Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags '1979'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Todos son Bienvenidos Aquí.
    • Todos son Bienvenidos Aquí.
  • Restaurants, Tourism, and Hotels - USA
    • New York City Restaurants and Dining
    • Los Angeles Restaurants and Dining
    • San Francisco Restaurants and Dining
    • Houston Restaurants and Dining
    • Philadelphia Restaurants and Dining
    • Washington DC Restaurants and Dining
    • Baltimore and Annapolis Restaurants and Dining
  • Restaurants, Tourism, and Hotels - International
    • London Restaurants and Dining
    • Paris Restaurants and Dining
  • Shopping and News, Cooking and Booze, Parties and Fun, Travel and Sun
    • Shopping and Cooking
    • News and Media
    • Events and Gatherings
    • Beer, Wine, and Cocktails
    • The Intrepid Traveler
    • Fine Arts And Their Variants
  • Marketplace
  • The Portal

Calendars

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Interests


Location

Found 12 results

  1. The Iranian flag: The national emblem, "Allah," is written in the center, and the "takbir" is written 11 times both at the bottom of the green stripe, and at the top of the red stripe.
  2. It's funny how one thing leads to another. Because of Jim's post, I'm watching "Rain Man" for the second time in my life. (By the way, this film is a whole lot deeper than I thought it was.) All because I was thinking about Daniel Tammet, and there's one thing I don't understand: In his Wikipedia entry, it says that Tammet: --- In his mind, Tammet says, each positive integer up to 10,000 has its own unique shape, colour, texture and feel. He has described his visual image of 289 as particularly ugly, 333 as particularly attractive, and pi, though not an integer, as beautiful. The number 6 apparently has no distinct image yet what he describes as an almost small nothingness, opposite to the number 9 which he calls large, towering, and quite intimidating. He also describes the number 117 as "a handsome number. It's tall, it's a lanky number, a little bit wobbly".[9][32] In his memoir, he describes experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for numbers and words.[9] --- What I don't understand ... is it the actual, mathematical quantity that Tagget finds ugly/beautiful, or is it the look of the Arabic Numerals that he finds visually repulsive/attracitve? My guess is that it's the Arabic Numeral representations - I can see the numbers "117" and "333" as being "beautiful," and the number "289" as being "ugly," but only in their Arabic notation; not as a string of bits. I distinctly remember Tagget telling David Letterman that he looked like a "117" - Letterman is tall and lean, and this would be intuitive. I'm pretty sure 117 is a prime number, and mathematically speaking, I can't imagine what's so beautiful about that as opposed to, say, 113 (which I'm guessing is also prime) - it must be the Arabic representations, right? Does what I'm saying make sense? More than anything else, Tammet comes across to me as a genuinely nice person - I've seen him on numerous occasions, and have paid close attention to what he does, says, and how he acts - he is just an all-around good human being, and that's what impresses me about him the most.
  3. Jayson Werth, organic farmer (article from The Washington Post sports bog) Don, you might want to move this somewhere else, but it's a fascinating article.
  4. Actually, Grevey's in Merrifield does a passable job with their Beef-on-Weck (from what I remember; been awhile since I've had it). Apparently, the salted Kummelweck roll is what differentiates it from the standard roast beef sandwich.
  5. A couple of things I've watched in the past two years I didn't realize Ted Cassidy was in: Star Trek Season 1, Episode 7: "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" - Star Trek Season 1, Episode 18: "Arena" - Voice of the Gorn Captain (Uncredited) - "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" And damned if he wasn't Lurch in "The Addams Family!" Many people (myself included) conflate Ted Cassidy with Richard Kiel. I'll add some things about this talented character actor (I only use the term "character actor" because at 6'9" (Kiel was 7'2"), Cassidy was able to get roles that few other people could. * His Star Trek character in the episode "What are Little Girls Made of?" was an ancient android named Ruk. * The picture from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" shows Butch Cassidy (played by Paul Newman) taking Harvey Logan (played by Cassidy) off-guard, kicking him in the testicles, to quell a resurrection to take over the "Hole in the Wall Gang." * The Lurch photo is, well, Lurch - but Cassidy was also the hand for "Thing." His "You Rang?" trademark was ad-libbed the first time, but made everyone laugh, and was such a hit that it became a fixture in the show. * Though he often played the harpsichord in The Addams Family, he was a competent organist in real life. * He played subsequent roles of "Bigfoot" on "The Six Million Dollar Man" (André The Giant played the creature in the original episode). * After transferring from West Virginia Wesleyan University, Cassidy played basketball for Stetson, and averaged 17 points and 10 rebounds a game over three seasons.
  6. My high school was McCaskey High School in Lancaster, PA, where an upperclassman took me under his wing when I showed up for football practice in the early '70s as a rough sophomore ... and he showed me how to lift weights properly so I didn't hurt myself ... Doug went on to play for the Cowboys. This was also a time of racial tensions in America, and when our school was experiencing some race riots, "Dougie" made sure I was protected. As the African Americans were barreling out of their assembly area and heading for the school hallways to raise hell, he spotted me walking by, pointed to a side door, and said told me to get out of there before the chaos erupted.
  7. I've always been curious about "The Dinner Party," but have never spoken with anyone who has actually seen it in person. Just how accessible is it (each side of the triangle is 16 yards long), and and how much time would you say needs to be spent there to get a good feel for it? Is the setup conducive to spending, say, an hour? Is there any reading material handy, or do you have to buy it at the gift shop first? It looks like it's fenced in, and unless you can get close enough to hover a little bit, I doubt it could be fully appreciated (each plate, for example, is hand-painted). The shape of it is something I've always found amusing (I take my inspiration from very disparate places).
  8. I watched "Hardcore" again for the first time since I was a freshman in college! I remember liking it a lot then, and I liked it a lot now - it's a very good, unheralded film that is - I *think* - the first major motion picture to tackle the hardcore pornography industry. This goes straight at the grimy underbelly of the 1970s California pornography underworld, and leaves you feeling like you desperately need a shower. While falling short of "outstanding" (the ending is just too much, in too short of a time, to really wrap things up in a thoughtful way), it is nevertheless worth watching and - without looking - I would be surprised if Scott wasn't nominated for a Best Actor Academy Award (then again, he's the only person ever to refuse his award (for "Patton"), so I doubt he endeared himself to the Academy. The real beauty of this film lies in the trust between Scott (a stern, Calvinist) and Hubley (a wayward prostitute) - their lives intertwine, and something of a meaningful relationship develops; the real tragedy in this film lies in what "must" happen to Hubley in the end. (No, I did not just give anything away.) If you've never heard of this film, and are wondering what to watch one night, it's worth a rental. Roger Ebert's review (which does contain spoilers).
  9. When this movie was released in 1979, I saw it in the theater. As of right now, the only two things I remember about it are: 1) I was excited and happy that this childhood favorite was made into a film 2) I enjoyed it, although I don't remember why, or even know what it's about But now, in 2014, I'm about 35 minutes into this 2+ hour film (which I will finish in the next couple of days), and so far? It is ... just ... awful. I'm purposely not looking at any reviews, but my initial impression is that this is going to be painful to get through. The modern-day, parody of William Shatner - replete with bad makeup - is already shining brightly in 1979 (*), and the rest of the cast looks like they had a pretty rough ten years. Please get better, movie. Please? (*) The shot where Captain Kirk extends his hand to Dr. McKoy to try and welcome him back onto the ship is *terrible*.
×
×
  • Create New...