A wise sage by the name of Pitbull once said, “To understand the future, we have to go back in time.” That hardly has anything to do with the rest of this article, but
it’s the most profound quote I could find on short notice. What with animated adventure…
The good folks at Idea Channel look into the recent internet controversy over the trend of indie films being ‘green-lit’ through Kickstarter contributions.
There once was a Daniel Day-Lewis
Who used all his talent to woo us
He portrayed the Prez
With a head like a Pez
His commitment to the craft is the truest
Jennifer Lawrence is great
In a story about luck versus fate
I love her a lot.
She is funny and…
On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten-story building intending to commit suicide.
He left a note to the effect indicating this despondency.
As he fell past the ninth floor, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter, nor the deceased was aware that a safety net had been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some building workers, and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned.
“Ordinarily”, Dr. Mills continued, “a person who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide.” That Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands.
In the room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking Mr. Opus.
When one intends to kill subject “A” but kills subject “B” in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject “B.”
When confronted with the murder charge, both the old man and his wife were adamant that they thought the shotgun was unloaded. The old man said it was a long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, if the gun had been accidently loaded.
The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple’s son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son’s financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother.
Since the loader of the gun was aware of this, he was guilty of the murder even though he didn’t actually pull the trigger. This case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
Now comes the exquisite twist.
Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother’s murder. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son had actually murdered himself, so the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
(At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of this bizarre death).
As reported by Kurt Westervelt; Associated Press claims this to be a true story, however, sources prove otherwise. Whatever the case, this one’s movie-worthy!
Part of the conversation about the recent gang rape in India. The victim passed away today. (The paragraph hits home run - whenever I’m asked if I’d like to go back, this is what I think)
This is the most accurate of all lists I’ve come across so far!
A few months ago, a friend of mine (who works in IT) made a comment: if I was a professor, I’d sleep with all my female students. They’d come to me with their daddy issues, and I’d take advantage of them.
I was intrigued. Was it supposed to be funny? I faked a laugh.
A few days ago another friend told me how his recent date claimed that she didn’t have daddy issues, while her actions displayed otherwise.
Completely ignorant to this term I’d heard the 2nd time in my life, I had to ask him: What are daddy issues? He explained: when a female has a fucked up relationship with her father, or the absence of a father figure during her childhood, it tends to spill into any adult relationship they embark upon.*
That doesn’t make sense, I exclaimed! That’d make a LOT of men and women have issues. He explained: men have mommy issues too. I got the gist, but still couldn’t understand all the fuss over the term. You see, in India, most kids grow up having many issues – with parents, relatives, siblings, friends, teachers, neighbours, strangers. I’m not talking about bullying, stealing, scolding, but the more traumatic ones. A number of children are abused – physically, mentally, sexually. There is absolutely no way an Indian kid would have an “issue-less” childhood (unless he/she is brought up in a first world country). And here was my friend, justifying his failed relationship with a tag on her. Fair, is it? Maybe. Who am I to judge?
My debate was: every person has issues. That’s what makes them unique. You just find the one most tolerable for you. And vice versa.
Of course, before I could show him all his problems, I had to find a fancy one for myself ;)
In Italian accents - including all hand gestures.
He said: This Nov 19 is our anniversary. Next month.
She said: We, 46 yrs, together.
With a shocked expression, he said: 46 yrs?
She turned. Gave the most annoying stare, and said nothing.
— One of the best conversations I’ve heard!
Just what I need to hear!