September 16, 2018

"The law of closure states that individuals perceive objects such as shapes, letters, pictures, etc., as being whole when they are not complete."

"Specifically, when parts of a whole picture are missing, our perception fills in the visual gap. Research shows that the reason the mind completes a regular figure that is not perceived through sensation is to increase the regularity of surrounding stimuli. For example, the figure that depicts the law of closure portrays what we perceive as a circle on the left side of the image and a rectangle on the right side of the image. However, gaps are present in the shapes. If the law of closure did not exist, the image would depict an assortment of different lines with different lengths, rotations, and curvatures—but with the law of closure, we perceptually combine the lines into whole shapes."



From the Wikipedia entry on Gestalt psychology, which I'm reading because I looked up "closure" in the OED and saw that it was a concept in Gestalt psychology. I looked up "closure" in the OED, because I'd just watched an old episode of "Friends" — "The One Where Ross Finds Out" (Season 2, Episode 7 (1995)) — and the word "closure" — a vogue word at the time, I think — was used to great comic effect.



And that's an answer to the question I asked 2 days ago, "What TV sitcom has ever had a character who has been presented and developed with real depth?" I said, "I'm asking the question because I'm starting to watch an old TV series that someone else has said they think has characters that are explored with real depth." The old series is "Friends," and the "someone else" is my son John.

261 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 261 of 261
Michael K said...

I did, however, spend a year and half training to be a rifleman,

Shotguns are quite a bit different. Some of us got a few pellets when we were too close. Keeping in line is crucial and the victim didn't and admitted it.

Have you ever seen the movie, "The Shooting Party?"

Pretty good flick. James Mason's last movie and excellent.

Dave Begley said...

This is not a high tech lynching. This is DiFi's Drive By. Just getting off a pot shot with Senator Spartacus at the wheel.

Earnest Prole said...

A Bay Area psychologist says the reason she has trouble opening her legs for her husband is the Republican nominee for the Supreme Court. Tom Wolfe couldn’t have written it any better.

The Crack Emcee said...

Rory said...

DBQ said: "Maybe it is an urban/rural divide. Maybe it is the age difference Millenials/Older people. Liberals/Deplorables."

The divide takes in a lot of territory, but the relevant divide is always the one that isolates people who can easily be separated from their money. That's who they're trying to reach, either by portraying those prople or reinforcing their beliefs.

I repeat: tim from vermont finds the NewAge character of Phoebe attractive (the woman who stole a cat from a little girl) defends using water as medicine on sick people, has shown he knows no bottom for decency in debate, and is generally dishonest in his interactions.

That's a pretty good description of the part of the "Friends" fanbase I'm familiar with.

Francisco D said...

"She's donated to Dems. She's a pysch professor. No contemporaneous accounts to her girlfriends."

She is a registered Democrat who donated to Bernie. She is supposedly a faculty member at Palo Alto U., but her name has been scrubbed from their faculty list. I wonder why?

All in all, this seems like a well planned strategy to smear Kavanaugh. Why would she undergo an FBI lie detector test in August if she supposedly never planned to come forward?

This was timed so that Kavanaugh would be tried in the press and there would be little time to challenge the accuser. Now "reasonable" moderates have cover to delay as Schumer and Feinstein planned all along.

Martha said...

“I Thought He Might Kill Me”

so if the attempted rape accusation fizzles, DEMS can always try the attempted murder charge

When you read Christine Ford’s accusations, the conclusion one draws is that the hysteria lives loudly within her.

Jaq said...

Why you choose to add to my misery can only be because, well, that's what NewAgers do.

I think my friends would get a kick out of you describing me as a New Ager. But Hippie chicks have their charms. I know you just figure that my chain needs yanking, but it's pretty ironic hearing you accuse anybody of being a pop psychologist.

I thought you were going to have some link to a comment of mine that seems to make you think I am some kind of New Agers.

I will say that I defended mindfulness, but after hearing you go off on it, I looked up the Buddhist definition, and I agree with you, that's pretty much a crock. I guess why I call mindfulness is more an attempt to be aware of ones own motivations to the best of one's ability. But you never saw me defend homeopathy here, so I assume you are just trying to get my goat. Which is fine, I don't mind a little back and forth.

Jaq said...

tim from vermont finds the NewAge character of Phoebe attractive (the woman who stole a cat from a little girl)

You do know that she's fictional, don't you? Intended to be laughed at as part of a comedy ensemble?

Michael K said...

Feinstein had this during the hearings and did not bring it up.

That says a lot.

JPS said...

Michael K,

"Shotguns are quite a bit different. Some of us got a few pellets when we were too close. Keeping in line is crucial and the victim didn't and admitted it."

Fair enough. I am ignorant of shotguns, so no wonder you and DBQ scoffed. And I shouldn't have implied that rifle training gives me more knowledge than I have. I have somewhat absorbed the attitude of "don't care why, this must not happen, period" from the people who gave me that training. Couple of entirely avoidable tragedies and near-tragedies during those years reinforced it.

(Here's an ND story you might appreciate. An uncle of mine, goofing off in the woods with a rifle at age 12 or so, put a .22 round through his big toe. His brother brought him to the hospital. Soon, the only surgeon in the county appeared. He grimly looked at the toe, then looked at his son's face and asked, "Well - you want to keep it?")

I don't clearly remember The Shooting Party - saw it too long ago, remember liking it. Always liked James Mason, though; I should rewatch.

Arashi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

Arashi said...
She is accusing Judge Kavanaugh of serious charges. She needs to confront the accused in a court of law or retract the allegations and shut the hell up.

You are innocent until proven guilty - and since she is alleging what sound like felonies, that means beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe.

But since we are no longer a Nation of Laws, we will let the lying media tell us what to think and do a high tech lynching of Judge Kavanaugh for the ratings boost.

It is all very disturbing.

---

Talk about idiocy. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the standard for criminal procedures. It is not on any reasonable pass a general standard. Sneak into a few days of any standard high school civics class or a day or two of criminal procedure. If we're going to be a Nation of Laws, then perhaps it would behoove residents like you to figure out how they work.

Laslo Spatula said...

The circle with the missing segments is easier to sexualize than the rectangle with the missing segments.

I am Laslo.

The Crack Emcee said...

Is my brain closing an incomplete whole when it tells me Matt Drudge should have better things to do than highlighting five arrests for looting taking place at the Dollar General in North Carolina?

I mean, really.

Arashi said...

Craig - She is accusing him of criminal acts - attempted rape and being held against her will - so I think the standard for criminal cases should apply.

But I only had one military law class in college, investigated and concluded a few hundred article 15 matters in the Navy, so I probably don't know as much as yourself.

Where did you get your law degree?

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Friends was almost a comedy, or a cringe comedy, the kind people watched less because it was funny than because they related to certain characters. Crack is like Rachel, only with a weaker chin and darker nipples, so watching was aspirational for him.

Francisco D said...

"Ford claims she told no one of the alleged assault “in any detail” until 2012, when she and her husband were in couple’s therapy. The therapist’s notes, which Ford reportedly provided to WaPo, do not identify Kavanaugh by name. However, the notes report that Ford said she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved in the alleged assault, a discrepancy Ford attributed to an error on the part of the therapist. There were four boys at the party but only two — Kavanaugh and Judge — in the room, she said.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

I don't need to relate to a sit-com. I need a sit-com to make me laugh.

Big Bang theory did this in the first 3 seasons. Despite the annoying laugh track.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

JPS: I’m a big fan of Colonel Cooper’s rules, and if you shoot somene you didn’t intend to, you’ve violated a couple of them. You know, the whole “Don’t allow the barrel to point at anything you are not willing to destroy,” and the “Know your target. Know what it is, what’s to either side of it, and what’s behind it.” They’re really good ones. If you follow them, you generally won’t shoot anyone you didn’t want to.

Those are good rule.

Others rules are. Know where your hunting party is at all times. DON'T run out in front of the line of fire.

When shooting upland game, the hunting party generally (depending on how many there are. I have only hunted in a group of 4 or so) will advance in a straight line with the bird dogs running out front to flush out the game. The shooters are to aim forward and only at an approximate 45 degrees to each side. In other words, don't shoot at a 90 degree angle unless you want to hit your partner. Now. The guys on the end have a bit bigger latitude in the angle they can fire on their "free" side.

Don't run out or get in front of the line of fire. AND don't cut across the front of the line of advancement. Which is what the guy Cheney shot was doing. He wasn't approaching from the rear but instead from the front and from the side.

In a big enough group, when someone gets out of formation, others may not have any idea.

Upland game shooting is much different than deer hunting. Again you need to have an idea of where your party is going to be. The difference is that the firing in upland game is extremely rapid because of the speed that the birds fly from their hiding spots. While in deer hunting (at least in the mule deer areas that I have hunted) you are firing from a much longer range and you take your time to view your target through a scope, steady your shot and wait until you have a clear clean shot. Nothing worse than chasing your wounded buck across hundreds of yards of high desert and through the junipers and lava beds. Take your time.

The likelihood of mistaking your friend for a deer is pretty slim, especially now that we are all required to wear dayglow colors :-0

Now. Want me to explain how not to get hit in the head when people are playing horseshoes?

:-D

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Hey Crack, you are not the only one annoyed by Drudge's selection strategy. The other day is was a ferris wheel in the wind. The thing was barely moving. Actually, had the thing been spinning like crazy - still a big zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Michael K said...

Couple of entirely avoidable tragedies and near-tragedies during those years reinforced it.

A couple of murders that were staged, also. Deer hunting can be dangerous for wives and husbands.

The Murder Channel (Discovery ID) had a story a few months ago.

Michael K said...

The notes say four boys were involved in the alleged assault, a discrepancy Ford attributed to an error on the part of the therapist.

Of course the therapist couldn't be mistaken about anything else.

The Crack Emcee said...

tim in vermont said...

"You do know that she's fictional, don't you? Intended to be laughed at as part of a comedy ensemble?"

What's humorous about the idealization of a woman who denies reality (and steals from a little girl) as a term of endearment to her friends? Did you not hear me say it's not funny? It's already been said by me and others, but, what it is, is self-reinforcing - for people like you - which doesn't add up to funny. It's more like indoctrination, which fits with the whole cultish image you're portraying to me, of someone in line with what the NewAge cults want. I've already called you an apologist and I don't care what your ignorant friends think, I know when I hear the shit and you're spot-on. Like those people, like Robert DeNiro, who claim not to be anti-vaccine but, if you listen long enough, turns out they're anti-vaccine. You'll say anything.

Ethics are a NewAge problem. It won't let you tell the truth.

Dave Begley said...

Risk/reward for Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh's mother - the judge/prosecutor - would have "killed" her only son. He gets expelled from GT Prep. He doesn't play football and basketball his senior year. He doesn't get into Yale. He doesn't get into Yale Law.


Risk/Reward for Ford.

She's a feminist hero. She saves Roe v. Wade. She stops Trump. Her best case was that he would withdraw his nomination. Quietly. Just like what Anita Hill wanted. That's what lawyer Katz told her because of #metoo.

She's a celebrity. Rachael Maddow has her on her show. Who can contradict her side of the story from 35 years ago? Kavanaugh and an admitted alcoholic, Mark Judge. Perfect, "he said, she said" and we always believe the girl because of Harvey.

If this happened the way she said it did, I can't imagine her NOT telling her parents or some girlfriends.


The two of them were making out and he tried to feel her up and get into her swimsuit. She freaked out. That's my guess.

tcrosse said...

Speaking of idiocy, let's review all the dire things that are predicted to occur once Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court.

Arashi said...

Does the therapist use hypno-therapy to recover lost memories from the past that are screwing up the patients life in the present?

She is a professor and 'liberal activist' - so totally trustworthy.

Craig said...

Arashi said...
Craig - She is accusing him of criminal acts - attempted rape and being held against her will - so I think the standard for criminal cases should apply.

But I only had one military law class in college, investigated and concluded a few hundred article 15 matters in the Navy, so I probably don't know as much as yourself.

Where did you get your law degree?

9/16/18, 3:51 PM

---

Arashi, you're wrong. The standard for criminal procedures does not reflect the acts alone -- it reflects the institution. This is really basic stuff. and I'm glad you took one class and conducted some administrative proceedings. I'm amazed you're making the mistake you're making, given your involvement in article 15. Who knows what's happening in the Navy, I suppose.

Anyway, where did I get my law degree? A snooty law school, thanks for asking, one where basic principles of the law are regularly taught.

Craig said...

Dave Begley said...
Risk/reward for Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh's mother - the judge/prosecutor - would have "killed" her only son. He gets expelled from GT Prep. He doesn't play football and basketball his senior year. He doesn't get into Yale. He doesn't get into Yale Law.


Risk/Reward for Ford.

She's a feminist hero. She saves Roe v. Wade. She stops Trump. Her best case was that he would withdraw his nomination. Quietly. Just like what Anita Hill wanted. That's what lawyer Katz told her because of #metoo.

She's a celebrity. Rachael Maddow has her on her show. Who can contradict her side of the story from 35 years ago? Kavanaugh and an admitted alcoholic, Mark Judge. Perfect, "he said, she said" and we always believe the girl because of Harvey.

If this happened the way she said it did, I can't imagine her NOT telling her parents or some girlfriends.


The two of them were making out and he tried to feel her up and get into her swimsuit. She freaked out. That's my guess.

9/16/18, 4:05 PM

---

Ahahahahahahahaha what comic reasoning! You think _drunk_ high school guys are good at risk/reward analysis? At distance-planning? Sometimes, sure, and some better than others, sure. But starting with your aspirations for the kids? Wow, just amazing.

Arashi said...

Or maybe a third party walked in on them and she freaked? Who knows? Not us, not her, not her therapist, not DiFi, not the Senate - nobody.

We are to believe her because she is a she and #metoo. People lie all the time.

Yancey Ward said...

I don't know if it commenter on this site or not, but when the news broke about the woman who wrote the letter to Feinstein abount Kavanaugh, someone I read made two brilliant predictions- (1) that the woman, unnamed at that time, would turn out to be a college professor, and (2) that she would have a history of political donations to Democrats. If it was someone here at Althouse, stand up and take your well deserved congratulations.

Lucien said...

A lesser senator would have had Ms. Ford's story leaked by her staff or other Democrats in July and the questioning would be done by now. But Shy Di Fi waited until AFTER the hearing, so now the Democrat press will explain that there is NO CHOICE but to re-open hearings and delay the vote. Professor Ford will say that she hates this process and has nothing to gain from it -- because it's not as if Anita Hill won any feminist bravery awards, or got any speaking engagements, or is till famous 27 years later just because she made accusations against a Supreme Court nominee. Ford can never be denied a promotion for the rest of her academic career without being able to claim retaliation, and having powerful Democratic Senators and reporters to support her.

Even if the Republicans have the huevos to move forward with the vote (unlikely), any Democrats who vote No will have the cover of explaining that they weren't against Kavanaugh, but simply opposed this unseemly "rush to judgment" and didn't want to "silence" the voice of this "victim".

Meanwhile, Senator Feinstein will explain that she never planned any of this.

Dave Begley said...

Craig:

I think Kavanaugh is exceptionally smart. He was at GT Prep and got into Yale and Yale Law. Even the dumbest jock wouldn't want to be kicked out of school, off of this teams and create a huge problem for his parents. No one is that dumb. Not even you at 17.

Arashi said...

Craig,

But drunk high school girls always tell the truth and are paragons of virtue.

Craig said...

Dave Begley said...
Craig:

I think Kavanaugh is exceptionally smart. He was at GT Prep and got into Yale and Yale Law. Even the dumbest jock wouldn't want to be kicked out of school, off of this teams and create a huge problem for his parents. No one is that dumb. Not even you at 17.

9/16/18, 4:13 PM

---

There are of course smart jocks, even some at schools like Yale, who get themselves into trouble of exactly this sort. By the bushels. Spend time at these places, and you'll find them ceaselessly, especially if you get a bunch of booze involved.

You're unconnected with the world. It's amazing.

Craig said...

Arashi said...
Craig,

But drunk high school girls always tell the truth and are paragons of virtue.

9/16/18, 4:13 PM

---

I have no idea what you're responding to. Good luck nutso.

Dave Begley said...

I will add this. He's Catholic. It's a sin to rape a woman. In addition to being a crime.

The girls at Stone Hill (the Sacred Heart school) have said he was a gentleman.

Arashi said...

Craig,

Your post from 9/16/18, 4:09 PM to Dave Begley

Dave Begley said...

Craig:

Unlike you (apparently) I didn't go to Harvard or Yale. I would have gotten in if I had lied on my applications and said I was a member of the Omaha Indian Tribe. As it was, I went to Creighton. No rapists there. Also no rapists at Creighton Prep.

Craig said...

Arashi,

I didn't say anything ever about whether I find her trustworthy or what I think about the general trustworthiness of high school girls, drunk or not. Keep up.

Arashi said...

Craig,

You don't need to be insulting - I have not called you names. Disagree, but do it with out the ad hominems.

Craig said...

Dave Begley said...
Craig:

Unlike you (apparently) I didn't go to Harvard or Yale. I would have gotten in if I had lied on my applications and said I was a member of the Omaha Indian Tribe. As it was, I went to Creighton. No rapists there. Also no rapists at Creighton Prep.

9/16/18, 4:19 PM

---

Ahahahahahaha! All of this, such pathetic comedy!

Craig said...

Arashi said...
Craig,

You don't need to be insulting - I have not called you names. Disagree, but do it with out the ad hominems.

---

Fair enough -- I put you in with the general run of this place, and perhaps I shouldn't have. The bad arguments offered by the Althouse-enticed gang of Amazon users here get me going!

Dave Begley said...

There was a guy in my class who was the starting quarterback, starting forward and starting pitcher at our school. He got a scholarship to play college football. Today's he a doctor. He's the Omaha equivalent of Kavanaugh. No way he would have tried to rape a frosh going into his senior year. His dad would have killed him.

Again, just because a teenager is drunk doesn't mean he's stupid.

They were making out and she didn't like where it was headed. That's it. He stopped. If he wanted to overpower her, it would have been very easy. I guess they should have signed a consent contract at the time.

wholelottasplainin said...

Чикелит said...
I want to know more details about the polygraph administered by a former FBI person. How long ago was this carefully planned? Unfortunately, these days, FBI carries much less weight. Especially “former FBI.”
*******************************

WHY would the FBI give a "lie detector test" to someone who claimed a non-federal crime was committed, more than 35 years ago, when the Statute of Limitations has very likely come and gone? Or is a federal crime being alleged? If so, what one?

ESPECIALLY when Kavanaugh hasn't been charged with a crime? Do the Feds give such tests BEFORE indicting someone? Does the passage of time greatly reduce the evidentiary value of such a test?

Anyone got answers?

Dave Begley said...

Craig:

Maurice Watson was a star basketball player at Creighton about 2 seasons ago. He got badly hurt during the season. Late night party. Girl accuses him of rape. Charges filed. County Attorney later dismissed them. The woman LIED about a number of things; including consent. Thankfully he had a good woman defense attorney.

In our adversary system, these charges must be tested; especially when a man's reputation is at stake. It's called the Rule of Law. No anonymous charges.

Arashi said...

I think the article said 'administered by a former FBI person - so not the FBI. Also consider that lie detector tests are not reliable and are not even accepted in a lot of jurisdictions because of that.

Paco Wové said...

"WHY would the FBI give a "lie detector test" to someone"

I thought the claim was "former FBI agent", which I guess is supposed to convey some degree of Authority! and Expertise! that would otherwise be lacking. The value of that brand may be somewhat lowered these days, however.

Dave Begley said...

Jay

A retired FBI agent did it. A contractor.

She may well believe her story 35 years later.

And lie detector's aren't admissible in court.

Craig said...

Dave Begley said...
Craig:

Maurice Watson was a star basketball player at Creighton about 2 seasons ago. He got badly hurt during the season. Late night party. Girl accuses him of rape. Charges filed. County Attorney later dismissed them. The woman LIED about a number of things; including consent. Thankfully he had a good woman defense attorney.

In our adversary system, these charges must be tested; especially when a man's reputation is at stake. It's called the Rule of Law. No anonymous charges.

9/16/18, 4:28 PM

---

I'm glad to hear that Maurice Watson was acquitted. I am sure there are many people at Creighton who have not committed rape; there are probably even a number who were accused, formally or informally, who likewise have not committed rape.

But you cannot possibly be suggested that the fact that there are some people who have not committed rape entails that there are no people who have. That would be a new low of reasoning...

Craig said...

Dave Begley said...
There was a guy in my class who was the starting quarterback, starting forward and starting pitcher at our school. He got a scholarship to play college football. Today's he a doctor. He's the Omaha equivalent of Kavanaugh. No way he would have tried to rape a frosh going into his senior year. His dad would have killed him.

Again, just because a teenager is drunk doesn't mean he's stupid.

---

You're smart enough to see that this is terrible reasoning, right? What is your evidence that your buddy would not have committed rape? It is your psychological presumption, grounded in, what, nothing? Anyway, that presumption is your evidence regarding the counterfactual starring your buddy. So then it looks like you want to use your story about your buddy to support ... the psychological presumption? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, I'm crying I'm laughing so hard.

JPS said...

Dust Bunny Queen, 3:59:

Well, the conversation has quite moved on, but I wanted to thank you for your response here. I can picture what you’re describing, II appreciate your taking the time, and I think you could teach my students a thing or two about precise writing.

Jim at said...

I have no idea whether this is a last-minute political hit job. - Craig

Then you are too stupid to breathe.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

JPS

Thank you. I was trying to be informative and amusing while not personally insulting. Hope I achieved my goal?

Hunting is a serious sport and unless everyone is carefully playing by the same rules, accidents can happen. Respect your weapons and remember the rules.

Michael K said...

What is your evidence that your buddy would not have committed rape?

You, of course, have evidence.

Would you like to present it, counselor ?

William said...

The Ellison case got reported on. For two or three days. Now it's dead....... This will be a part of Kavanaugh's reputation forever and ever. The people who partnered with Weinstein, investigated newsleads with Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose, and gave Polanski a standing ovation will not let this story die.......Do you find something uncomfortable about how so many Dems can have long careers in politics, entertainment, and the news business and never get called out on vile misbehavior by their colleagues, some of whom they raped.. And here we have a conservative judge, and these same people fall all over themselves in reporting on this story. Does anyone on earth believe that this woman would have come forward if he were a Democrat?

Michael K said...

The bad arguments offered by the Althouse-enticed gang of Amazon users here get me going!

Why there is your evidence, counselor !

Craig said...

Michael K said...
What is your evidence that your buddy would not have committed rape?

You, of course, have evidence.

Would you like to present it, counselor ?

9/16/18, 4:54 PM

---

Evidence of what? I'm curious exactly what you think I'm asserting. This should be amusing, doc.

Michael K said...

I'm curious exactly what you think I'm asserting. This should be amusing, doc.

You are asserting that you know something and are not just a dumb lefty.

But you cannot possibly be suggested that the fact that there are some people who have not committed rape entails that there are no people who have. That would be a new low of reasoning...

So, let's see what you have ? Let's see your "high" of reasoning.

The bad arguments offered by the Althouse-enticed gang of Amazon users here get me going!

This is especially revealing. Inga level reasoning.

Rory said...

March 17, 1973: Gloria Bunker learns the importance of crime victims' prompt reporting of crimes and cooperating with the authorities to obtain convictions.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Interesting that you are watching "Friends" with your son. Is he the age of the people portrayed on the show? I have aged out of the '20-30 something group of people finding themseles in a big city' story lines. Seems so tedious and boring now but might not be if you have a kid in the age group of the characters.”

That is why I never got Fiends. Who in their right mind would want to live like that? Esp in NYC? I didn’t like Seinfeld for somewhat similar reasons - I am not Jewish, nor have I ever lived NYC. Frankly, I would much prefer jumping in one of my own vehicles, than into a cab. Or, I guess now, an Uber. Had a friend who was a cabbie for a couple decades, and his stories would cure most people from ever using one. No parking you say? I plan to build one of those steel buildings they are always advertising next summer. I am thinking maybe 2,000 sq feet of indoor parking (my partner’s ex has one with over 5k sq ft down on their ranch, for all his toys).

That all said, my kid, raised in suburbia, has finally moved in with their significant other of 5 years (both now having finished grad school). And, they want enough urban environment for there to be local restaurants and a brew pub w/I walking distance, though they are willing to drive to a regular chain grocery store (and, even, on occasion, to a foo foo one, like Sprouts, etc). They figure there will be time enough for suburbia when they have kids. Still - on Fiends, you are left with the question of what the heck are they going to do when they do have kids, now that they are all married to each other? None of them seemed to have the sort of jobs that could make it plausible in NYC.

wholelottasplainin said...

Dave Begley said...
Jay

A retired FBI agent did it. A contractor.

>>OK, I missed that. But it just makes the story less credible.

She may well believe her story 35 years later.

>>As George Constanza famously asserted, "It's not a lie if you believe it".

And lie detector's aren't admissible in court.

>>mostly, butnot entirely true, if you mean the results of such tests.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 261 of 261   Newer› Newest»