pretty good and there are solid options to play alongside him.

The Lions’ priority in upcoming years will be to add at defensive tackle, but the middle of the defense isn’t close to being a strength yet.

It’s hard to concoct a scenario in which the Lions win the NFC North. The Minnesota Vikings and Green Bay Packers are loaded. The path to a division title probably includes Matthew Stafford having an MVP season, which I can’t rule out. If the running game finally produces something and Matt Patricia fixes the defense, the Lions will be a tough out. They haven’t been that bad recently, so a jump to 11 or 12 wins isn’t impossible. Still, it would be a tremendous upset if the Lions beat out both behemoths in the division.

The Lions seem to have one of the narrowest ranges of outcomes in the NFL. I don’t see them being that great, but I can’t see them being terrible either. This was a 9-7 team last year and all the stats say they should have been about 9-7. Outside of Matthew Stafford getting hurt or Matt Patricia pulling a “Josh McDaniels in Denver” debacle, it’s hard to see the Lions slipping too far under .500, even in a worst-case situation. They’re probably going to finish close to .500, give or take a game.

You have to think the Lions finishing in third place of the NFC North is one of the safer predictions there is. They’re not as good as the Packers and Vikings, and the Bears are probably a year away at least. The Lions are No. 16 on this list, right in the middle of the 32 teams, and that seems about right. They’re probably not good enough to make the playoffs in a loaded NFC and not bad enough to be picking high in the 2019 draft. Lions games are typically fun to watch so it’s not like they’re boring, they just seem predictable. We’ll see if Matt Patricia surprises us.

32. Cleveland Browns 31. Indianapolis Colts 30. New York Jets 29. Arizona Cardinals 28. Buffalo Bills 27. Cincinnati Bengals 26. Chicago Bears 25. New York Giants 24. Miami Dolphins 23. Washington Redskins 22. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 21. Houston Texans 20. Seattle Seahawks 19. Oakland Raiders 18. Denver Broncos 17. San Francisco 49ers

– – – – – – –

Frank Schwab is a writer for Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at shutdown.corner@yahoo.com or follow him on Twitter! Follow @YahooSchwab