Exchanges with People that Make Your Brain Hurt

[Ceallach]

My friend was telling me this one. She and her husband had seen The Hobbit on a date night. I'd seen it twice already so we started talking about it.

She said her brother had seen it too. He told her all about it in a rant about how they had just "ripped off LOTR" and how it was the "exact same story" and "how could they get away with blatant copyright." Apparently the fact that some of the same actors were in it and all the hinting toward the events of LOTR wasn't enough to clue him. She gently explained to him that the books had the same author and that The Hobbit was something of a prequel to LOTR. "Ohhhhh...." 

I remember coming out of Fellowship of the Ring and hearing a girl behind me ranting about the "lousy ending". When her companion explained it was a trilogy, she snorted, "So, they're trying to rip off Star Wars, are they?"

I heard someone rant after Return of the King that they just "copied the spider from Harry Potter. LAME!"

After I watched "The Hobbit" I really wasn't sure where they ripped it off from.  Certainly not the book...   

Are you saying the spider wasn't in there in the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings?  It's been decades since I read them, but I'm pretty sure Shelob WAS in there....  Am I nuts, or confused?

Well, Mirkwood had spiders in it in the Hobbit book, and then yeah, there's Shelob in LOTR. There are definitely spiders in Tolkien.

It was a joke...

I assumed so too, I guess the "joke" part is meant to be something along the lines of "I thought the Hobbit movie was so bad that it wasn't even based on anything Tolkein wrote". Right?   However, I can see why people might assume it was a serious part of the dialogue and not get the underlying sarcasm of the poster.  I picked up on that one just because I happen to be a big Tolkein fan and I have acquaintances who like to make similar disparaging remarks about the film adaptations (because converting a book into film medium is *so* easy of course    ).

For the record, I want to note that I was kind of "taken in" by the buffalo wings story.   To be fair, I wasn't exactly over-thinking it or paying attention to the details, because it's not a topic I have any particular concern about.   I basically thought they were saying that there was originally a dish made of some form of buffalo that was referred to as "wings", and somebody then created a chicken wing dish based on that.  (So a relatively plausible story).   I had no idea, and have none still, what the roosevelt reference meant so it in no way indicated to me that the story was implausible.     Of course by the time I read the post the edit had been made indicating it was a joke, so I got to the end and went "Oh ok, it's an urban legend" and moved on.   

For the record, I'm not typically a gullible person.  I'm a regular on Snopes, I don't "like" or "share" any of those absurd FB posts and I don't send on forward emails (unless I can verify their accuracy, which so far as never happened!).   I'm also a degree educated and fairly intelligent person, and come from a family who joke around a lot.   Anyway I just wanted to put it out there that sometimes jokes aren't as obvious as they might seem.      In the context of this thread I wouldn't be expecting somebody to deliberately provide misinformation, so although I don't believe everything I read on the internet nor would I automatically assume that a poster was pulling my leg.    So I do think being clear when joking is worthwhile in this context.  Sorry if this hurts anybody's brains!

I would imagine that a winking smiley would indicate that there's something not very serious going on. I'm a Tolkien fan too and I have to say that it breaks my brain a little when his fans habitually misspell his name. It seems like an easy name to me so it seems strange that someone can be a big fan without actually knowing his name.

But on that note I hurt my own brain too. I've started mistyping words, in an autocorrect type of way. Recently I was writing the word "rising" and instead wrote raisin. I don't know if I should be worried.

Yup you caught me there! :-).  I thought I was going nuts a couple of months ago when I started finding stupid mistakes in my documents, posts etc. Turns out that I'd developed carpal tunnel as a pregnancy side effect! (you'd think the fact I kept dropping things, cutting myself while cooking, and the general numbness and swelling would also have been clues, but it took me awhile to put it all together).    Good news for me is that it will supposedly go away within a month or two of bubs coming so fingers crossed!  In the meantime I have learnt to be way less of a perfectionist which is probably good for me.  When I'm going back to fix utterly insane typos caused by my swollen clumsy fingers I no longer worry about the small ones - as it is it's taking me 4 times as long to get a single post out! 

[BB-VA]

I assumed so too, I guess the "joke" part is meant to be something along the lines of "I thought the Hobbit movie was so bad that it wasn't even based on anything Tolkein wrote". Right?   However, I can see why people might assume it was a serious part of the dialogue and not get the underlying sarcasm of the poster.  I picked up on that one just because I happen to be a big Tolkein fan and I have acquaintances who like to make similar disparaging remarks about the film adaptations (because converting a book into film medium is *so* easy of course    ).

For the record, I want to note that I was kind of "taken in" by the buffalo wings story.   To be fair, I wasn't exactly over-thinking it or paying attention to the details, because it's not a topic I have any particular concern about.   I basically thought they were saying that there was originally a dish made of some form of buffalo that was referred to as "wings", and somebody then created a chicken wing dish based on that.  (So a relatively plausible story).   I had no idea, and have none still, what the roosevelt reference meant so it in no way indicated to me that the story was implausible.     Of course by the time I read the post the edit had been made indicating it was a joke, so I got to the end and went "Oh ok, it's an urban legend" and moved on.   

For the record, I'm not typically a gullible person.  I'm a regular on Snopes, I don't "like" or "share" any of those absurd FB posts and I don't send on forward emails (unless I can verify their accuracy, which so far as never happened!).   I'm also a degree educated and fairly intelligent person, and come from a family who joke around a lot.   Anyway I just wanted to put it out there that sometimes jokes aren't as obvious as they might seem.      In the context of this thread I wouldn't be expecting somebody to deliberately provide misinformation, so although I don't believe everything I read on the internet nor would I automatically assume that a poster was pulling my leg.    So I do think being clear when joking is worthwhile in this context.  Sorry if this hurts anybody's brains!

Tried minimizing the quote tree...

Anyway, I have a recipe for something called "beef birds" which is a kind of roll-up using sliced beef and stuffing, so the "Buffalo Wings origin" isn't all that far-fetched, considering the way some older recipes are named.

[Hmmmmm]

DFIL has been making my brain hurt for a week. He was notified last Monday that he is being laid off. He immediately started looking for another position, and we are helping him network at his request. He is at least 40 years older than most of the people he is going to be competing for positions with.

DFIL works in a very specialized computer software and hardware line, and will need to have access to email instantly so he can respond within minutes. He doesn't have a smart phone, or data on his older phone. He doesn't have a tablet or iPad or a laptop, because he has been using the laptop provided by his company. The fact that the laptop is not coming home with him hasn't come to mind yet.

During our conversation at lunch today, I asked him how he was going to check email when he wasn't home after his separation date. We would loan him our tablet during his transition time, but he doesn't seem to be concerned. 

Sorry, it's early.  Are you saying once he has a new job he'll need a mobile device to immediately respond to email.  Or are you saying he needs to me able to respond immediately to emails during his job search? I think I might be closer to your FDIL age because I wouldn't see the need to respond immediately to an email about a job opening or interview.  Within 8 business hours, sure.

[ladyknight1]

DFIL has been making my brain hurt for a week. He was notified last Monday that he is being laid off. He immediately started looking for another position, and we are helping him network at his request. He is at least 40 years older than most of the people he is going to be competing for positions with.

DFIL works in a very specialized computer software and hardware line, and will need to have access to email instantly so he can respond within minutes. He doesn't have a smart phone, or data on his older phone. He doesn't have a tablet or iPad or a laptop, because he has been using the laptop provided by his company. The fact that the laptop is not coming home with him hasn't come to mind yet.

During our conversation at lunch today, I asked him how he was going to check email when he wasn't home after his separation date. We would loan him our tablet during his transition time, but he doesn't seem to be concerned. 

Sorry, it's early.  Are you saying once he has a new job he'll need a mobile device to immediately respond to email.  Or are you saying he needs to me able to respond immediately to emails during his job search? I think I might be closer to your FDIL age because I wouldn't see the need to respond immediately to an email about a job opening or interview.  Within 8 business hours, sure.

He has told us that he will need to be able to respond very quickly, and in that industry, being able to communicate can decide whether or not you are offered an interview. Since he can't check email on his phone, he will need to have something else with him.

[magician5]

For the record, I want to note that I was kind of "taken in" by the buffalo wings story.

Ha! Everyone knows that buffaloes don't have wings!

What I don't understand is: what part of a chicken is the "nugget"?

[EnoughAlready22]

For the record, I want to note that I was kind of "taken in" by the buffalo wings story.

Ha! Everyone knows that buffaloes don't have wings!

What I don't understand is: what part of a chicken is the "nugget"?

Well, my son calls a certain part of his anatomy his nuggets.

[Twik]

What's making my brain hurt is that someone felt the need to make The Great Gatsby in 3D.

If 3D is ever to become an accepted technology, it should not be used only for special-effects spectaculars.

Dial M for Murder, by Hitchock, was actually filmed in 3D, in its first heyday. Unfortunately, by the time the movie was released, 3D was only associated with cheap horror movies, and the producers released it only in "flat" form, so it would be seen as a serious film. If you watch it, there are several shots that are clearly intended to be seen in 3D format, such as a key going towards a lock.

[Piratelvr1121]

What's making my brain hurt is that someone felt the need to make The Great Gatsby in 3D.

If 3D is ever to become an accepted technology, it should not be used only for special-effects spectaculars.

I still don't get why...oh wait, I think I understand why Harold and Kumar's Christmas movie was in 3D.  I never saw it but from the commercials I did see I think I get it. 

But I think that's also why it's not taken seriously and people are getting tired of it.  It's being applied to movies that don't need to be seen in DVD.   I don't think the version with Mia Farrow was hurting for not having been in 3D.

[MariaE]

What's making my brain hurt is that someone felt the need to make The Great Gatsby in 3D.

If 3D is ever to become an accepted technology, it should not be used only for special-effects spectaculars.

I still don't get why...oh wait, I think I understand why Harold and Kumar's Christmas movie was in 3D.  I never saw it but from the commercials I did see I think I get it. 

But I think that's also why it's not taken seriously and people are getting tired of it.  It's being applied to movies that don't need to be seen in DVD.   I don't think the version with Mia Farrow was hurting for not having been in 3D.

I think 3D often gives an extra something to movies. "Life of Pi" didn't need to be in 3D, but it did enhance the experience for me.

[VorFemme]

DFIL has been making my brain hurt for a week. He was notified last Monday that he is being laid off. He immediately started looking for another position, and we are helping him network at his request. He is at least 40 years older than most of the people he is going to be competing for positions with.

DFIL works in a very specialized computer software and hardware line, and will need to have access to email instantly so he can respond within minutes. He doesn't have a smart phone, or data on his older phone. He doesn't have a tablet or iPad or a laptop, because he has been using the laptop provided by his company. The fact that the laptop is not coming home with him hasn't come to mind yet.

During our conversation at lunch today, I asked him how he was going to check email when he wasn't home after his separation date. We would loan him our tablet during his transition time, but he doesn't seem to be concerned. 

Sorry, it's early.  Are you saying once he has a new job he'll need a mobile device to immediately respond to email.  Or are you saying he needs to me able to respond immediately to emails during his job search? I think I might be closer to your FDIL age because I wouldn't see the need to respond immediately to an email about a job opening or interview.  Within 8 business hours, sure.

He has told us that he will need to be able to respond very quickly, and in that industry, being able to communicate can decide whether or not you are offered an interview. Since he can't check email on his phone, he will need to have something else with him.

Bring it to his attention that his work laptop will be staying at work.

When Lil Sis was laid off, they were offered a chance to buy laptops through the manufacturer that had been providing the computers for the company at a discount.  She got one as she knew that she would be needing it for her job search.

Your DFIL may want to think about buying a cheap laptop of his own (new or used) or he may choose to get a newer tablet so that he can get some experience with the latest technology (and be more competitive for a new job competing against younger people).  But he may not think about it until someone mentions it....because he is focused on the "loosing job - need new job" thing rather than "job provided my tech - need to get my own tech"!

[ladyknight1]

Thanks, VorFemme!

This is the second time I have pointed out that the laptop is not coming with him. I still don't think he realizes that.

[VorFemme]

Thanks, VorFemme!

This is the second time I have pointed out that the laptop is not coming with him. I still don't think he realizes that.

Quite literally, some people "encode" their work stuff as "their stuff" without the "work" being in there.  He's probably old enough (fifty or older?) that he never thought much about changing jobs and getting different "work stuff".  And he always had "work stuff" that he could take home to work on if he needed to.....

The unthinkable has happened, he is being let go, and he doesn't want to think about the "stuff" (like the laptop) being part of what he is not going to be taking with him.

He may need a smart phone or tablet with a data package that works anywhere or he may need a cheaper tablet, netbook, or laptop to take with him to wifi access points - does he have internet access at home at all?

[ladyknight1]

He is fine with internet access at home, but he spends a lot of time on errands when he is off, and his wife is having surgery the week after his separation date. We offered the use of our tablet, it is less than a year old, and he can access email on it.

[mmswm]

For the record, I want to note that I was kind of "taken in" by the buffalo wings story.

Ha! Everyone knows that buffaloes don't have wings!

What I don't understand is: what part of a chicken is the "nugget"?

Well, my son calls a certain part of his anatomy his nuggets.

My son's favorite x-ray tech is fond of saying that they "must protect the McNuggets" at all costs, when arranging the lead shields during x-rays.

[snowflake]

My friend was telling me this one. She and her husband had seen The Hobbit on a date night. I'd seen it twice already so we started talking about it.

She said her brother had seen it too. He told her all about it in a rant about how they had just "ripped off LOTR" and how it was the "exact same story" and "how could they get away with blatant copyright." Apparently the fact that some of the same actors were in it and all the hinting toward the events of LOTR wasn't enough to clue him. She gently explained to him that the books had the same author and that The Hobbit was something of a prequel to LOTR. "Ohhhhh...." 

I remember coming out of Fellowship of the Ring and hearing a girl behind me ranting about the "lousy ending". When her companion explained it was a trilogy, she snorted, "So, they're trying to rip off Star Wars, are they?"

I heard someone rant after Return of the King that they just "copied the spider from Harry Potter. LAME!"

After I watched "The Hobbit" I really wasn't sure where they ripped it off from.  Certainly not the book...   

Are you saying the spider wasn't in there in the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings?  It's been decades since I read them, but I'm pretty sure Shelob WAS in there....  Am I nuts, or confused?

Well, Mirkwood had spiders in it in the Hobbit book, and then yeah, there's Shelob in LOTR. There are definitely spiders in Tolkien.

It was a joke...

Just to clear up, I actually liked the Hobbit movie.  I was referring to the amount of material that was added to it.

There were some sub-plots where I was just scratching my head and wondering how I could have forgotten those when I read the book at least 1-2 times per year between the ages of 7 and 16.  (I haven't read it since I was 25)  As I was driving my baby sitter home she (also a Tolkien fan) assured me that I wasn't going crazy and yes, much of it had been added.