Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh really? I guess my industry is much different than yours then ... which I just completed 35 years at the same company and was a project manager for many of those years.
Ok, so I'm a half hour into the movie that Don is so adamant people watch, and I have to say that so far, I'm unimpressed. I at least expected to see some meat, but all we're getting is fluff. Lots of buzzwords, people who are pretending to be authoritative but aren't, assumptions, speculation and confirmation bias in the film, but no actual facts or anything resembling supporting evidence.
I'm going to give it about ten more minutes. If they don't show me SOMETHING of value before then, I'm giving up. This is even worse than the first movie, but then sequels usually are.
Sorry Don, but your movie just plain sucks.
Oh, but at least someone taught the viewers how hail is formed! Yay for REAL science! (the only shred to be found in the movie so far).
I'll give the filmmaker credit for one thing - he sure can put together a film that gets the juices flowing in a certain type of person. That type of person isn't sane, but hey - their dollars spend just as well as anyone else's, right?
Film fail, Don. Write that guy a letter and suggest that he use more verifiable data for his next piece, instead of using vague references to "tests" and whatnot that may or may not have ever actually been performed. Show us the methodology used to administer those tests. Show us the results of those tests. Tell him to show us that he understands and respects the scientific method, 'cuz what he's produced in this film (and the last one, for that matter) is nothing short of laughable.
Now, is there an individual point made in the first forty minutes of the film that you'd like me to address? Don't inundate me with links - you wanted to talk about the movie, so let's talk. Keep it to the content of the film, and within the first forty minutes, and I'll be happy to take you on. Let's go.
I'll give the filmmaker credit for one thing - he sure can put together a film that gets the juices flowing in a certain type of person. That type of person isn't sane, but hey - their dollars spend just as well as anyone else's, right?
Film fail, Don. Write that guy a letter and suggest that he use more verifiable data for his next piece, instead of using vague references to "tests" and whatnot that may or may not have ever actually been performed. Show us the methodology used to administer those tests. Show us the results of those tests. Tell him to show us that he understands and respects the scientific method, 'cuz what he's produced in this film (and the last one, for that matter) is nothing short of laughable.
Now, is there an individual point made in the first forty minutes of the film that you'd like me to address? Don't inundate me with links - you wanted to talk about the movie, so let's talk. Keep it to the content of the film, and within the first forty minutes, and I'll be happy to take you on. Let's go.
I'm not surprised from your assessment. I have you pegged now.
I'm not surprised from your assessment. I have you pegged now.
Uh-O another person who doesn't agree with you and gets on your ignore list now huh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
