Jump to content

Tensor

Global Moderator
  • Posts

    16774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    200

Everything posted by Tensor

  1. The interesting thing, for me, is that the Doris Day estate, and the son of the book’s writer, are also involved. Meaning it’s got the official okay/dokay.
  2. Kaley has another project in development, staring as Doris Day: https://www.thewrap.com/kaley-cuoco-to-play-doris-day-in-limited-series-in-the-works-at-warner-bros-tv/
  3. Although there could be various reasons, one may be that Johnny hasn't been around LA in a while. He's been spending his time in Tennessee, with his son, (when it's was his turn to have him). All the projects he had in development had been put on hold, so there was no reason for his being in LA. That has changed recently, and a couple of his projects are now starting to move forward. So we may see more of him in the LA area. Whether that has anything to do with him and Kaley getting together to collaborate on anything, is an open question.
  4. Originally started in 2019, the show has now been bumped to have its premiere later this year. https://snipdaily.com/the-griswolds-release-date-on-hbo-max/
  5. Let me straighten you out on this right away. I have nothing to do with deciding to ban you or to give you a warning or to remove something of yours from this forum. As a moderator, I recuse myself from any and all decisions such as this, when I'm involved in the conversation. I will simply report what I think should be reported and Tripper will look at it. I may, if it's appropriate, temporarily hide it, if I feel it egregiously crossed the line. But all that is passed on to the Admin of the site, for his decision. And if you think Tripper is going to play favorites, he won't. He's unhidden several things that I hid. It's his forum, and I still have to play by the rules. You implied that there was some major problem, genetically with second cousins having children. My logic is simply that a 3.5% chance of genetic defects in the progeny of second cousins, was not statistically significant compared to couples who might seemingly be unrelated (but could be distantly related), whose chance is between 2%-4% Look, I gave you an article, you don't want to pay for, fine, but you can't use that as an excuse of not doing your own research. You could find a different paper that would show the numbers I claimed were wrong. Hell, you could find a newspaper report or magazine article. Have you even bothered to do that? I don't think so, because in less than ten minutes, I found the following article from the UK National Health Service: https://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/resources/patient-information/genetics/consanguinity-web.pdf I've quoted the data from the section (actually a table) from the paper you don't want to pay for. But, if you don't want my comments on it, here: Now I will put up one comment: note that first cousins double the chance of genetic defects, but second cousins fall within, but on the high end, of unrelated couples. Don't like that? Here are the numbers, for genetic abnormalities, from the new link I included in this post: Note that these percentages are even less than my original quoted percentage (different statistical methods probably). So I still maintain, based on statistical chances, there is noting wrong with second cousins marrying, or having children. All fifty states, in the US, agree with me. Now, feel free to provide something that shows these numbers are off. As for why certain populations (such as those of Jewish decent for Tay-Sachs) might be tested. It's simply because even seemingly unrelated individuals (in that group) may be carriers, due to close inbreeding (first cousin or closer) farther back in time. My wife and I have friends who are, to the best of their knowledge, unrelated. Yet, all three of their children have the same genetic abnormality (one worse than the others). LOL, goose the web sites views? There's more activity in the games section, than there is in this topic. I'm not trying to get views, just pointing out where your original contention that there was something wrong with second cousins having sex or having kids is incorrect, using actual numbers.
  6. Actually pulling out one paragraph doesn't discredit my argument. You still haven't refuted the actual numbers in that paper. When can we expect that? Yes, that is basic genetics and those are the percentages for KNOWN carriers. What are the percentages for a pair of unrelated individuals who don't know their genetic makeup? In this case, there is a 2%-4% chance of genetic disease. How about a pair of second cousins, who don't know their genetic makeup? In this case, it's a 3.5% chance of genetic disease. A pair of first cousins? In this case, it's 7%-8%, double the unrelated couple, and also double the pair of second cousins. Statistically, there is no difference between unrelated couples and a second cousin couple. And you have yet to refute that. Just show me where these numbers are wrong, and I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong.
  7. It was written in. The actors all said they didn’t improv lines. There was no reason for Kunal to say “ Good Story” if the line wasn’t there. Also, look through the gag reels, and Kunal never reacted that way to blowing a line.( nor were the other actor’s reactions indicative of Kunal blowing his line).
  8. The numbers are for children born with genetic defects. Non-related individuals have a 2-4 percent chance of having such offspring. Second cousins have a 3.5 percent chance. First cousins have a 7-8 percent chance. In other words, out of 100 children born, unrelated individuals will have 96-98 health genetic children. Second cousins will have 96-97 healthy genetic children. First cousins will have 92-93 healthy genetic children.
  9. Very good, now break I down individually. Never mind, I’ll do it for you: non-related. 2%-4% second cousins 3.5% first cousins. 7-8%
  10. I don’t see second cousins, or any statistical references in your quote. So I don’t see how it contradicts my contention that second cousins are as safe, statistically, as non-related people.
  11. Just show where the peered reviewed paper I provide is wrong, or provide a peer reviewed paper contradicting it. First cousins, yes, there is a significant statistical increase in genetic birth defects. But not in second cousins. Unless you can show us a peered reviewed paper that shows otherwise, it’s just your opinion.
  12. The chances of second cousins producing offspring with genetic diseases is, within statistical errors, the same as unrelated strangers producing offspring with genetic diseases. Generally, non-related individuals will produce a child with a genetic related birth defect 2%-4% of the time. Second cousins will have have the same 3%-4% of the time. The mean of the chances indicate children from unrelated marriages are at a 3% (0.030) risk and those from second cousins are at a 3.5% (0.035) risk. So there is nothing wrong with marrying or having children with your second cousin. In the US, it is allowed, without restrictions, in every state. Numbers from here: https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1851
  13. Yes, he has mentioned it, but only in passing, when discussing other theories. Super symmetry is a requirement of string theory, and if added to the Standard Model, could solve most of the problems the Standard Model currently has. One of the problems with Super Symmetry, is that it postulates some more sub atomic particles, some of which should have been found by the LHC. Contrary to the show, as an FYI, super-asymmetry cannot behave as mentioned in the show, and the experiments discussed don’t really exist. But, the discussion did allow the show to get Sheldon and Amy the Nobel.
  14. I find this rather amusing, as while there are times where Leonard is those things, there are also multiple occasions (I can provide them if you wish) where Raj IS whiny and full of self-pity. And, he has shown he is the kind of guy that would do it with any women that was willing, even up to basically paying the woman(remember the first Emily and all his "presents"?) to stay in a relationship with him. The difference is that while Raj is willing, there haven't been all the many women who are willing to do it with him. Whereas in Leonard's case, most of the women were coming on to him.
  15. That's easy, Leonard's story is very similar to my story. Sci-fi, board war-games (we didn't have video games back in the dark ages when I was a teen), Chess, reading, science, comic books, all of that were part of me. Of course, I didn't have a girl friend. I finally met one, we dated, broke up, stayed friends, started dating again, and finally got married. So you can see why Leonard and Penny resonate with me.
  16. Welcome to the forum The Big Fan.
  17. If a member deletes their account, the forum software converts their posts (as there is now no account to link the post to) to guest posts. The only way to see who actually made those posts is if their posts were quoted. The software doesn't change quoted posts. So, at some point, Beate deleted their account.
  18. Sorry, I was just going by the 'Play Penny in her sleep" comment. I was just trying to clarify that even half-assed actors, like myself, can play characters in their sleep, given playing the character enough. It has nothing to do with the effort put in when playing the character.
  19. Any competent actor (note, competent, not necessarily great) can do that. After a certain amount of time, as a character, it becomes part of you. All of them, played their parts for 12 years (9 for the last two) and it's like flipping a switch. I was in a play that lasted four months, with two months of rehearsals. By midway through the run, your reactions are almost automatic. The struggle is not playing the character, but to bring the same amount of energy every night. In the case of TV, you also have the director, the showrunner, and the executive producer telling you how your character should act, which limits what you are able to do. And, while the various situations change weekly, for the TV show, the character doesn't very much, if at all week to week. I think that's why she loved the "I love you" scene so much. It let her examine Penny's vulnerable side. There were very few times Penny was caught out in those, and most of them the conversation was cut off (think the first girls night, or Leonard's "what about me" on New Years Eve.), or played for a laugh (her breakdown at Leonard dating Priya). The only similar situations, I feel, where Kaley was allowed to explore those emotions, were the breakup at the bowling alley, where she's crying and apologizing to him, and the drunken proposal scene, where she breaks down about how her life is going, and in a moment of clarity, although not at the right time, she finally understands Leonard's importance in her life.
  20. Oh, believe me, I'm not happy we missed out on that. Under the the idea of making lemonade, when life hands you lemons, we did get some nice fan fics (and one pretty damn good one 😉 ), with a lot of different views of how that particular conversation happened. Between my screen time and the transcript projects, I got the impression, starting in season 11, (and a bit of it in season 10) that Lenny started appearing in other couples plots, as those couples (or individuals) came to Leonard and Penny for help. This cut down on Leonard and Penny moments, but did give us them acting as a team. The biggest change, upon re-watching was the change in tone, between Lenny. In seasons 8-10, it was more cutting, more sarcastic (especially Penny). In season 11 and 12, it was more playful. I attribute that to Steve Holland.
  21. I have to finish adding everything up, and do the final checks on the screen time project, but Season 12 has the smallest time difference between Sheldon and Leonard, since season 2. It was 9 minutes in season 2, and 11 minutes in season 12. In season 10, the difference was 54 minutes.
  22. There were several episodes in season 11 and 12 that while there were Shamy plots, there was a lot of Lenny and Leonard in them. Off the top of my head, The Laureate Accumulation where Leonard and Penny try to get Caltech Laureates to come to the reception, and The Plagiarism Schism, where Leonard get the good on Campbell and Pemberton come to mind.
  23. While I wasn't happy with episode 3, in season 12, I have to point out that Penny did not initially say she didn't want kids, to either Leonard or Bernadette. In Leonard's case, she said, "What I meant was, what if, what if we didn’t have kids? and "I mean our life is so great. Why would we want to change that? Instead of having that conversation, Leonard got angry and left. For Bernadette, Penny said, " You know, I’ve been thinking lately, that maybe I don’t want kids." and later "...why is it crazy, to say I might not want kids?" At that point Bernadette became condescending, and Penny, reacting the way she usually acts when she was pushed, got angry and cut off the discussion. So, there was no discussion, in either case, of why Penny felt that way, nor when Leonard came back, did he bring it up for discussion, he just assumed she didn't want them. As for the sperm donation plot, I thought it was necessary, if for no other reason than to show Penny thinking about having kids. We didn't see her thinking in episode three, and the two donation episodes showed she might be more confused and uncertain about the whole having kids thing, rather than just being against it. I may have a different thought about it, having gone through them several times recently (for the time and transcript projects). Just pointing out while she mentions (in episode 12) the time she told Leonard she didn't want them, Penny never actually says she doesn't want kids, on camera, in any episode. See how they can fool you into thinking she did?
  24. For those who didn't notice, one of the writers for Dave, is Saladin Patterson, who also wrote and co-produced for TBBT. Congratulations to The Flight Attendant writing team.
  25. Kaley, and the show both got nominated, Kaley’s reaction: https://www.instagram.com/p/CK1UkyEBDxf/?igshid=a276a2hk7ki
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.