|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 10:19:04 GMT -5
My greatest obstacle to obtaining a job: the references. My work history is very spotty, and in more than a few cases, I parted on sour terms. I gave three contacts to the temp agency person who phoned me just now, but I'm crossing my fingers to see that it'll work out. If she calls me this evening, I'll be invited for an introduction tomorrow. If she calls me tomorrow morning, I'll be out of the running. :/ I will be rooting for ya!
|
|
|
Post by Mormel on Mar 2, 2016 11:23:00 GMT -5
Thank you guys!
As it's drawing close to 6, I don't think I'll get the phone call. So I'll just switch to plan B. Dang shame too, had been anticipating the opportunity to maybe start working there for the past 3 months or so. Ah well
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Mar 2, 2016 13:02:55 GMT -5
Good luck, Mormel!
Las night, as I turned off the election results to go to bed, I started singing "Goo-oodbye, Super Tuesday" to the tune of "Ruby Tuesday" by the Rolling Stones. Then, as it always does, the thought of that song reminded me of another song - "Lady Madonna" by the Beatles. I don't know why those two songs are tied together in my mind, but they have been for nearly 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by Mormel on Mar 2, 2016 13:53:24 GMT -5
^I couldn't hazard a guess at a connection, but both are great songs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 15:46:58 GMT -5
About 1-2 weeks ago - I had my mail stolen of which I reported it earlier on this thread; I just found out a mere hour ago that my Condo Association is hiring a contractor to replace all 250 Mailboxes that only be opened with two keys and it's cost me $25.00 for the lock and it's an one-time payment.
I should have normal mail service by Friday because it's 2 days job to have this all taken care of.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 2, 2016 23:36:57 GMT -5
I'm suddenly distressed by the thought that Alex Toth's Hot Wheels will probably never be reprinted.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 3, 2016 1:35:09 GMT -5
I'm suddenly distressed by the thought that Alex Toth's Hot Wheels will probably never be reprinted. Because it's Hot Wheels - some copyright or trademark thing? I recently started looking for back issues of this and while they're usually a little outside my price range, every now and then I'll see one I'm willing to pay for (for a short, relatively hard to find run like this my price range is 0 to $10). I've only managed to get one or two issues so far but there weren't that many so I have hope I'll be able to get them all, with patience.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 3, 2016 1:53:24 GMT -5
Alex Toth's Hot Wheels series is one of the rare instances of a car chase being successfully translated to the comic book pages.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 3, 2016 11:40:32 GMT -5
As to the topic of do you separate the artist from the art, I generally do. Regardless of where the inspiration came from, for whatever reason, the work was created and put into the public consciousness. It is separate from the person who created it. Couple that with the fact much of the best art, particularly music, comes from people with problems. The best work by my favorite bands was created almost without exception before they got off the drugs and the booze. Not saying it's not possible, but the most passionate art does not seem to come from folks with stable, uninteresting placid suburban lives.
Also, if you take it to the extreme and do enough digging, you are bound to find something negative in just about any organization and would end up not being able to shop anywhere or do anything. Not just art, but shops, grocery stores, etc. On the one hand, I don't want to financially support an organization that directly contributes to blatantly awful things, but on the other, not everyone in the organization subscribes to said beliefs, and everyone needs a job.
Example from the last few years ago - The Ender's Game movie. Orson Scott Card has made some very disappointing (and frankly, very surprising given much of his writing) statements on homosexuality that marred the publicity of the movie. The novel it was based was a classic though long before he publicized these views, and it is an exceptional piece of work. I find it hard to believe the same person who wrote that book was capable of making said statements on homosexuals, but that is a whole conversation on its own, but regardless of the dude ending up being a dick, the work is still excellent, and since the rights had been licensed for the film, many many other people not directly affiliated with Card were now involved. Directors, actors, crew, special effects, marketing and PR folks, etc. Do all of those folks deserve to be penalized because the guy who wrote the book this movie was based on ended up being a dick? I know someone personally who worked on the special effects for the movie, and I don't know if he even knows or cares who Orson Card is.
Anyway, I digress. It's a complex issue.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 16:20:42 GMT -5
As to the topic of do you separate the artist from the art, I generally do. Regardless of where the inspiration came from, for whatever reason, the work was created and put into the public consciousness. It is separate from the person who created it. Couple that with the fact much of the best art, particularly music, comes from people with problems. The best work by my favorite bands was created almost without exception before they got off the drugs and the booze. Not saying it's not possible, but the most passionate art does not seem to come from folks with stable, uninteresting placid suburban lives. Also, if you take it to the extreme and do enough digging, you are bound to find something negative in just about any organization and would end up not being able to shop anywhere or do anything. Not just art, but shops, grocery stores, etc. On the one hand, I don't want to financially support an organization that directly contributes to blatantly awful things, but on the other, not everyone in the organization subscribes to said beliefs, and everyone needs a job. Example from the last few years ago - The Ender's Game movie. Orson Scott Card has made some very disappointing (and frankly, very surprising given much of his writing) statements on homosexuality that marred the publicity of the movie. The novel it was based was a classic though long before he publicized these views, and it is an exceptional piece of work. I find it hard to believe the same person who wrote that book was capable of making said statements on homosexuals, but that is a whole conversation on its own, but regardless of the dude ending up being a dick, the work is still excellent, and since the rights had been licensed for the film, many many other people not directly affiliated with Card were now involved. Directors, actors, crew, special effects, marketing and PR folks, etc. Do all of those folks deserve to be penalized because the guy who wrote the book this movie was based on ended up being a dick? I know someone personally who worked on the special effects for the movie, and I don't know if he even knows or cares who Orson Card is. Anyway, I digress. It's a complex issue. Yes, I agree. It is a complex issue. To me, it depends upon the issue and the art. Some of my fave musicians have said and done some pretty horrible things, but their music is still pretty amazing and has a great message.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 3, 2016 16:39:13 GMT -5
As to the topic of do you separate the artist from the art, I generally do. Regardless of where the inspiration came from, for whatever reason, the work was created and put into the public consciousness. It is separate from the person who created it. Couple that with the fact much of the best art, particularly music, comes from people with problems. The best work by my favorite bands was created almost without exception before they got off the drugs and the booze. Not saying it's not possible, but the most passionate art does not seem to come from folks with stable, uninteresting placid suburban lives. Also, if you take it to the extreme and do enough digging, you are bound to find something negative in just about any organization and would end up not being able to shop anywhere or do anything. Not just art, but shops, grocery stores, etc. On the one hand, I don't want to financially support an organization that directly contributes to blatantly awful things, but on the other, not everyone in the organization subscribes to said beliefs, and everyone needs a job. Example from the last few years ago - The Ender's Game movie. Orson Scott Card has made some very disappointing (and frankly, very surprising given much of his writing) statements on homosexuality that marred the publicity of the movie. The novel it was based was a classic though long before he publicized these views, and it is an exceptional piece of work. I find it hard to believe the same person who wrote that book was capable of making said statements on homosexuals, but that is a whole conversation on its own, but regardless of the dude ending up being a dick, the work is still excellent, and since the rights had been licensed for the film, many many other people not directly affiliated with Card were now involved. Directors, actors, crew, special effects, marketing and PR folks, etc. Do all of those folks deserve to be penalized because the guy who wrote the book this movie was based on ended up being a dick? I know someone personally who worked on the special effects for the movie, and I don't know if he even knows or cares who Orson Card is. Anyway, I digress. It's a complex issue. Yes, I agree. It is a complex issue. To me, it depends upon the issue and the art. Some of my fave musicians have said and done some pretty horrible things, but their music is still pretty amazing and has a great message. And think of all the artists and figures from history whose works we love or whose achievements we find admirable and whose private lives are unknown to us and so don't color our perceptions of them. Or others whose weaknesses were well known in their own times and for which they were criticized, but today are seen in a different light because those weaknesses were due to illnesses or disorders well known and curable today. Think George III, whose "madness" was due, according to some historians, to porphyria.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 17:04:13 GMT -5
Yes, I agree. It is a complex issue. To me, it depends upon the issue and the art. Some of my fave musicians have said and done some pretty horrible things, but their music is still pretty amazing and has a great message. And think of all the artists and figures from history whose works we love or whose achievements we find admirable and whose private lives are unknown to us and so don't color our perceptions of them. Or others whose weaknesses were well known in their own times and for which they were criticized, but today are seen in a different light because those weaknesses were due to illnesses or disorders well known and curable today. Think George III, whose "madness" was due to porphyria. Well, then! I think Prince Hal pretty much put an end to that discussion. Some things I had not even thought of when I decided to ask the question. I still say there are certain cases that turn me off to an artist completely. Or, at least would, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Mormel on Mar 3, 2016 17:29:04 GMT -5
I find with some artists I'll get turned off from the work they put out after they did or said something despicable, but I'll still enjoy everything I liked by them up to the point where they 'stood exposed', as it were.
Case in point, Mel Gibson. I had absolutely no interest in checking out anything he was involved in after his infamous bigoted rants, but I find I can still enjoy many of his movies that came out before.
Totally different example, Tom Cruise. He's said some stupid sh#t in interviews, mostly in relation to Scientology, yet in this case I can separate his religious views from his acting, and still enjoy his newer films. (And yes I realize Cruise is not a master thespian, but most of his movies just make me feel good. Also 'Vanilla Sky' was simply awesome, right up until its bizarre and unnecessary ending)
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Mar 3, 2016 18:50:13 GMT -5
This is awesome - these people have created a map of the entire world or close to it, with every 3-meter-by-3-meter square identified by a unique 3-word identifier. It's Google Maps with an overlay showing the three-word name of the square that the pointer in the center is pointing to. It seems to always start at "kicks.pasta.steer" in Brooklyn NY but you can move it around easily if you've used Google Maps: map.what3words.com/Right now it looks like I'm sitting in "pools.goal.stored".
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 3, 2016 20:08:38 GMT -5
That's quite interesting Rob. I live at alarm posts paints and have no clue as to why
|
|