Carborendum

Trump aside, my point was about the psychological effects of the Blitzkrieg. As things change over the next three-to-four years (and they will do so dramatically and quickly) it will be very easy to lose hope because the very notion of "how can we compete with such overwhelming odds?" will be ubiquitous. The tools of the adversary will be all around us. It will seem hopeless. Lawsuit-after-lawsuit will be brought to courts. And the great majority will be won by the side of the Beast. It will seem like there's nothing we can do. And truly, a lot of people will try and they will be killed, maimed, or incarcerated (or some combo of these). Many people will fall on their swords. But we need to remember the message of Ammonihah, and the lesson of Elisha. I know people will keep talking about drugs and Trump and whatever. But I hope I am able to get a message of hope out there.

What exactly is your definition of woke? The standard dictionary definition of woke is not something that anyone on this board has a problem with (I don't think). I don't see anything new in his words. I don't see anything DTC said that anyone here would find outside of their own moral ideals. But regardless of the definition we find in the dictionary, that isn't how people "apply" wokeness in discourse. The objectional part of "wokeness" is when people take it to the level that intersectionalism should be the most important basis for making the most important decisions in our lives, our businesses, our politics, and our culture. It is further objectionable when the same people call anyone who disagrees with them "a Nazi" (or similar/related epithet). I don't see where DTC mentions that we give up any of our values or to give up our Constitutional rights or to change our definitions of words to accommodate anyone. I don't see where he called for excommunication or for being fired from their job because they disagree politically with someone else.

She's fine.

This is not exactly what the OP was getting at. But it is still about the topic of Free Will. So, I thought I'd share it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXCWpIgWpMk INTRODUCTION: This author introduces himself and his books. I've seen a lot of his videos. I've become fascinated by his insights. He indicates that: There is a 0.35 sec delay between an impulse to do something shows up in the brain to the point where the body begins to execute that impulse. People use this as proof that we have no free will. But research shows that the 0.35 sec is actually a critical element that indicates that free will is even possible. He goes on to describe the process as "Free won't", not "Free will". See video to understand why. The summary: We are not really responsible for the random thoughts and impulses that show up in our minds. If we're not watching ourselves and our impulses, the impulse will automatically become action. We are not exercising free will. If, instead, we use that 0.35 sec to stop the impulse, we are exercising free will. Hence "Free won't." That is really the limit of our free will. We choose to stop the impulses from maturing into action. Conversely, we choose to allow those impulses to mature into action. It seems that no other animal on earth has this type of activity in the brain. In other life-forms, that 0.35 sec is either severely shortened, or it simply doesn't exist. Hence, they don't really make "decisions" like humans do... or at least "can do". That's the big question. Even though humans have this power, how many of us actually exercise it on a regular basis? I believe that is why we're asked so often to "ponder" the scriptures, and to "meditate" upon them. It is during the peaceful times that we have the power to re-wire our brains to put the brakes on certain impulses.

I've had some bad experience with canned meats that weren't heated up. It may just be me and my body. But, if we don't have electricity, there should be a source of heat to get it warmed up. That's a good idea. I like that too.

The only time onsite solar or wind is a good option for a single family residence is if you KNOW you're going to be there for around 15 to 20 years. Otherwise, it is wasted money. If you're just looking for energy security, get a diesel generator. Get several 5-gal jugs of diesel, some sta-bil (for diesel), and store it.

Here's another example. See the last phrase from the 3 Ne quote above: Hebrew example: In English, the "again" would be placed at the end, as is found in the KJV. But in 3 Ne? No. The word "again" is an adverb. As such, it needs to be placed next to the verb in Hebrew. It is very awkward in English. But in Hebrew, it makes perfect sense. The "thither" is placed last in Hebrew. But it is awkward in English. So, we place it closer to the verb, but after the object. I'm beginning to think this is a testimony to the validity of the BoM. The objection I have is: Why there are so many passages that actually seem to follow more traditional English when it seems to violate Hebrew word order? I came upon an answer: After the loss of the 116 pages, Joseph was told to start translating from Mosiah onward. Then after Moroni was translated, he was informed about the small plates, and was instructed to go back to work on the small plates (1 Ne to WoM). When they were doing their editorial review for the printer's manuscript, they edited a lot to make it more readable in English. But as they were getting near the end, the printer was catching up to them and they couldn't edit as much in the last sections of the translation. It is possible that 3 Ne 21 was about the point where the printer caught up, and they couldn't do as much editing. Consider how much of the BoM is between Mosiah and 3 Ne 21. We also find that there are a lot more cultural markers in 1&2 Ne as well. Again, a Hebrew linguistic quirk. Why did he separate out "wood" from a "straight stick"? Bows are usually not made of a single piece of wood. They are usually glued/laminated strips of wood. So, they'd be multiple pieces of wood, vs a single stick that merely needed to be carved. In English, when we "make something out of wood" we tend to think of wood as a "mass". But in Hebrew, it is spoken of as a plural (i.e. many "pieces of" wood). They don't say "pieces of" they simply make "wood" plural instead of singular. But the single stick used for the arrow? That was the singular. Compare to Exodous 37:1 and Ezekiel 37:16. They both use the same word for "wood" or "stick" (ates). But the former is plural; the latter, singular. Amazing.

All fair points. But it seems that these explanations aren't enough. It seems like they are no longer trying. The "overwhelm" per @Backroads is probably a fair comment on that. But they could still try a bit harder. Or at least they could just call it a day and preserve the fond memories of a really good series of movies. As it is they're destroying the legacy.

I just found something really amazing for me. I think it would fit perfectly with this thread. My missionary son (the one who got his Urkaine mission cancelled and is now in Layton, UT) found an old copy of the BoM in his apartment. It had some weird markups of various types. He said it was apparently a library copy, so it was probably marked up by someone who picked it up from a library. One thing he conveyed to me was that 3 Ne 21:1-7 had a marking stating: "Poor English, but perfect Arabic." He didn't know what that meant. But he knew that I'd been studying Hebrew lately (and he knew that Hebrew and Arabic were from the same language family) and wondered if I had any idea. I looked at Ch 21. Immediately I realized what he was talking about. I had never really thought much about the word order in the Book of Mormon. I was raised with it. I was used to it. And I have studied various languages enough to be able to decipher weird word order. But when the topic was on my mind, I realized those verses are absolutely terrible. Technically, it is grammatically acceptable. But stylistically, it's an aesthetic nightmare. So, I began understanding what @Jamie123 was talking about. He was right. There are some phrases that are terrible. So, taking a cue from my son, I looked up similar phrases in the Bible to compare with the Hebrew. I was AMAZED at the results. Virtually everything that seems weird (regarding word order) can be attributed to it being a translated work. Biblical Example: I think the translators of the KJV really tried to keep the word order from the Hebrew as much as practical. But there were some word orders that were so inscrutable that it simply wouldn't be decipherable in English. So, they changed what they felt they had to in order to convey the message. Not only that, but some verb conjugations had to be altered. Example: We use "will" to denote future tense. And we also use it to denote a commitment to do something. But both inflections (in parenthesis above) are actually present imperfect in Hebrew. I don't believe we have a present imperfect tense in English. The closest comparison would be the present progressive. And we seem to use that ad nauseum for everything. Hebrew has no progressive state, so it isn't quite the same as the meaning in Hebrew. I believe the translators did a good job. The context and voice of the English seems to indicate that the future tense is meant to hint at a present imperfect meaning. Now let's see what we read in 3 Ne 21. Notice that order of the direct object and indirect object placement. In English, we tend to want to drop a preposition where we can. So, instead of "I want to give a sign to you", we use "I want to give you a sign." Both are correct English. But stylistically, one is more preferable and more common. The verb "gather in" is worthy of note. When we have a split verb like this, we tend to put an object phrase between the two words. But in Hebrew, the word (asap) can be translated as either "gather" or "gather in". Regardless of the translation in English, the verb is complete as one word. So, the Hebrew word would have been translated as "gather in". Then the verb would have been followed by the object. And that is exactly how it reads in the BoM text. Also notice the use of the word "shall" instead of "will". I had always wondered about that. Why were both used throughout the Bible? In today's English, they both indicate a future tense. But it appears that (based on context) the "will" was used to indicate this "present imperfect" tense, while "shall" was used to indicate a future tense (in scriptures). That really gives some insight into the meanings of some passages of scripture. I haven't looked at the D&C, to see if it uses the same convention. It was fascinating to discover that this uneducated farm boy would have provided the word order that clearly indicate that it was a translated work from a language that was significantly similar to Hebrew.

I just noticed this short from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/efYeNDB7Mdk It shows clips comparing the new vs old Avengers of the MCU (duh). Clearly, the old is far superior to the new. It really isn't just the wokeness. The characters, the choreography, the cinematography, music, direction, set design, sound effects, music, and even the acting is just sub-standard. It isn't even men vs women. The ScarJo Black Widow vs her counterpart in the BW movie clearly shows that the old stuff was better. It is one thing to inject wokeness into the storyline. But to think that if it is woke, you can just make a bad product and still get away with it just isn't respecting your audience. There is a reason we watch superhero movies. It is escapism. It is hope. It is fantasy. But they give us a sub-standard product and we just don't feel like we've escaped from anything. We're just being asked to sit through a 90 min jr high school lesson on being woke.

I was asking about the difference between Ukraine vs Syria and Chechnya. It worked in Syria & Chechnya. It did not work in Ukraine. I've considered that maybe it wasn't "just Zelenskyy". But it was the will to resist. That was really all that was required. The other nations just "gave in". Ukraine did not. And that was all it took.

There have been too many instances that I've read recently to ignore the prevalence of this tactic on various levels and in various venues. ORIGINALLY: The Blitzkrieg was used by Germany as a method of overwhelming the enemy so quickly that they didn't have time to react. FALLOUT: But the secondary effect was more psychological warfare than a combat strategy/tactic. Showing overwhelming force tends to demoralize the enemy into thinking that there is no way for them to win, so they should just give up. It is a very similar psychological effect of terrorism. This has been used throughout the Cold War era and beyond. Russia's plan was to use this overwhelming force to put fear into the Ukrainian people, so they would just give up immediately. This is why they didn't have food supplies. They didn't have spare parts for tanks. They didn't even have enough fuel to sustain their vehicles beyond a few days. They honestly thought it was going to be over that quickly. It worked in Syria & Chechnya. Why not Ukraine? He seemed to forget that it didn't work so well in Afghanistan under Gorbachev. So, what was the difference? As far as I can tell, in Ukraine, it was Zelenskyy. Judging by the schedule and the presence of the fog of war, when Russia announced that Zelenskyy had fled the country, it wasn't just misinformation. Putin actually expected him to flee. That was the plan. With no leadership, the war would be over. But what he never expected was... Just imagine what that did for troop morale! Not only were they fighting for their homes. But they knew their President was in the trenches with them. This was not some political war that was motivated by the Ukrainian elites' financial goals. It was an unprovoked invasion against their homes and their families. Meanwhile, Russian men are fleeing the country to avoid the draft declaring "I'm not going to fight for someone else's political ambitions". Traffic jams. Flights are completely booked. Trains, boats, everything is full on the way out of the country. And many people at the borders of the other countries completely understand that they are very real refugees. (ASIDE:There is an interesting comparison between the Ukrainian military and the Russian military that has given a clear advantage to the Ukrainian troops. Yes, they still needed our ammunition and all our cool toys. But the morale and adaptability of the Ukrainian military has allowed them to get very creative and very good with those toys.) In a similar vein, all the SWATing that has been done lately (by both activists and by government agencies) are simply using this as a terror tactic to subdue the victims into submission. It's the political version of the same tactic. You know why Trump actually seems to appeal to so many conservatives? He's absolutely repulsive by most conservative values. Why on earth would we want to rally around this guy? It's because he refuses to give up. That's why this raid on his home. If they can get Trump to try to cut a deal to have them back off, they've shown that "god can bleed" (No, I'm not saying he's a god. I should think it was quite obvious. But I know someone is going to take it the wrong way. It's a figure of speech, duh). I, myself am hoping that he chooses NOT to run for re-election. I think he'd be bad for the country. On the balance, he'd be better than Biden. But he'd only be a lesser evil. But I know I am hoping in vain because part of his allure for so many is that he will not back down from "The Beast". That's what the people want. If he backs down, then who on earth will be able to withstand the machine? That is what TPTB want to happen. They want that psychology to work into all that would resist the new world order. They want us demoralized so we will not want to fight back. Who can resist the US military? Why try? You'll never win. Well, we left Afghanistan. And we left behind billions of dollars worth of military equipment for use by the Taliban. We ran like a dog with its tail between its legs. Whatever we may see in the next three to four years will bring tears to nearly all. But we need to maintain hope that we are in the Lord's hands, not the Beast's.

.

Ann Heche (a while ago, I don't know why she didn't show up on other lists I looked up). Mike Hagerty (a lesser known star, but a recognizable face in many shows). Roger Mosley (T.C. from Magnum P.I.) Henry Silva (famous for playing "the heavy") The Queen (of course) LQ Jones (a lot of westerns) Larry Stork (F-Troop) Kenneth Tsang (Hong Kong actor) Liz Sheridan (Jerry's mom on Seinfeld) Mitchell Ryan (Character actor)

.