Y2HH

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 09:24 PM) Having to piece together out of story quotes over the years to come to a conclusion on a story is 1) bad storytelling and 2) weak as hell. He also says I'm not saying anything. Because that makes it perfectly clear. Dumb. He wanted to make a movie to pocket more cash someday. I wouldn't be surprised if he's suddenly very open about a definitive ending now that he died. Now it won't be I'm not saying anything, but this is exactly what I'm saying. Give it time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 09:20 PM) there's multiple quotes like that from Chase over the years. the bell on the door rings, and the camera cuts to a first-person POV from Tony. The last cut, we hear the bell ring and then it goes black. Tony's been shot, you're looking from his POV. It happens so fast you don't even realize it. edit: I first watched the series after it had already aired in entirety and knew about the cut-to-black ending. The first time I watched it, I didn't have an opinion one way or the other. It was after re-watching the series this winter and reading through that site that I became convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that Tony was shot. Having to piece together out of story quotes over the years to come to a conclusion on a story is 1) bad storytelling and 2) weak as hell.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 09:17 PM) you could bother to read the link I posted where he pulls out many quotes from Chase over the years. And none are definitive. You should buy the jump to conclusions mat he's probably selling while you're at it. I know you want to believe all this crap, but any tv show or movie that requires outside comments from the makers to come to "possible" conclusions, well, sucks. Because it wasn't part of the story. Therefore it wasn't "clear", or outside comments "over the years" from the makers wouldn't be necessary to piece together a conclusions f***ing rediculous.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 09:02 PM) David Chase didn't say there was no possible ending. As that website documents, he's said many times that the ending is perfectly clear and is there for anyone who wants to see it. Tony gets shot. In interviews over the years, Chase has expressed disgust at the fans who called for a gory ending for Tony, to show his brains on the table. He's dead, and the direction, context and statements by Chase make it unambiguous. Chase has never said he gets shot. Ever. As stated, you and the rest of the fans that say so are simply reaching for what isn't there. Chase left it ambiguous, and any comment he makes in "seeing it" or that "it's perfectly clear" are just as ambiguous. If it was perfectly clear, and it wasn't, this conversation isn't taking place then or now. Show me where he's outright said this and I'll believe it, until then, keep on reaching. The only thing clear in that ending is 50/50 see him live or die. Yea, that's perfectly clear. The perfectly clear ending you missed is what I said. Tony gets to worry about it for the rest of his life. It was so clear you saw him get shot when it never happened.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 08:02 PM) IIRC it was only supposed to be 1-2 seasons originally. I'm not vouching for the entire series being five-star, but the ending was good. This website breaks the whole thing down in a ton of detail and leaves only one possible conclusion. http://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-...ion-of-the-end/ That's not an official breakdown, just some guys opinion I disagree with. Terrible ending. No, worse than that. Terrible non ending. I have no idea how you or anyone liked it. It sucked then and it sucks now. Worst ending in history. . And there was no possible conclusion according to the creator, that was the entire point. A point I hated but a point nonetheless. It wasn't definitive, however, and after six seasons, forgive me, but I feel I deserve definitive. Edit: The entire point was that Tonys lifestyle resulted in him having to look over his shoulder for an unknown assailant for the rest of his life. And that's that. Anyone stretching for more is doing just that.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 05:17 PM) Season 5 of Sopranos was great. That's the season with Buscemi, right? I thought Buscemi was a bright spot in an otherwise stupid season yet again. The scenes he was in were usually awesome...the scenes without him came across as "filler" story. I also didn't like how they castrated Furio, and I don't remember which season it was in. Dude entered the show a house of fire, busting faces, knees, etc., at the drop of a hat. That dude was a bad ass motherf***er. Then he loved Tony's wife, then he could have killed Tony, blah. Ruined an awesome character IMO. Then we got to concentrate on a closet gay mobster, instead. Which was aces. Only it wasn't.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 05:09 PM) Go back and rewatch the Sopranos, I am on season 2 now and I forgot how outstanding it is. That's because you're on season 2. I can rewatch season 1 and 2 (and do), and still love it...because how of phenomenal they were. The rest of the show got progressively worse IMO. So I stop after Season 2 most of the time...sometimes I'll watch 3, but then I stop for sure.

That was a total crap non-ending of epic proportions, how anyone liked it is beyond me. I've simply attributed it to peoples undying love for the show, they forced themselves to love that s*** plate they were fed at the end. Comparing how great seasons 1 and 2 were to the rest of that show is like comparing Goodfellas to Mickey Blue Eyes. Seasons 1 and 2 were 4 star quality, probably the best television I've ever seen (until Breaking Bad). Season 3 was a 3 star, still great stuff. Seasons 4-6 were 1 to 1.5 stars, with a few (very few) 3-4 star episodes mixed in, with a 0 star rush job ending episode.

I loved the first 3 seasons of Sopranos, but after that the story was clearly being stretched out just to keep it going due to how much money it was making/ratings. I think it went too long and had the worst cop out ending ever.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 04:35 PM) Moved over one of our lines (my wife's) to Verizon. Will move mine in September when my contract with Sprint is up. What are the chances they get the Sony Honami/i1? .0001% or less? I moved to Verizon last year and though it's expensive I don't regret it at all. Verizon usually gets most phone models so long as they're brought to the US.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:52 AM) It's just looking at ethnicity. I don't know what sort of bias or motivation you're assigning the research here where they'd be skewing the data, intentionally or subconsciously, to get some desired result. If (some) whites are ethnically non-diverse because they've developed their own white American culture over several generations, why shouldn't that be reflected? Again, this wasn't looking at race but ethnicity. from the article: You can't judge ethnicity based on physical appearance. here's a key point from the study: Ethnicity, like race, is a social construct. How you self-identify and how you perceive others is a key component of it. If you view your Polish neighbors as different from you ethnically and you were part of this study, the results would reflect that. I don't view my wife's Italian family and my Irish-German family as ethnically different because they're all 3rd+ generation immigrants and we all grew up within probably 50 miles of each other near Chicago. wikipedia tabulates the research here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...al.27s_analysis America remains a fairly ethnically diverse country, but we're a country of assimilation for the most part. And you're dead-on about Sweden being damn near perfectly homogeneous. I see what you're saying. I just think that such a chart doesn't adequately reflect a key point you made in that the US is a country of assimilation (for the most part), where others are not, and go out of their way to avoid such assimilation. So of course, such a reflection of Mexico would make it appear to be more diverse, but I don't think it truly is. It's only more diverse because we've assimilated to the American way, where those living there refuse to do so, regardless of how long they've lived there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:45 AM) So you've read the referenced study then to conclude this or? If they weren't doing this, this chart wouldn't show this. I can tell you right now, I have like 50 different cultures of "white" living on my block alone. From Polish, to Swedish, Italian, etc...with quite diverse backgrounds/cultures and food, etc... You don't have to be a genius or to study up on that chart to see they're lumping all American whites as exactly the same. You even admitted it yourself.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:44 AM) They're looking at ethnicity here, which would relate back to culture more closely than back to race, though race and culture are strongly correlated geographically. So, ethnically, Chileans and Northern Mexicans and indigenous Mexicans and Guatemalans are probably pretty diverse even if they "look" similar. Whereas a white American of German descent and a white American of Irish descent (both five generations back) are probably indistinguishable culturally, just as a black American of Nigerian descent and a black American of Ivory Coast descent (both five generations back) are probably indistinguishable culturally. Since we frequently lump the huge ethnic and racial diversity of an entire continent into "African," that sometimes gets missed. But that's comparing Apples to Oranges. Because the US has multiple generations of whites living there, they're being conveniently classified as the same, but when regarding other countries, they're not. Seems like cherry picking data to make a point.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:40 AM) Me neither. It all goes to their definition of 'diverse'. So is every white American, no matter if they have Irish or Italian or Swedish heritage, classified the same... where as in Mexico someone with heritage from different countries located in South America is considered different? The link probably explains somewhere their formulation as to defining people as different or diverse. That's exactly my thought. Because there is simply no way this is true. They're only getting these results by lumping all whites as exactly the same...which is f***ing ridiculous.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:34 AM) Mexico is more ethnically diverse than the US. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldv...erse-countries/ But within the US, many communities remain deeply segregated. White flight from cities in the mid-20th century created many almost-all-white suburbs and left many almost-all-minority urban neighborhoods. Chicago is the most segregated city in the country, which is why your earlier Englewood example could work: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-12...y-neighborhoods I don't buy it. Been to Mexico, out of the resorts, and...nope. I think the way they're doing this is by segregating everyone but whites. Example, a white German American is the same as a white Irish American, even though they're really not...at least, they weren't at first. But a Chilean isn't the same as a Mexican, isn't the same as a Venezuelan, even if they're all living in Mexico, despite looking very similar. I've been to quite a few places in Mexico, and to call them diverse is a stretch of epic proportions. And though I've never been there, to say the interior of Africa is ethnically diverse...having a very hard time with this one. Again, I think they're lumping all white races into one in the US, but they're not doing this with other colors of skin.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) Yep. Happily. And I would hope all of my neighbors would be equally racist towards anyone that fits the description of teenagers committing crime in my neighborhood that they don't know. I think his point is that this is much harder to justify when the description fits quite a few of the teenagers living in your area, which is the case here. And I'm inclined to agree in this case.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:29 AM) And this is exactly what Zimmerman did and what jenks said he'd "happily be racist" about. Assuming that simply because he's an unknown black male, he's probably a criminal. He wasn't lurking in alleys, he wasn't walking up to doors and trying the locks, he was walking home talking on the phone to his friend and eating some candy. Even in the best-case scenario, simply because he's black, someone calls the police and he gets stopped and questioned. This is exactly the sort of systemic racism that jenks would deny even exists, yet here he is in this thread saying he'd happily perpetuate it. This is actually what bothers me about the whole Zimmerman/Martin case, the fact that Martin was on the phone. I mean, how many criminals looking to commit a crime are walking around talking on the phone? I mean, not that I have much experience, but if I was going to try do to something criminal, I wouldn't be looking to make extra noise by gabbing away on the phone while doing it. This small but specific point bothers me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:26 AM) Tangential but again highlights exactly the sort of problems that segregation, whether de facto or de jure, creates. Well, this would happen everywhere, but in most places, the odds of such a "meeting" happening are quite low in comparison to the US. Take Sweden for example, odds of such an occurrence are low since almost everyone is white and blonde. Or Mexico, where most everyone outside of a resort towns is...well...Mexican. But here in the US, these situations are WAY more common than in most areas. It's a problem, but it's a problem we have to deal with FAR more than the rest of the world. And the sheer numbers are going to equate to more of such occurrences.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:23 AM) Let me clarify here, because I think there's some miscommunication: There's no context that justifies assuming any unknown black male walking down the sidewalk is probably a criminal solely because they're an unknown black male. Agreed then. I agree that THIS would be racism/prejudice speaking.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:21 AM) There's no context that justifies assuming any unknown black male walking down the sidewalk is probably a criminal because they're an unknown black male. Period. At least outside of Jim Crow and Black Codes. Again, yes, there is. If there is an outstanding neighborhood notice that a random black male has been spotted in an all white area, and you just happened to see a random black male moments after hearing such news, I think you might be justified in jumping to such a conclusion, even if it ends up being wrong, merely because of how coincidental the news is and how out of the ordinary the person is. That said, I don't think you should rush the person and shoot them because of such a circumstance...but I think you'd be justified to be suspicious in light of said circumstance. And again, this does NOT apply to Zimmerman/Martin, being that Martin wouldn't be out of the ordinary for the area.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:20 AM) He was eating skittles and drinking iced tea. He was walking home from the store. Because he happened to be black while doing so, someone else assumed that he was probably a criminal and called the police. That same person decided to get out of his car with a gun and follow him. He ended up dead because of this. And yet you're "happily a racist" in this scenario. To be fair, I'm not sure he meant in this specific scenario, but scenarios like it with proper context. I'm not sure the context fits in THIS specific case, however, because as you've said, this was a pretty mixed race community...so seeing someone of a different race in the area isn't much justification of suspicion. Where we disconnect is when you say there is NEVER such justification. And I disagree with that, wholeheartedly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:16 AM) I'd argue that yeah, it would be a poor assumption. Somebody who had abducted a child would not likely be strolling down the street with that child. You're inserting context that doesn't exist in the real-life case. Martin wasn't loitering around in an alley, he was walking down the main sidewalk. He wasn't doing anything suspicious. My statement was that here's no context that justifies assuming any unknown black male walking down the sidewalk is probably a criminal because they're an unknown black male. Martin was judged to be a likely criminal because he was a young black male, not because of any behavioral context. There's no context where assuming that a young black male strolling down the sidewalk in the evening is probably a criminal because there's been some break-ins in the past few months isn't racist. I'm not really 'trying' to sound like I'm not racist. I'm pointing out that anyone who justifies and agrees with Zimmerman's assumption that this unknown young black male walking down the sidewalk is probably a criminal is engaged in racially motivated bigotry, or, more bluntly, racism. It doesn't take effort to not be racist here. I'm not applying what I said to what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. I'm merely saying that such context CAN exist, whereas you said it could NEVER exist, under ANY circumstance. And I disagree.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:07 AM) Good argument for abolishing all white segregationist gated communities that view any black people as suspicious and likely criminals. While Zimmerman is a mixed race, I think calling this guy white is a stretch of immense proportions. He doesn't look white. At all. So that segregationist gated community must also be ok with Hispanics.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:00 AM) There's no context that justifies assuming any unknown black male walking down the sidewalk is probably a criminal because they're an unknown black male. This couldn't be more wrong. There is plenty of context to justify this. To name a few really REALLY simple ones: 1) An amber alert is issued in your area, a child is missing, last seen being taken by a random black male walking down the sidewalk. You see a random black male walking down the sidewalk with a kid. Is it the person you're looking for? Maybe not. But would it be unjustified to think so? Nope. 2) You've been experiencing break-ins in your neighborhood the last few weeks and the police post a notice that there are two Mexican males breaking into homes in your area. You see two random Mexican males roaming around the alley shortly after. Are you justified to think it's them? Yes. You are. There are PLENTY of cases where such context matters, and to say otherwise is truly grasping at straws. You're trying so hard to sound like you're not a racist, I'm becoming inclined to think you are. You shouldn't have to be trying this hard. I mean, for f***s sake, there is no context? LOL worthy.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I see *ANYONE* I don't recognize roaming around where I live, I'm suspicious of them. But when I see someone that's COMPLETELY out of the ordinary for the area, if being extra suspicious makes me a racist, then fine, I'm a racist. I think this is a weak argument, however, and has nothing to do with racism so much as it has to do with observation. I'd feel the same as people observing me if I was roaming around Englewood for some reason. Would they be racists for saying, "WTF is there a crazy ass white guy walking around here for?!" IMO, no. They'd simply be observing a crazy ass white guy was roaming in a place totally out of the ordinary for him.