The use of the word "shocker" couldn't be more sarcastic. I thought from what I wrote, that was fairly obvious. Secondly, I wasn't envisioning some vicious, all-male yearbook staff tying each female student to the proverbial whipping post. Whether the staff was mostly comprised of males, females or it was even — a fact that you can't possibly know by comparing "yearbook staffs around that same era" — the captions are a product of the times, representative of the attitudes of the age.
My theory makes more sense: Lucas had no idea these people were related to each other during the first movie. He was just making it up as he went along.
Ok, so the first day shows 18 people dressed alike and the second one shows 15 guys dressed alike. More importantly: how long did it take Hans to find 18 ad 15 people, respectively, dressed alike? And how many people did he see in that time frame that were not dressed alike or like the ones he photographed?
My point is how many of us (perhaps percentage-wise) dress similarly? Is it very large? I doubt it.
Of course, as soon as they got settled in the New World, they interpreted their "religious freedom" to mean that EVERYONE had to subscribe to their form of religious belief, and began to persecute people with other beliefs just as much as those Sainted Pilgrims had been in England.
And this happened all over the New England states: Quakers in one state or RCs in another or Anglicans in a third all disdained or actively persecuted Christians who were "not like them". Rhode Island was formed to avoid this problem, but it is telling that RI is still the smallest state: Christians really prefer to persecute some other group if they can, all in the Name of the Loving Son of God.
Even now, you see this, in the demands for a "Christian state" or "Christian country": OUR form of belief MUST supersede all others, even if that means persecution and losing the message. Those "other" people aren't really Christians (which must surprise the victims), and certainly any other person with differing beliefs must be brought into the fold forcibly.
A pox on all your houses! Especially on those where they can't even read that Bible that is so "good".
Forensic science TODAY is hardly any better than "spectral evidence".
Fingerprints aren't unique. DNA has many false-positives from the improper way law-enforcement tries to use it. Anybody and everybody can claim to be an expert witness with no vetting from the court. Blood spatter analysis, footwear impressions and bite-mark comparisons have zero basis in science. Coroners are political appointees who don't need any medical credentials. There's no science behind, or training for, arson investigators. etc., etc.
I wonder if statistics supports the notion that Halloween is an especially hazardous time for children. After all, there are STILL people who think that drugs/razors in kids' candy is a thing. In reality, there have been a handful of cases (only 1 I can recall off the top of my head), but all involved the child's own parent. All it takes is some media time.
I'm not saying there aren't dangers in trick-or-treating, but it's one of those overblown issues. More kids die from drownings, drunk driving, and cribs, but the public demands less mundane fare from media.
I'm glad there are ways to keep kids safe, but less effort and time should be spent on Halloween safety, and more on overall night safety. Going to a parking lot and picking up free candy is not trick-or-treating. It's great if there are no alternatives, but going door-to-door on your neighborhood isn't just about sugar, but neighborhood community and solidarity. I'm glad our neighborhood gets in the spirit. I would be sad if kids didn't come by on Halloween. We go all out and love it when the parents get more scared than the kids.
The Smithsonian article is horrible blog clickbait, a very shallow summary of the BBC article, which they link to but don't properly attribute credit to:
"Lysol" has has amazing, proved power to kill germ-life on contact . . . truly cleanses the vaginal canal even in the presence of mucous matter. Thus "Lysol" acts in a way that makeshifts like soap, salt or soda never can.
Notice the original stress on the words "acts" and "never can." Savvy women read that as a birth control method, and indeed that's what Lysol was hinting at. That's all they could do, because even telling women about birth control methods was illegal back then. Although it was ineffective to use in this manner, I can imagine that the long-term effects of this caustic solution rendered at least some women eventually infertile.
My point is how many of us (perhaps percentage-wise) dress similarly? Is it very large? I doubt it.
And this happened all over the New England states: Quakers in one state or RCs in another or Anglicans in a third all disdained or actively persecuted Christians who were "not like them". Rhode Island was formed to avoid this problem, but it is telling that RI is still the smallest state: Christians really prefer to persecute some other group if they can, all in the Name of the Loving Son of God.
Even now, you see this, in the demands for a "Christian state" or "Christian country": OUR form of belief MUST supersede all others, even if that means persecution and losing the message. Those "other" people aren't really Christians (which must surprise the victims), and certainly any other person with differing beliefs must be brought into the fold forcibly.
A pox on all your houses! Especially on those where they can't even read that Bible that is so "good".
Fingerprints aren't unique. DNA has many false-positives from the improper way law-enforcement tries to use it. Anybody and everybody can claim to be an expert witness with no vetting from the court. Blood spatter analysis, footwear impressions and bite-mark comparisons have zero basis in science. Coroners are political appointees who don't need any medical credentials. There's no science behind, or training for, arson investigators. etc., etc.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12589
I'm not saying there aren't dangers in trick-or-treating, but it's one of those overblown issues. More kids die from drownings, drunk driving, and cribs, but the public demands less mundane fare from media.
I'm glad there are ways to keep kids safe, but less effort and time should be spent on Halloween safety, and more on overall night safety. Going to a parking lot and picking up free candy is not trick-or-treating. It's great if there are no alternatives, but going door-to-door on your neighborhood isn't just about sugar, but neighborhood community and solidarity. I'm glad our neighborhood gets in the spirit. I would be sad if kids didn't come by on Halloween. We go all out and love it when the parents get more scared than the kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldfell#Lava-cooling_operations
The Smithsonian article is horrible blog clickbait, a very shallow summary of the BBC article, which they link to but don't properly attribute credit to:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29136747
"Lysol" has has amazing, proved power to kill germ-life on contact . . . truly cleanses the vaginal canal even in the presence of mucous matter. Thus "Lysol" acts in a way that makeshifts like soap, salt or soda never can.
Notice the original stress on the words "acts" and "never can." Savvy women read that as a birth control method, and indeed that's what Lysol was hinting at. That's all they could do, because even telling women about birth control methods was illegal back then. Although it was ineffective to use in this manner, I can imagine that the long-term effects of this caustic solution rendered at least some women eventually infertile.