Poll Suggestion: IMDb Poll Board's Most Significant Moments in 2022 - A Retrospective

@mariojacobs​ 

Thank you, Mario. I'll instantly put Meat Loaf on the list for you. I'm not sure how the 14th season of RuPaul's Drag Race was a world event, but I'll take it. Time for acceptance. ;)

@mariojacobs​ 

I guess in the LGBTQ+ community around the world it was a world event, somehow. Nobody  should underestimate how many people are queer. Now that the world is more open for it, they can show up. That's good. At least better than oppressing someone for what he/she/* really is. We already know that doesn't work. Oppression works like an intelligence- and emotional brake. It avoids the assessment of human reality itself. It avoids enlightment, clearance and at last humanity. So Merry Christmas to all queer people and also the other people who are still not ready to understand them. Be kind, be gentle, reach a hand. Christmas is here! :D

Just to note, depending on the context of phrasing, not everybody who is queer is necessarily part of the LGBTQ+ community. A lot of people outside the Anglosphere may not have even seen or heard such a term being used.

@TheOldJalapenoman​ 

I've put both on the list, because they are significant happenings this year. I freshed your words a little up about the truck protests in Canada for being neutral. Same for Brittney Griner. Her hash oil was legaly gained by medicational prescription. She only missed to clear up the situation in Russia beforehand. That she is a lesbian has no need to point it out in that connection. Thank you for suggesting. Do you still have an IMDB account? I'd like to link your profile like the other user's. Thank you in advance.

@Breumaster​ I am still Jalapenoman on IMDB.  I use that to vote daily and it still has all of my old polls.  When I tried to sign up for this, it wouldnt let me use that name or password, so I had to create something new.

P.S.  Griner is a loathsome pond scum sucking dirtbag who still belongs in jail.  Note that the crimes she was accused of kept getting smaller as time went on.  The original stories reported her having both heroin and marijuana and the type and amounts were reduced in each subsequent news story and eventually became prescriptions.  

@TheOldJalapenoman​ 

Can you please give me the link for your old user profile?

@Breumaster​ When my son is out of bed and active, he can help me do this.

@TheOldJalapenoman​ 

Thank you, Jalapenoman. :D

And thank you to your son, also. :D

@Breumaster​ 

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur6698614/?ref_=nv_usr_prof_2

@TheOldJalapenoman​ 

Thank you. :D

In the name of being informative, I ought to point out that Paul Whelan was never a United States soldier. He is a United States marine who didn't entirely serve with honor and inasmuch was fired from the Corps after being hauled before a court martial and found guilty of crime related in some way to larceny. A lot of right wing news outlets purposely fail to acknowledge Whelan's history of unpardoned misconduct (in lieu often pretending that he is some kind of war hero, which he may very well be but whereby there is no evidence to confirm).

I shall further point out that in the modern organization of the military way, no soldier is a marine, and no marine is a soldier. One key distinction is that marines are required to be held to an inflexible and much higher standard than soldiers. In fact, the United States army (comprised of United States soldiers) is the only major branch of the United States military that would ever (but only under catastrophic very dire circumstances) recruit and train folks who don't wish to serve, cannot read/write, have psychological disorders or were proved to have committed heinous crimes, as long as they will obey orders, even at the thread of harsh punishment. This is part of why there is government-limiting provision in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States as it pertains to the maintenance of a standing army. Alas, the United States government has had along history of failing to properly restrict itself.

With regards to the following remark:

The original stories reported her having both heroin and marijuana and the type and amounts were reduced in each subsequent news story and eventually became prescriptions. 

For centuries, it hasn't been unusual for initial news stories to contain plenty of blatant lies, intended to spice things up in order to garner attention and boost viewership, or simply intended to advance a civil/political/social agenda. We have to be careful about believing everything media outlets, the fourth estate, tell us. Similar is the case with publications from government agencies, legislative committees and even, in some cases, sadly universities.

@Breumaster​ You asked for only two each, but I can give you a few more if needed:

The Republicans retake the House of Representatives, even though there was again voter fraud in many states (most notably in Arizona)

NIL and the Transfer Portal significantly change the look of college athletics (most significantly in football)

Will Smith slaps the host at the Oscars ceremony

All of the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders attend a hot tub party at Jalapenoman's house which becomes a drunken orgy of complete debauchery (okay, maybe this one didn't really happen).

Roe vs Wade is overturned based on the fact that the Supreme Court didn't have the power to rule on this in the first place as it is not among their enumerated powers in the United States Constitution.  Democrats try to turn what was obviously a legal issue into a women's rights issue and make this their main focus in the midterm elections.

@TheOldJalapenoman​ 

I'm sure other users will pick up some of your points. If there is no further input, I'm willing to change the options to 3 per user. Then I'd take your Will Smith option. But let's see how it developes. If it doesn't go live until February first, it's too late for the whole subject.

@TheOldJalapenoman​ 

Hi, Jalapenoman.

I have expanded the rules to three picks per user and allowed myself to name the Oscar-smack scene your third pick, because for the other points I can find no images. I hope that's ok for you.

@Breumaster​ I am okay with that... but I do have a problem with the way you phrased the whole Griner thing.  You have a drug trafficker come accross as an innocent victim.  When she was first arrested, she had both heroin and marijuana on her.  Subsequent stories in the media over time reduced the amount of drugs and also invented the prescription story.  Wrong answer.  She was smuggling drugs.  She belongs in jail.  She should still be there.  THe woman is an anti-American who regularly protests against the flag and the national anthem, yet cried for the country and government to save her when she was caught.  This makes her a hypocrit.  

I find her to be a completely loathsome individual and have no sympathies for her or her self imposed plight.

@Breumaster​ Chris Rock's jokes were partially about the clothes that his wife was wearing.

@TheOldJalapenoman​ 

Thank you for being of with the Smith/Rock subject. I just remember that it was about the hair of Smith' wife, which is part of her illness. That's what has been left of the tragedy in my mind. I guess it's the same for many other people around the world.

About Griner: Even the English Wikipedia doesn't report about heroin. Maybe there are fake news about that part of the story? 

@Breumaster​ It may be better to keep a neutral tone in this and all entries.

May I suggest:

"The big controversy about the sportswoman Brittney Griner happened. She was jailed for illegal drug possession and smuggling in Russia and was bailed out by a prisoner exchange with Viktor But, a dubious weapon dealer, who was formerly portrayed by Nicholas Cage in the movie parable Lord of War (2005)."

A whole bunch of misinformation and quite frankly disinformation have been floating around concerning the arrest of and charges brought against Brittney Griner, her subsequent trial, plea and conviction. For one, the United States Department of State, under the Joe Biden administration, blatantly lied about Griner being wrongfully detained, or at the very least the department purposely failed to explain how Russian law enforcement violated the law in the very process of uncovering evidence of her offense against Russia, for use against her in a court of law. This, combined with the lies produced by previous several administrations (going back several decades), is why nobody can treat any statements made by state department as the most accurate, yet unfortunately most mainstream media outlets will either parrot the government or just pretend like they didn't even observe that a lie was even told.

As I understand it, Brittney Griner was convicted of violating one of the provisions of article 228 (статья 228) of the criminal code (уголовный кодекс) of the Russian Federation. The statute in question actually pertains more to theft of contraband than possession alone (as distinguished from the subsequent article within the same criminal code), so seemingly Griner was quite possibly tricked into confessing to not being the otherwise rightful owner of the contraband she claims to have inadvertently smuggled into Russia. Trying to gather information about the details of the legal process to which Griner was subjected has been very challenging for me, especially considering how I'm not very familiar with any legal system outside of the United States, and I just barely know how to gather details about cases therein. Most of the public statements seem to made by the woman who as a defense attorney/advocate represented Griner at court. The contraband in question, by the way, was supposedly only the cannabidiol (CBD) residue found in vaporizer (vape) cartridges, not tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), let alone a deadly medicine like heroin.

The phrasing I would recommend be used is as follows, expressed in IMDb bulletin board markup:

The controversy concerning American professional athlete [link=nm5330249] happened. She was held in Russian federal custody for contraband smuggling, then later released via a prisoner exchange between the governments of Russia and the United States, whereby [link=nm5085123], a dubious Russian arms dealer, who had been portrayed by [link=nm0000115] in the movie parable [link=tt0399295]Lord of War[/link], was released from the United States federal custody. Both Griner and Bout had been found guilty of the offenses of which they were accused, and appeal of conviction was denied for both of them.

@Pencho15​ 

Ok, I did so. Thank you, Pencho. :D

@jeorj_euler​ 

I'll keep it more neutral like Pencho suggested. It'll be the best. So there is more space for interpretation for everyone.

Yo, Breumaster! With all due respect, are you even paying attention? What I suggested in terms of the wording is just as neutral as what Pencho proposed, and it should be obvious that I merely reworded what he wrote to be more detailed. What the fuck constitutes neutral anyway? We're using the word "dubious" to describe Viktor Bout. That's clearly Western bias, albeit subtle. You ought to know how problematic it is to even touch anything dealing nations at war right now.

@jeorj_euler​ 

I pay attention. I just don't answere a full meter of text. Western bias? Com'on. I've chosen Pencho's text, because it's exact enough to the point, but also short. It also avoids all kinds of opinion-making. If you don't think is Bout "dubious", I can delete the word. It still contains the words "big controversy" in the beginning of the option, which should be hint enough, that not all of the people were amused about.

Okay, Breumaster. You ought to have attributed exactness and being to the point, in the first place. Instead you chose to insult me.  What do you mean by "opinion-making"? Nothing in the variant proposed by me is opinionated. Why do you insist that one way of wording is more or less opinionated than the other? Regardless of the reason, it is insulting. Maybe you have something against hyperlinking that you've not admitted? I don't know. Is the word "whereby" strange and alien to you? I wish I knew.

The controversy concerning American professional athlete [link=nm5330249] happened. She was held in Russian federal custody for contraband smuggling, then later released via a prisoner exchange between the governments of Russia and the United States, whereby [link=nm5085123], a dubious Russian arms dealer, who had been portrayed by [link=nm0000115] in the movie parable [link=tt0399295]Lord of War[/link], was released from the United States federal custody. Both Griner and Bout had been found guilty of the offenses of which they were accused, and appeal of conviction was denied for both of them.

Above, I've removed the adjective "big" being attached to the noun "controversy". What is the problem what that? Seems to me that treating the situation as "big" is like inflating the level of saltiness that folks may have felt over the situation, when most folks probably don't care. I've replaced "drug" with "contraband". Is that too euphemistic or something? I've provided clarification on the imprisoning bodies involved with the prisoner swap. I would consider it one-sided, to mention only one of the governments. Wouldn't everybody else? If the variant put forth by me is simply harder to read, then just state so, instead of denouncing it as non-neutral or opinion-making.

I don't know whether or not Bout is factually dubious, only that Western powers and the media outlets licensed thereunder have propagated all kinds of accusations against him, perhaps on account of his past affiliation with the Soviet government, a regime even Russians saw as problematic. He was afforded some level of due process of law prior to being sentenced, so that is a fact which can assist the description of him being dubious. Was it a fair trail? I've no idea. A fair trial is one in which all parties involved have access to the same evidence and are able to cross-examine witnesses. Does the United States government always obey the Constitution of the United States? Not always certainly.

@jeorj_euler​ 

Sorry? I didn't get how I insulted you. I only avoid to get the discussion too political. As we agreed before, we shouldn't do that. I know the subject is a pool for some people who want to start an opulent hic-hack discussion. But that isn't what it's thought to be. Maybe I should skip it. It was a good try from Pencho to get back to the roots, but I notice that calming down isn't really wanted. So sorry if you feel insulted. That wasn't my intention.

As I already explained, Breumaster, the following passage is either non-neutral nor opinionated:

The controversy concerning American professional athlete [link=nm5330249] happened. She was held in Russian federal custody for contraband smuggling, then later released via a prisoner exchange between the governments of Russia and the United States, whereby [link=nm5085123], a dubious Russian arms dealer, who had been portrayed by [link=nm0000115] in the movie parable [link=tt0399295]Lord of War[/link], was released from the United States federal custody. Both Griner and Bout had been found guilty of the offenses of which they were accused, and appeal of conviction was denied for both of them.

The fact that you've effectively described it as non-neutral and opinionated is an insult to me, because neither of those things is true. Or am I mistaken? If so, then how? How is it that you don't understand what I'm trying to convey to you? Now, you're trying to suggest that deescalation failed. What? Do you know what gaslighting is? The way to deescalation is candor rather than what could be described as "playing games".

I understand that your command of the English language may not be perfect, perhaps nobody's is, Breumaster, but clearly the "command" is sufficient as not to warrant going easy on you for any lack of understanding that you may have.

The only one who really was insulted was Britney Griner. May I give you a probe of Jalapenoman's rant?:

"P.S.  Griner is a loathsome pond scum sucking dirtbag ...". That's an insult!

Your way to feel insulted seems for me a little primrose-like. I didn't write anything you should feel insulted about. If I tell you my motives about how I changed the options text, you push them away. That's more like gaslightning. If I don't answere like you want me to, you referr to my language.

@Breumaster​ "P.S.  Griner is a loathsome pond scum sucking dirtbag ...". That's an insult!"

No, that is a description of a loathsome, immoral, sub-human, degenerate, sinful, hypocritical, pond scum sucking dirtbag!!!!!!!

@Breumaster​ @jeorj_euler

Maybe we should stop it here. There was a missunderstanding and neither of you wanted to offend the other, so just forgive each other for any unintended affront and forget about anything else.

Breu, Jeorj text is quite allright if you want to use it instead of mine, I only removed some text from the original version, but since English is not my first language there is surely ways to improve mine and his suggestion is valid.

Jeorj, thanks for working on my text to make it better. 

@Pencho15​ 

Under this circumstances I have the impression that there are two users working together to kill the idea, so I kill the idea, Anyone else can try if he/she/* wants to do it. Btw.: Who says that TheOldJalapenoman really had strokes? I can't proofe that. I could also tell I had a stroke and then go on and rant about other people. Everybody could.

I quit.

Love to my buddies, but I'm not here for things like that. My time is too worthy for that. Ciao!

Pencho15, you wrote:

Maybe we should stop it here. There was a misunderstanding and neither of you wanted to offend the other, so just forgive each other for any unintended affront and forget about anything else.

Your "maybe" advice is good, but I'm not sure that I'm done here yet, seeing as how the level of distrust between Breumaster and me seems to have increased. In addition, Breumaster has now expressed distrust toward TheOldJalapenoman. Even if I thought the same thing about the ol' guy's situation, I would probably not indicate so on this forum. Indeed an unintentional misunderstanding has occurred. The problem is that we're having trouble reconciling the apparent misunderstanding. Why is there a misunderstanding? I've gotten the impression that some people have no desire to understand certain things. Well, they don't necessarily have to, let alone try, in order to live a healthily. Hell, there are probably some things that even I don't care to understand, but I don't mind being questioned about the level of my lack of care.

Breumaster, you wrote:

The only one who really was insulted was Britney Griner. May I give you a probe of Jalapenoman's rant?:

Well, I can understand that there is a distinction between spiteful intentional insults (directed to a public figure who isn't and like won't ever be present here to provide feedback) and an unintentional insult like the one I've perceived based upon the way you chose to describe the following passage I had written (as derived from what Pencho15 had written):

The controversy concerning American professional athlete [link=nm5330249] happened. She was held in Russian federal custody for contraband smuggling, then later released via a prisoner exchange between the governments of Russia and the United States, whereby [link=nm5085123], a dubious Russian arms dealer, who had been portrayed by [link=nm0000115] in the movie parable [link=tt0399295]Lord of War[/link], was released from the United States federal custody. Both Griner and Bout had been found guilty of the offenses of which they were accused, and appeal of conviction was denied for both of them.

You also wrote:

If I tell you my motives about how I changed the options text, you push them away.

Have I done that to you before? In what way am I doing such a thing right now? The only questionable claims you've made about the wording I suggested is that the wording lacks neutrality and is "opinion-making" (as you've prefaced it), and I told you that I don't understand how that is the case. I don't believe I explicitly inquired about your motives. I brought up gaslighting, because it may be minutely possible for folks to do it without realizing. The point is that I'm genuinely confused as to how the wording I suggested is non-neutral or opinionated. Why would you make such claims if you're not yourself confused? So, now, I'm questioning your motives. See?

If I don't answer like you want me to, you refer to my language.

I have not seen it that way. I bring up comprehension of the English language only because the existence of misunderstanding, which I worry could be exacerbated across the translation process. Well, I suppose it is good that you criticize my choice to speculate about problems arising from the language barrier, so I will avoid mentioning it in the future with regards to you. I just don't understand why I'm being misunderstood! Ha!

@Pencho15​ 

Hi, Pencho.

Added da Silva. But got no image for the Iranian protests. Can you help me with it?

@Breumaster​ I don't know of there is a picture of the protests, but this one could work as a representation: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1267552/mediaviewer/rm2150795776/

Besides showing Iranian women behind bars, which is kind of symbolic, the actress is Taraneh Alidoosti, who has been arrested for complaining against their goverment and the repression.

@Pencho15​ 

Thank you, Pencho. I've put your suggestion on the list. I guess, I'll raise it to three per user to gain more options.

Interesting that the retirement of the most prominent of the third generation (3G/UMTS/HSPA) cellular communications networks in the United States isn't really considered a significant event.