|
Post by Sara on Nov 11, 2009 12:49:02 GMT -5
Actors playing those parts in Mad Men and Gilmore Girls respectively. Julia, played suspect brothers on Castle this week. Better still, the actor who played Mitchum Huntsberger also played the sheriff Mal returned the stolen medicine to in the Firefly ep "The Train Job." So it was a mini-Jossverse reunion to boot.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 11, 2009 12:50:27 GMT -5
Very pretty picture, Julia. Thank you. Julia, still all about this afternoon's weather
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 11, 2009 12:50:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 11, 2009 12:51:32 GMT -5
Actors playing those parts in Mad Men and Gilmore Girls respectively. Julia, played suspect brothers on Castle this week. Better still, the actor who played Mitchum Huntsberger also played the sheriff Mal returned the stolen medicine to in the Firefly ep "The Train Job." So it was a mini-Jossverse reunion to boot. I did not realize that. Joss's actorsare doing well for themselves these days.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 11, 2009 12:54:40 GMT -5
I'm not all that surprised: few .214 hitters end up carried around the field on their teammate's shoulders after the last game of a season that ended up 8 games over .500. Julia, he's sort of the Mariner's team blankie
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 11, 2009 12:56:24 GMT -5
Yes, I am eating lunch at my desk right now--however could you tell? Great Observatories Explore Galactic Center Credit: NASA, ESA, SSC, CXC, and STScI Explanation:[/b] Where can a telescope take you? Four hundred years ago, a telescope took Galileo to the Moon to discover craters, to Saturn to discover rings, to Jupiter to discover moons, to Venus to discover phases, and to the Sun to discover spots. Today, in celebration of Galileo's telescopic achievements and as part of the International Year of Astronomy, NASA has used its entire fleet of Great Observatories, and the Internet, to bring the center of our Galaxy to you. Pictured above, in greater detail and in more colors than ever seen before, are the combined images of the Hubble Space Telescope in optical light, the Spitzer Space Telescope in infrared light, and the Chandra X-ray Observatory in X-ray light. A menagerie of vast stars fields are visible, along with dense star clusters, long filaments of gas and dust, expanding supernova remnants, and the energetic surroundings of what likely is our Galaxy's central black hole. Many of these features are labeled on a complementary annotated image. Of course, a telescope's magnification and light gathering ability creates only an image of what a human could see if visiting these places. To actually go requires rockets.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 11, 2009 13:03:26 GMT -5
Another excellent article about spoilers: The Spoiler Problem.I still can't believe someone bitched that they were spoiled for the season finale of Mad Men when they clicked on an article titled " Mad Men Postmortem." I mean, really? 'Cause it seems like fairly basic logic to me--if you don't want to be spoiled for an episode, DON'T READ ARTICLES ABOUT IT THE NEXT DAY, especially when they tell you IN THE TITLE that the purpose of said article is to rehash said episode. Or am I completely missing something here?
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 11, 2009 13:03:47 GMT -5
And then the hackers and creators of evil malware will turn their attentions to you... Not that I'm cynical or anything, you understand. $147, cleaning, antibiotic in one gum pocket, three-month return appointment, general feeling of yuckiness and bad taste in my mouth. Not so much chalky, more nasty. It's true. With success comes more work. Bummer. That must be why there are so many underachievers in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 11, 2009 13:05:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 11, 2009 13:06:17 GMT -5
It's true. With success comes more work. Bummer. That must be why there are so many underachievers in the world. Yes. My reward for my paper getting accepted? Was getting to edit the proofs of said paper.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 11, 2009 13:06:41 GMT -5
Another excellent article about spoilers: The Spoiler Problem.I still can't believe someone bitched that they were spoiled for the season finale of Mad Men when they clicked on an article titled " Mad Men Postmortem." I mean, really? 'Cause it seems like fairly basic logic to me--if you don't want to be spoiled for an episode, DON'T READ ARTICLES ABOUT IT THE NEXT DAY, especially when they tell you IN THE TITLE that the purpose of said article is to rehash said episode. Or am I completely missing something here? No, you aren't missing anything...except maybe the fact that SOMEONE (not you) needs to go to an online dictionary source when they don't know the definition of a word like 'postmortem' or maybe they didn't understand that something titled 'postmortem' meant exactly that for the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 11, 2009 13:08:18 GMT -5
Bummer. That must be why there are so many underachievers in the world. Yes. My reward for my paper getting accepted? Was getting to edit the proofs of said paper. Yay for accepted paper! And it will be a labor of love to edit, right? Speaking of success leading to more work....how's the little one?
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Nov 11, 2009 13:10:30 GMT -5
Welcome to Part 1078 of the Soulful Spike Society Main Thread! No S'cubie left behind! Never surrender! Attica! Attica! You crack me up hardcore, Monnie!
|
|
|
Post by Squeemonster on Nov 11, 2009 13:13:16 GMT -5
Another excellent article about spoilers: The Spoiler Problem.I still can't believe someone bitched that they were spoiled for the season finale of Mad Men when they clicked on an article titled " Mad Men Postmortem." I mean, really? 'Cause it seems like fairly basic logic to me--if you don't want to be spoiled for an episode, DON'T READ ARTICLES ABOUT IT THE NEXT DAY, especially when they tell you IN THE TITLE that the purpose of said article is to rehash said episode. Or am I completely missing something here? Yep, I especially liked this part: But ultimately, the fact that you can choose to delay viewing of a show or a movie for months or years doesn't necessarily mean, in my view, that you have the right to demand that other people who have chosen to watch it will wall off the entirety of their discussions -- that they will build the bubble around themselves and maintain it and be sure to remain inside it so that you can go where you want and read what you want and know that you will not see anything you don't want to see.
If you need a perfect bubble -- not a rough filter where people will try to show you some consideration, but a seal between yourself and everything that's ever happened on any show or any movie you haven't seen -- then you're going to have to build that bubble yourself. Stay off Twitter until you get to see Glee if having someone nonspecifically rave about the rendition of "Afternoon Delight" is going to destroy the experience. And for heaven's sake, don't read a blog entry about Mad Men the morning after the finale that is clearly about the finale if you haven't seen the finale.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 11, 2009 13:26:46 GMT -5
Another excellent article about spoilers: The Spoiler Problem.I still can't believe someone bitched that they were spoiled for the season finale of Mad Men when they clicked on an article titled " Mad Men Postmortem." I mean, really? 'Cause it seems like fairly basic logic to me--if you don't want to be spoiled for an episode, DON'T READ ARTICLES ABOUT IT THE NEXT DAY, especially when they tell you IN THE TITLE that the purpose of said article is to rehash said episode. Or am I completely missing something here? There's a woman old enough to know better- ten years older than I am!- arguing in that column that it's wrong to mention the Angela Lansbury twist from The Manchurian Candidate and calling such "spoilers" "boasting that you've finished the book" or words to that effect. Julia, I don't get the spoiler averse but I'm pretty sure that's not only BS but also nuts
|
|