i try not to use wikipedia as a source

anonymous asked:

What are some Freddie Biographies you recommend? I'm planning on getting Mercury and me, but I don't know any others

Mercury and Me by Jim Hutton, Freddie Mercury: An Intimate Memoir by Peter Freestone (I haven’t read the follow up, What He Left Behind), and Queen Unseen by Peter Hince (Queen’s roadie) are the only biographies (or memoirs, really) I would trust. There is also Freddie Mercury: His Life in His Own Words by Greg Brooks, which is really just a collection of quotes, but the closest there is to an autobiography! And Queen: As It Began by Jacky Gunn is the authorised Queen biography, published just after Freddie’s death, so it’s completely biased but definitely worth a read too.

In my opinion, the so-called biographies by Mark Blake, Laura Jackson and - *dramatic music* - Lesley Ann Jones are tabloid-chasing, muck-raking, money-grubbing rubbish. I tried most of them when I first ‘discovered’ Freddie (last year!), but discarded them for being too gossipy (Jones) or just plain bitchy (Blake) - why write about a man you have no respect for? 

And I think I may have mentioned how much I detest Somebody To Love: The Life Death and Legacy of Freddie Mercury by Matt Richards and Mark Langthorne, which came out last year. The key word in the subtitle for the authors is ‘death’ - they seem to try their damndest to make everything in Freddie’s life about AIDS, presumably because that was the hook they used to get their book published. Also, they quote from the other biographies and trashy sources like the Daily Star obituary and ‘Freddie’s Loves’, so Freddie’s Wikipedia page is probably more accurate.

Sorry, that turned into a rant! Basically, go for the books written by people who actually knew Freddie, not hacks out to make a quick buck by picking holes in his memory.

FINALLY!

I’ve made posts about this war for several times, however, since it was not on wikipedia, people always felt reluctant to believe in my sources about its result.

It seems folks these days only believe something when it is either on the internet or on wikipedia, but here it is guys, finally and at last.

Curiously enough, they used almost the same sources I did.

A little background about this war:

The Portuguese managed to settle in India early in the 16th century, conquering major ports on its western coasts and expelling the Turks from its shores. The Turks didn’t like it and began sending armadas and big armies to try to recover their lost lands for many decades, but to no avail, losing in all fronts.

By the end of the 16th century, a League was formed between the most important islamic Kings of India to try to expell the Portuguese for good from the Indian Ocean and the East, gathering a massive army but, to their surprise, they were completely defeated, striking a big blow on the Ottoman Empire, stopping their advancement further East.

anonymous asked:

a source i found on wikipedia links to a book from 1996 using "lgbtq" where the q stands for queer, so i'd say queer's been part of the acronym for a long time now.

yeah my dude even most exclusionists can’t say otherwise, that one was just wild and using lies to try and convince people what they WANTED to be the truth

anonymous asked:

Hi! So I'm not Jewish but I have a question. Sorry if this is weird or random but when Gal Gadot was first cast I saw a lot of stuff about how its anti Semitic to cast her or she is anti. So I haven't gone to see it. A lot of people (including one Jewish blog which is why I'm asking) are posting about how good it is and how it's good for women but yeah I wouldn't want to participate in anti Semitism what do you think about her/the movie? Second opinions are good. Thank you. Have a super day.♡

Ps. I would have asked that blog specifically but they don’t have anon on and I only like to be on anon (anxiety). Thank you!

It’s not weird or random at all! 

I haven’t seen anything about anyone not seeing it because she is Jewish, or because it’s anti-Semitic. (Maybe I’ve missed that shit?) What I’ve personally seen is people not seeing it because she is an Israeli citizen, and it is mandatory for all Israeli-born citizens to join the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) when they are 18 for two years. (This is what I remember being taught in Hebrew School so forgive me if this is old or out-dated information.)

Lots of people have problems with Israel and what is going on with Palestine in regards to Zionism, so they are not seeing this movie on the basis that Gal Gadot is an Israeli citizen who was part of the IDF and said this quote about it.

“I am sending my love and prayers to my fellow Israeli citizens,” she wrote. “Especially to all the boys and girls who are risking their lives protecting my country against the horrific acts conducted by Hamas, who are hiding like cowards behind women and children…We shall overcome!!! Shabbat Shalom! #weareright #freegazafromhamas #stopterror #coexistance #loveidf”

I personally have no problem with anyone not seeing or supporting this film or actress because of her ties with the IDF, support of it or her being from a country that they consider problematic. The problem is, TONS of people equate Judaism with Zionism, and Zionism with Judaism. Which is GROSSLY anti-Semitic as fuck and ignores what Jews have gone through throughout history and what we continue to go through.

Some links dealing with people not seeing the film.

I saw this movie, and I personally think it’s weird some people want to boycott this film and actress because of where she was from and was she HAD to do via her government. The USA and MANY other countries have been apart of wars killing millions of innocent people over land and other causes; why not boycott all of these based on this? Again, this is not to belittle or make fun of or shame anyone who boycotts this film for these reasons. 

It’s also really nice to see a Jewish woman play the role of one of the most iconic female super heroes ever. 

It’s up to you if you want to support the film or not. I recommend doing your research on Israel, Palestine, the IDF and the actress/film/production company if you want a really, really informed decision.

It’s up to YOU, not anyone else.

Also I don’t mind if people message me on anon! That’s what it’s there for. 

Though I’m probably going to get some anti-Semitic fuckwad telling me I’m a “blood-thirsty gentile child killer” for “supporting IDF/Israel” and that I’m a “Zionist” because I’m Jewish and am not boycotting this film. (Which is NOT your fault at all! So don’t feel bad please!!) (Also for reference to being a gentile child killer, please check out what blood libels are!)

This tumblr post really sums up my feelings on the issue.This also addresses other famous actors supporting other wars/militaries/military action, which I love.

*Note: lots of the links I put in here are from Wikipedia. I understand that this source and others I may have referenced aren’t super legit/peer reviewed/whatever.

**Edit: No, I do not support what Israel is doing in regards to Palestine, the IDF and Zionism. I also don’t support what my OWN military in the USA is doing. I don’t support war, or kicking people out of their homes or trying to “racially/ethnically purify” any territory ever. But I will NOT tolerate people equating Judaism to Zionism or vice-versa, I will NOT tolerate people using their hatred of Zionism to mask their anti-Semitism and I will NOT be silent about ANY of this shit.

anonymous asked:

Hello, what are your favorite online resources for studying philosophy?

Hope this is helpful!

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy - Wikipedia is okay for philosophy articles but the SEP is written by scholars, fully referenced and where I tend to start if I don’t understand something. For fun try the Random Article button.

Perseus Digital Library - ancient texts in open-source English translations and the original language. Includes a lexicon which can help you investigate individual words in their original language. Especially good if you’re suspicious like me and don’t really trust translations using the word ‘love’ or ‘wisdom’ without any explanation of how they came to that. Here’s Plato’s Apology to get you started.

Project Gutenburg - most people are aware of this one, it’s a repository for out-of-copyright books. It has over 50,000 books on the shelves so if you don’t mind e-books then there’s no reason to ever be without something to read.

Bartleby - similar to Project Gutenburg but it’s a curated selection of the ‘Great Books’. I find it less overwhelming than PG. 

Miniature Library of Philosophy - I think the majority of online texts I use are actually from this archive. It’s obviously got a bias, being hosted by marxists.org, but this is a pretty good outline of Western philosophy in the last few centuries.

Brain Pickings - probably one of my favourite websites around. Well-written, punchy articles about all sorts of intellectual subjects. Take a look at their bookshelf for a bit of inspiration.

The School of Life - they offer classes and material on how to utilise philosophy toward well-bring. Their YouTube channel is well worth watching. Their series on Work and Capitalism is terrific.

Philosophy Bites - Nigel Warburton’s long-running philosophy podcast. I tend to go back into the archives when I need something to listen to. There are hundreds of episodes available, here’s a list of them arranged by theme.

socialjusticeichigo  asked:

I’ve seen T(W)ERFs try to claim that Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson were ‘just drag queens’ and not trans women and their wikipedia articles seem to suggest this as well (like the claim that Marsha said she was a man before dying or Sylvia not wanting to use labels like transgender). I’m not very knowledgeable on this so I was wondering if anyone here could explain this to me?

Well truthfully, there are sources that how that Marsha P. Johnson did in some instances ask to be refered to by her dead name and male pronouns. But that fact does not make her in any way less trans. The transgender experience is not simple, and because of this there is no one narrative that transgender people have to live by to be seen and respected in their identity.

I don’t want to dive into the discourse, but every piece of evidence I have seen points to Marsha being a transgender woman.

As for Sylvia Rivera, I cannot say I have ever seen evidence that she said something like that. But if anyone has evidence of it I am more than willing to looking at it, but as of now I have never seen anything to suggest that. (To be fair I haven’t looked into her that much yet). I am sorry I don’t have a better or longer answer for you.

HOW TO BUILD AN ARGUMENT REGARDING TEXT

We’ve all had those English assignments where we’re asked to read a text, usually a novel or play, and are then asked to make a point about the book and prove said point in a paper.

But how do you build an argument when your point isn’t necessarily one that has pro or con (for or against) sides? (Like pro-death penalty or anti-abortion.)  

It’s easier than you may think.

First off, find something to write about; a thesis (your “point”).

  • Try to find something that interests you. For example, if you have interest in women’s studies, perhaps you can write about female roles in Achebe’s Things Fall Apart or Miller’s play “The Crucible,” or whatever it is you’re reading. You can also do this if you’re anti-government or like learning about various cultures.  (or whatever!)
  • If you’re assigned a point or can’t find one you’re interested in, try to keep an open mind. Going in with a bad attitude will only make things harder, boring, and may show negatively in your grade. If you go in open-minded, you may even learning something you do find interesting.

Next is to figure out how to back your thesis with supporting points.

  • Okay, you may not be able to do the pro/con thing, but when trying to figure out how to support my point/thesis, it can be easier for me to think of things in a debate setting. By this I mean, I try to think of how someone could try to disprove me. Then I go about researching/re-reading so I can rebuff those “against” points.  So in other words, I go at things a little backwards.
  • When it comes to outside resources (resources outside your book), take advantage of any academic databases your school subscribes to (things like Ebscohost, MLA Bibliography, etc.) These databases are the best ways to find scholarly articles. If you can’t access these databases or if your searches are coming up dry, try Wikipedia. And yes, I know you’re yelling “Mary, I can’t use Wiki, it’s not a reputable source!” But you can look at the arthur’s sources. Those may good and well be scholarly and reputable articles. 
  • Also, don’t be afraid to ask your teacher or a research librarian for help. Your teachers may have their own sources (books, etc.) on whatever you’re reading, and librarians know all sorts of research strategies that us normal folks do not. Trust me, I know that doing your own online research can be socially easier than physically asking for help, but sometimes you just have to. I’ve botched some grades just because I was too afraid to ask for help.

Now, it’s time to begin the actual writing process.

  • Do whatever pre-writing process works best for you, even if that means just jumping head first into writing. For these sort of papers, I jot down my supporting points in the order I want to address them. I also bullet point my “evidence” under the corresponding point. Kind of like a really sloppy and lazy outline.
  • It’s good to think of your points/evidence/examples as a hierarchy. (THESIS>Main Supporting Points (usually three or four depending)>Evidence/Examples per Point)  
  • Make sure to include quotes! For literary based papers quotes and other forms of textual evidence are super important! (During your pre-writing you may want to note the page number that your quotes are located on.) It’s best to know what quotes you’re planning to use before you begin actually writing. Never just fit in a quote later, because your assignment calls for a certain number of quotes.
  • And what do those quotes need? CITATIONS. Also, remember to cite even when you’re just paraphrasing material. 
  • With keeping the above suggestions in mind, just go ahead with your usual writing and editing process.

***If you have issues with analyzing your book, I have a tip post here that may prove useful. 

Happy Writing!

supernachtkuchen  asked:

Dear Anwen- I am studying Welsh and some of the linguistic rules are slightly puzzling. Please explain double consonants and the pronunciations of the words in your post earlier. I think you only elaborated on one or two. I'd really appreciate the help. Thanks! -Kuchen-

First of all, let us establish the Welsh alphabet: 

a b c ch d dd e f ff g ng h i j l ll m n o p ph r rh s t th u w y

j is a new letter and was only recently added, but it is now largely considered an official part of Welsh orthography (my addition to this post describes briefly how we compensated for our heinous lack of j!). We still don’t have the letters k, v, x and z, because all of the phonetic properties of these letters in English are transcribed in other ways in Welsh.

For example, the Welsh letter f is pronounced the same as the English letter v (eg the Welsh word fi, meaning ‘me’, is pronounced ‘vee’, not ‘fee’. The letter ff is the equivalent of the English f, so the Welsh word ffrind, meaning ‘friend’, is pronounced ‘frind’), and the letter c in Welsh is always pronounced the same as the English k. In Welsh, it’s never a soft c, as in the word nice in English, but is always a hard one, as in cat. For x, we use cs (eg tacsi, meaning taxi, is pronounced, erm, ‘taxi’) and for z, which only occurs in words borrowed from English, we use s (eg sw, which means zoo and is pronounced ‘zoo’).

In terms of consonants and vowels, Welsh has 7 vowels (a, e, i, o, u, w, y) and the remainder are consonants. Whereas w and y are considered consonants in English and perform the function of a vowel in certain contexts (eg in the word sky), they are whole vowels in Welsh and never perform the function of a consonant. This means that the urban myth about Welsh being full of consonants is actually untrue - in fact, most words in Welsh contain a higher ratio of vowels to consonants than English words.

The reason for that urban myth is down in part to these Welsh vowels and in part to its digraphs (more on that below!). For example, if you were to apply English orthography to the Welsh word cwpwrdd (cupboard), you would assume that it consisted of 7 letters, all consonants. In fact, it consists of 6 letters (c, w, p, w, r, dd), 2 of which are vowels (both instances of w).

To be honest, I find it quite difficult to try and explain the pronunciation of Welsh words without using Welsh comparisons. Your best bet for learning about the pronunciations of Welsh words is to look at the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), because there are phonemes in Welsh which are not found anywhere else in any other language, and so I can’t provide you with an equivalent word in, say, English. 

I know it’s a massive no-no to use Wiki as a reliable source, but Wikipedia has a section on how IPA relates solely to Welsh, which is very helpful! As Welsh is a completely phonetic language, once you’ve learnt how to pronounce the alphabet, you’re halfway to being able to read any word. Then you have to look at things such as diphthongs (two adjacent vowel sounds in one syllable, eg my sister’s name Aneira - ‘ei’ is a diphthong, and is pronounced ‘ay’ rather than ‘eh-ih’ as it would be if you were to read the vowels separately) and diacritics (accents, circumflexes etc, eg, which means house - the circumflex on the y here indicates that it’s a long vowel, meaning that  is pronounced ‘tee’ rather than ‘tuh’, as it would be without the circumflex). 

Again, Wikipedia is an absolute babe on this front, and does give quite a lot of information on how Welsh is written compared to its pronunciation. 

By double consonants, I assumed that you meant the letters with two characters (eg ch, ll). Those are known as digraphs and function as one letter. For example, the word ddrwg, meaning bad, has 4 letters - dd, r, w and g. Quite a few of these digraphs, most notably ng and ph, are most commonly found in what is known in Welsh grammar as a mutation. This is an absolutely brain-melting rule in which prepositions or pronouns change the spelling of the noun. I don’t have the space, time or indeed the grammatical knowledge to give you a thorough lesson on this, but here’s a brief example:

yn = in
Caerdydd = Cardiff
yng Nghaerdydd = in Cardiff
yn Caerdydd = 100% incorrect, what are you doing

and here’s another one:

fy = my
tad = dad
fy nhad = my dad
fy tad = everyone’s laughing at you, just stop

In trying to find an article for you about that, I discovered that, once more, Wikipedia has come to the rescue, and has quite a comprehensive article on Welsh morphology, which also discusses pronouns and verb tenses and other things which honestly just give me flashbacks to my Welsh A Level exam. 

Honestly, there are so many grammatical nuances that are completely unique to Welsh that I cannot even begin to go into any of them here. All I can really say is that Welsh is a genuinely beautiful language - you all need to Google ‘cynghanedd’ right now - and there’s no other language on Earth that sounds quite like it. Hopefully, you’ve got some sort of basic idea from the info in this post and the shameful Wikipedia links provided as to how Welsh sounds. If not, here’s a genuinely kind of useful comparison - this is how Let It Go sounds in Welsh. You’re welc.

anonymous asked:

i'm curious, i'm not disagreeing in any way, what do you mean when you say wikipedia lies about ezidis? do you mean that editors put untruthful information? i just don't fully understand what you meant. sorry if this ask seems unclear, english isn't my first language.

Don’t worry I understand what you’re trying to ask! And that’s exactly what I meant, nor what’s written there neither many sources they used are trustworthy or correct. Just reading through what’s written there makes me cringe so much because I cannot believe there are still these misconceptions being spread around. I can tell they relied on sources which were barely created with or by Êzîdîs themselves but by European travelers or other writers who relied on third non-Êzîdî parties to know more about the religion. Many people unintentionally spread false information and I understand it doesn’t lie in their intention to harm the religion or their people, but this is why I urge everyone who wants to get to know the religion better to use sources where you are sure it was created by or with the help of Êzîdîs! ☺

nealc25  asked:

how fast do you read your philo books? how do you collect your material to essay writing? do you use any special sources from internet? And I mean some serious search engine or data collection, not just wikipedia or google... thanks! following you on tumblr and goodreads!

How reading works for me

Most tutors on my course work from photocopied A4 ‘reading packs’. We get them during the seminar each week, we read most of it in class and then anything we didn’t get to I read at home or on the way home. For the first essay of the module we are expected to use the reading packs for the majority of the material we quote. The second essay is usually more specific and can be individually set rather than having the same title for the whole class. In this case there’s an expectation that we read deeper into the subject and quote material from outside the reading packs. For one of our tutors there are no reading packs and I have to use the library on both their essays.

Finding Texts

I very rarely use Google or Wikipedia when researching for an essay. I will try and find a book on the subject in the library which is an outline and then use the bibliography of that to find some primary texts to read. As far as possible I try and quote from primary texts. The course outlines the tutors provide also have really good reading lists and if all else fails I just email them and ask.

Online Sources

Online I like to use the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy which is more in-depth and professionally-written than Wikipedia. For classical texts I always use the Perseus Digital Library if I can’t get a physical copy. The Marxist Internet Archive doesn’t exactly look like a reliable academic source but it has a really thorough archive or anything Marxist from Adorno to Zizek. Obviously there’s sites like the Gutenberg Project for anything out-of-copyright but the translations can be patchy and my university library usually has a copy of anything I might be looking for. I much prefer to work from a physical book when I can.

‘Reading’ Philosophy

How fast do I read philosophy books? I wouldn’t say I do much ‘reading’ in the traditional sense of reading page-after-page of the same book. I am a bit of a devotee of Mortimer Adler’s How to Read a Book which explains how best to tackle a philosophical tome (you can find a PDF of it without too much searching). Essentially his advice boils down to skimming the book, picking out the relevant parts, actively reading them and taking notes.

[I hope this was helpful or mildly interesting to you. Keep in touch, I always like to speak to other people who study philosophy

- Adam]

the-wordy-wonder-deactivated201  asked:

Seanan I'm sorry to be that person butbin that shark gif thing you reblogged that shark was suffocating, they need to move forward to breathe. Just thought you should know.

“Also please note that isn’t me angry with you about posting it at all, just thought you should know I promise I wasn’t trying to be mean sorry if I came across that way.” (From second ask.)

Actually, not necessarily.  From Wikipedia (not always the most accurate source, but the source I can C&P; I have also heard this from aquarium employees):

“All sharks need to keep water flowing over their gills in order for them to breathe, however not all species need to be moving to do this. Those that are able to breathe while not swimming breathe by using their spiracles to force water over their gills, thereby allowing them to extract oxygen from the water.”

Looking at the shark in that gif, its gills are continuing to move, which makes me think that it is breathing, either due to spiracle involvement or because the water is doing the moving for the shark, flowing over the gills and keeping it alive.  The shark is clearly not in distress, or the diver would be sans a hand.

(This does not mean the shark was not sedated, which can happen for research reasons, but it not always necessary with more docile shark breeds, which can allow for moments like the one in the picture.)

anonymous asked:

Hi! Do you know of any good websites or dictionaries which have old french expressions or idioms? I am trying to read a 19th Century letter, but there is an expression that I cannot understand in it and I haven't been able to find that expression online. Thanks.

http://www.expressio.fr/ Expressio is a really good, very exhaustive website with all kinds of idioms, old ones, recent ones, and all is well explained. I use it a lot of this blog. 
Wikipedia, or more precisely, wiktionnaire is also a great source for idioms with concrete examples. 
And last resort, ask me and I’ll do the research for you on French internet. 

With the new ‘White Princess’ series coming out I would like to remind everyone that historical fiction is fiction and Philippa Gregory is (the worst kind of) fiction.  This version of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII are (once again shitty) fiction and that means that they are not real and fiction.  If anything in this fiction interests you, feel free to consult some historical sources which are not fiction, wikipedia will do just fine in comparison to that woman’s fictional books.  I assure you that her fiction is indeed fiction despite her claims that it is historical and not fiction.  If you enjoy this fiction, that is ok, just remember it is fiction and don’t try to use this fiction as a source when talking to lovers of non fiction history.  This fiction is not the first fiction of its kind and it certainly will not be the last, with fiction events and fiction characters using the names of real non-fiction people and non-fiction places.  Did I mention that this mini series is fiction and the book it is based on is fiction?

anonymous asked:

Stop suggesting Greek gods to Wiccans!

1) Hellenism is not a closed religion and thus open for anyone to worship the Greek/Roman Deities

2) You are not the gate keeper of who can and cannot worship Greek/Roman Deities

Sparrow

While Hellenismos does have certain guidelines as a practice, there is no reason that a Wiccan can’t follow them as well as any self-identified Hellenist.  When any of us here provide a deity’s name, it is never with the intent that said deity should be completely removed from their cultural context and forced into a foreign one, which is the only thing I can imagine is your concern.

- mountain hound

As you can see in the second paragraph of this Wikipedia page (and drop all “But Wikipedia is unreliable!” antics please, because they try very hard to make sure they continue to stay a reliable source) it is stated that Wiccans can be polytheists as well as duotheists. Here’s the paragraph if for some reason the link doesn’t work:

Some Wiccans are polytheists, believing in many different deities taken from various ’pagan’ pantheons, while others would believe that, in the words of Dion Fortune, “all the Goddesses are one Goddess, and all the Gods one God”. Some Wiccans are both duotheistic and polytheistic, in that they honor diverse pagan deities while reserving their worship for the Wiccan Goddess and Horned God, whom they regard as the supreme deities. (This approach is not dissimilar to ancient pagan pantheons where one divine couple, a god and goddess, were seen as the supreme deities of an entire pantheon.) Some see divinity as having a real, external existence; others see the Goddesses and Gods as archetypes or thoughtforms within the collective consciousness.

So please, don’t assume that because it’s not something you do in your practice, that it’s not the “right” way to practice.

- nocturnal wix

The presidential limo


Ok I made a little research when I answered a question earlier and I thought I share my full research. I tried to identify the car which we’ve seen in the recent episode: the presidential limo. It might have something to do with the Fulcrum or maybe not. But my curiosity was greater and holy shit Raymond Reddington what have you done this time….

The biggest clue was the front of the car.

We can clearly see the shape of the front spoiler and even read the text. At first I couldn’t really read it I admit. But after I compared a few cars and models and after I read about the Continental series I was sure, the texts reads “Continental”.

So the model would be one of the Continental series. Of course there are many different models used by various presidents. But we can narrow the time of usage. It’s obviously an older model and at first sight I would have put it in the 70s. So I started a little google session and compared various models mainly presidential cars of course. We could clearly read the sign at the side of the car although I didn’t find any car with that kind of a sign. There is the seal of the president on the side, yes, but the seal isn’t as big as we saw it. Although that could just have been that big so that we could read it better. The biggest problem are the doors… The Continental series, in fact the Lincoln Continental series had some specific doors. They were hung its rear and not at the front the way we saw it in the episode. Those doors are called suicide doors, because they weren’t safe. The danger of the suicide door is the possibility of it opening in transit. A car occupant trying to catch the door by the handle to prevent its opening risks being jettisoned out of the car as the door is thrown open by the oncoming airflow. (source wikipedia) But the doors could have been switched any time in order to make the car safer.

Back to our car. I narrowed it down to a model during the 60s or 70s. In the 80s the Continental series were switched with a Cadillac Fleetwood so that’s out of the question. That leaves us with those presidents. In order:

John F. Kennedy (1961-63)
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-69)
Richard Nixon (1969-74)
Gerald Ford (1974-77)
Jimmy Carter (1977-81)
Ronald Reagan (1981-89)

So the easiest way to find the right car is to look at the models which were used by those presidents. They used various models of course during their term. But I searched the most prominent ones of each. Kennedy used a 1961 Lincoln Continental SS-100-X, Lyndon B. Johnson used a 1965 Lincoln Continental, Nixon used a 1969 Lincoln Continental and Ford, Reagan and Carter used a 1972 Lincoln Continental which was updated as times went by.

Let’s start from behind. The 1972 is out of the question. Look at this picture:

The front is nothing like we’ve seen at our car. So nope. And to rule out Kennedy as well…:

We won’t go down there. Nope we won’t. But we’re getting closer.

The picture above is the model which was used by Johnson. Please have a look at the doors. Those doors aren’t suicide doors. Like the doors on our car. But the front isn’t quite right yet. Well, look at the 69 one.

This one was used by Nixon. The design is almost identical. The problem is: it seems this is NOT a 1969 model but in fact a 67 to look like a 69 which was used by Johnson as well. But both cars do have “normal” doors. BUT I also have a problem with the back. Do you see this thing sticking out at the back (sorry I have no knowledge about cars. Don’t know what this supposed to be XD).

There is no such thing at our car. The back looks completely different. Actually I think this is a 69, perhaps 67 model. The label isn’t there either on the original car from Nixon, but there are 1969 Lincoln Continentals which in fact do have such a label. But we still have the problem with the back of the car. The front looks exactly like a 1969 model. But the back is in any way different from the car Nixon used. But is similar to the one of Johnson. So we have two options: the first one is the directors didn’t want to be too obvious by using a car with this significant back which would have easily helped to identify the car. So the first option is this is Nixons car. The second option would be that this is NOT his car but Johnsons. And in fact…. I do believe it’s the latter. The car we’ve seen is most definitely this type of car build as limousine:

We have the label, the front, the light and the back. This is a bingo. This series was built 1969, so it would speak FOR Nixon. But there is something left we didn’t examine yet: the song. We heard as you know “Beyond the Sea” from Bobby Darin. This song was there in this car. All those years so the president who used the car was listening to this. Bobby Darin was a good friend of Kennedy. After his election Johnson asked Bobby to do the same for him, so he performed for Johnson at his inaugural gala. So those two are tied together. Therefore I would assume that this is/was the car of Lyndon B. Johnson. Red took something from his car but we don’t know what it was. Kenyon hid the car all those years so perhaps he didn’t want that the car and it’s suitcase to be found. There is also a conspiracy…regarding Kennedy… involving Johnson….but I won’t go there either. Nope. Nope.    

anonymous asked:

I'm disappointed you've simplified the issue as "tinhatters driving Louis over the edge". I despise Larry and its shippers, but I'm still not ok with Louis' tweets, because it reeks of his heterosexual entitlement. His shirt /is/ connected to gay rights. Apple used that logo to honor the memory of Alan Turing. The article wasn't exploiting him, whatever that means. Louis has no right to throw a tantrum because someone speculates that he supports a gay man. (continued)

(continued) and I get the “he’s frustrated and defending his sexuality” argument. But frankly I’m not impressed. He’s gotten a taste of what we endure on a daily basis. The whole world demands we change who we are, and we’re often killed for it. Louis’ not having gayness forced on him. He’s straight. If anyone’s trying to “force” gayness on him, it’s straight fans who fetishize my existence. But he took it out on his lgbt fans. I will never trust straight people who treat (continued)

(continued) homosexuality as an accusation. So as “understandable” as his actions were, they are still not acceptable. What he said was extremely unprofessional and immature. And I hate that people are justifying and excusing him just to counter the Larries. It’s not homophobic to say you’re straight, but it is an extreme sign of privilege to make a huge deal of denying gay rumors (when they weren’t even rumors about his sexuality).

Okay, I’m going to respond to this on three points.

1. The original rainbow Apple logo has absolutely nothing to do with Alan Turing. That’s not my opinion; that’s stated fact by the designer of the logo, the company as a whole, and Steve Jobs. The rainbow Apple logo has no inherent connection to gay rights. Verifying this didn’t require any sort of google ninja skills; it’s referenced (with sources) in Alan Turing’s Wikipedia article, and if you google “Alan Turing Original Apple logo” it’s right there.  Take the time to fucking confirm claims like this, both in fandom and in real life. I’m sure many of the fans spreading this misinformation think it’s the truth, but it’s irresponsible to do so when all you’re relying on is something you read on tumblr with no source for that claim. Frankly, I think it’s gross as fuck that fandom is using this false connection to try to score some points in an internet argument like this. Have some goddamn respect for Alan Turing and what he suffered. Don’t fucking co-opt his life and struggle into a fandom war. That’s not what activism looks like; that’s fucking bullshit, plain and simple.

2. Louis is straight, but that doesn’t mean he can’t suffer from homophobia. The fact that people harass his girlfriend, his family and everyone in his life constantly about his identity is in fact HOMOPHOBIA AT WORK. You can’t be protected by your straight privilege if people are actively DENYING your right to identify as you choose. That’s the same argument that men make when they insist that they’re being persecuted by feminism when they can’t express their emotions, or gain respect by being anything other than a perfect display of masculinity, when in reality that’s how misogyny and sexism fucks up men. It’s the same goddamn root cause. And how fucking petty do you have to be to be GLAD that Louis’s “gotten a taste” of what it feels like to be marginalized? Leaving aside the fact that he’s dealt with far more bullshit than just a taste, what do we gain from someone else dealing with that sort of thing? Is being harassed about his identity supposed to INCREASE his desire to speak up for gay rights? Because that’s flawed logic, at best. 

3. The article didn’t say that he was gay, it’s true. It simply falsely stated that he wore a shirt in support of gay rights, and COINCIDENTALLY mentioned that Harry said a thing last week that made people publicly speculate about his sexual orientation yet again. It’s TOTALLY RANDOM that Harry happens to be the person that Louis has been rumored to be in a secret gay relationship with for almost four years, and OBVIOUSLY that writer had no desire to attract readers who would put two and two together and come up with HARRY AND LOUIS ARE FINALLY COMING OUT!!!!! 

When someone writes an article like that about a person who has been harassed about their identity for years, it’s explicitly exploiting the rumors surrounding their identity for hits, aka advertising money. That’s the definition of exploitation. It’s as simple as that.

Louis and his girlfriend and his family and everyone else in his life have been dealing with this bullshit for over three years, and in that time he’s spoken out about it TWICE. Every other time he’s had any engagement with the topic of gay fans or gay people in general he has been absolutely lovely. This has nothing to fucking do with whether he supports lgbtq fans. And as I’ve said before, FUCKING RIGHT he’s defensive about this shit. You try dealing with people picking apart your life every fucking day for literally YEARS, and if you only get mad publicly TWICE in that time then you deserve a goddamn medal. 

There’s this idea, not just for Louis but for all of the boys and famous people in general, that there’s a right way to handle every situation, and that if they just consulted the handbook about how to properly respond to yet another article trolling for tinhatter clicks or whatever, then no one would get mad at them and everyone would be happy. And that’s such fucking bullshit. None of us gets a handbook like that in life, EVERYONE fucks up from time to time, but most importantly of all: you cannot make everyone happy, and you can’t plan for everything. I can’t, and you can’t, and famous people certainly can’t. Just like Louis couldn’t control how a fucking reputable newspaper in the UK would decide to spin his decision to be a retro hipster and wear that t-shirt. People aren’t perfect, and people fuck up, and people have wildly different opinions on what being ‘perfect’ would even fucking mean. Expecting people to only say and do things that are unimpeachable by all standards isn’t just impossible, it’s fucking toxic. No one can fucking live like that, not you and not me and not Louis Tomlinson. And expecting people to be able to anticipate everything and blaming them when they don’t and never giving them the benefit of the doubt or actually looking at the overall context for what they say and do is ridiculous. That’s why I don’t have a problem with what he said. It has nothing to do with scoring points against Larries; I could give a fuck what they think. But I’m not going to pretend to be offended by Louis saying that a rubbish article was rubbish, and if the worst thing that happens to me as a queer person on a random Monday is that a straight celebrity says that he’s straight after being badgered about it for ages, I think I’ll survive. 

anonymous asked:

Hey Laura! I'm looking to start learning Japanese but I have no idea where to start. Do you have any book or website recommendations?

Hello!

Hmmmmmmmm starting is the hardest part if you’re doing it on your own. I suggest starting by memorizing the syllabic scripts, hiragana and katakana.

To actually learn, if you already had the basics I’d simply recommend a book, but as you’re 100% a beginner I suggest you use a video course. You can probably find some on YouTube, like this one. Try finding ones with Japanese teachers so that the pronunciation you hear is 100% native!

For other beginner resources I recommend checking NHK World lessons here

I also recommend this wonderful pdf, An Introduction to Japanese - Syntax, Grammar & Language. This has kana (hiragana and katakana) examples, but it’s mainly text and theory, so you might end up yawning and preferring something more interactive.

Good luck!!

EDIT: here are the kanas.

Hiragana. Image source: wikipedia

Katakana. Image source: wikipedia.

merlynamell  asked:

I have some problems and I though you could maybe help me. I have to write this research essay for school as a practice and I have problems finding sources. I'd like to find some research sexism in science fiction or something related to that. The problem is that I need to use sources that are really good, like real articles (blog posts won't do) I have problems finding them. And I though if you could help me find some. I'd be really grateful if you could help. ^^

Awesome! You were probably hoping I could give you links to specific articles, but unfortunately, I can’t. What I can do is give you some tips and general advice to make your research paper a success.

First, your topic is a little broad. It helps, especially if you’re doing this essay for practice at school, to have a specific question to focus on. Do you want to focus on contemporary science fiction? Do you want to look at sexism within fan communities? Do you want to analyze gender roles and representations within a particular TV show/movie/podcast/book/short story? Do you want to talk about the awesomeness of Mary Shelly and how she essentially created the genre?

Once you have a narrower topic, it’s actually easier to find good sources (Usually, but not always. I’ll admit I’ve actually refreshed Google on many frustrated nights hoping something would just magically show up on the second try). It looks like you need academic sources, like from journals or books. I’m currently attending a university here in the US, so my school’s library provides me a lot of books and access to lots of academic databases. I would talk to someone at your school or even a local librarian, since they oftentimes can tell you how to access these academic databases. I would also check out scholar.google.com, which lets you search books and academic journals.

Second, even though you’ve probably been told not to cite blogs or sources like Wikipedia, I would still definitely use them as part of your research. Wikipedia is good at giving you a general idea about a particular topic; if you’d like to look at something more in depth or cite something specific, Wikipedia usually has good citations that you can look up. In addition, many blogs usually have a resources or citations page that you can use.

If you want something specific to Doctor Who, let me know and I can give you a list of books I’ve used. And I’ll work on setting up a resources page of my own so that it is easy for future readers to find.

I hope this helps, good luck!

Stop writing stupid shit in Natasha and Elise’s Wikipedia pages! How old are you guys, seriously? Though Wikipedia is not at all a reliable source for any kind of information (thanks to ppl who write shit like ‘creampuff assassin’ as someone’s occupation) People do use Wikipedia regardless, to learn more about celebrities. Plus, Natasha had to use her Wiki to verify being an actor to get across the US border, so please be respectful and don’t add false or idiotic things not only to their pages, but to anyone’s page for that matter.