Range_This11

Tree of Life. I fell asleep. I understood it from the get go and was really bored by it. It was too fast paced for a slow movie, if that makes any sense.

And that is why I love the field of history so much, there is something for every type of personality in it :thumbsup:

How can you dislike his films? They're all amazing. D: I kind of agree with Range This. I didn't dislike either film, but I wouldn't say they were amazing. I'd give them a solid 7/10, as they didn't do anything wrong, but I do find them incredibly over-hyped. Totally agree, they weren't awful but they weren't amazing. I'll say what I have before. Keep in mind I am a complete movie snob :P I strongly believe Nolan focuses too much on developing the plot and in the case of Inception, tries to go too far in creating a "crazy" story. He fails to inject any of his characters or his plot with real human emotions. His movies are aesthetically pleasing and very often entertaining, but I always walk out of the theatre thinking "Okay, so what?" There's nothing deeper than the surface in his films in my very snobbish opinion.

Oh great, another Christopher Nolan film I will dislike but apparently everyone in America will love. :mellow:

I completely disagree, I think the academic historians and the intellectual writers are the ones pushing the field forward. I know a lot of people see it as playing with your self intellectually. Most of those people (in my experiences) just don't understand it. The "coolness" of history is okay for middle schoolers, but history is also about gaining critical reasoning skills, analytical skills, and problem solving skills. Academic history provides this. Studying the nuts and bolts of history--the battles, the dates, the figures--is fine and dandy, but there are some of us who want to draw larger conclusions from these events. Also, if you know your historiography well enough, you'd know that public history is itself a born from a very long tradition of academic history. My point here is that some historians (myself included) enjoy pondering, thinking, and hypothesizing about the abstract. This is how we perceive the world. This is how we view history as well. As I said before, the nuts and bolts of history is fine for those whose appetite is satiated by that sort of thing, but there are many of us who desire to move beyond that :) Also, a historian that does not know the context of the subject he/she is writing about is simply a bad historian, not an academic one. An academic historian should provide an in depth analysis and also be able to weave in the context in which the specific occurs.

You should start your own cooking show, rather TIF should have its own cooking show :wink:

Totally agree, the cracker shell is so much better. I'm a Combos fiend.

Or I could just drink 24/7 for months and get paid for it. Which sounds better? let's be honest here Are you serious? I'm sorry but that is pathetic and taking advantage of the system.

You can make more than that at a pretty low paying job.

Packers are giving me a [bleep]ing aneurism right now.

See I always preferred the Last Crusade over the rest of them.

For some reason it feels like it's 2am, but it's only 10pm. I don't understand this internal confusion :???:

If it was as simple as that, I would have no problem doing it. Unfortunately, the education department here and state/national standards severely limit the content you can teach. I'm not interested in fighting to teach something while risking my job when I could just go to school longer, learn more, and land a better job with more freedom to teach and research what I want.

A friend of mine knows Latin so he can study ancient Rome better. That language baffles me.

I started off wanting to do something similar, but realized the history taught at the secondary education level is pathetic (at least here in America). I also don't want to teach students that aren't interested in the subject matter. I'd rather have a professorial position where the students actually give two shits. I agree with you that history at the secondary education level is quite boring, but if you're at all interested in government, that is a class that I have seen some excellent teachers for, to the point that, despite it being a required class, kids really enjoy it. Some courses offer an interesting overview of the U.S. government, but rarely provide any critique of it, which is my main problem with the field at the secondary level anyways. There's never any critique, it's just "here's the way things are."

I started off wanting to do something similar, but realized the history taught at the secondary education level is pathetic (at least here in America). I also don't want to teach students that aren't interested in the subject matter. I'd rather have a professorial position where the students actually give two shits.

I used to rock the long hair thing, then I realized it's just sloppy looking. Short hair is easier to take care of and looks a lot better. There are more women who like short hair than long hair anyways. Might as well increase my chances, right? :P

Don't make me post my intellectual history prompts. They make calculus seem like a breeze ;-)

Also, I think this topic title is pretty misleading.

And thus we find one of the largest problems of basing structural government on a binding document like the U.S. Constitution: interpretation.

No doubt! :thumbsup:

Anyone still play ranked Halo 3? I'm looking for some teammates. I usually have about 2 or 3 people on one screen in my apt.

I've got my music theory final at 10:15 and I've been up all night...not studying for it :razz:

Moment of Truth by Gang Starr. F'n classic.