「CATEGORIES」を含む日記

■Best Dating App Opening Lines

Let’s face it: starting a conversation on a dating app can feel terrifying. You see someone you’re interested in, you type out a message, and then… you delete it. “Is this too boring?” “Will they even respond?” “What if I sound awkward?”

We’ve all been there. That first message can make or break your chances of connecting with someone amazing. But here’s the good news: you don’t have to overthink it. With the right opening line, you can spark a conversation that feels natural, fun, and meaningful.

At MixerDates, we believe that every great connection starts with a great conversation. That’s why we’ve put together this guide to help you craft the best dating app opening lines—ones that stand out, show your personality, and lead to real connections. Ready to ditch the “hey” and start making an impact? Let’s dive in!

[:contents]

Why Your First Message Matters

Before we get into the best opening lines, let’s talk about why your first message is so important.

1. First Impressions Count

Your opening line is your chance to make a great first impression. It’s the gateway to a conversation that could lead to something special. A thoughtful, creative message shows that you’re genuinely interested—not just swiping mindlessly.

2. It Sets the Tone

Your first message sets the tone for the entire conversation. A boring or generic opener might lead to a dull chat, while a fun or intriguing one can spark excitement and curiosity.

3. It Shows Effort

Let’s be real: everyone loves feeling special. When you put effort into your opening line, it shows that you care enough to stand out. And on MixerDates, where we value authenticity and positivity, that effort goes a long way.

The Best Dating App Opening Lines (And Why They Work)

Now, let’s get to the good stuff—the best dating app opening lines that actually work. These are divided into categories to suit different personalities and situations.

1. The Playful Opener

• Example: “If you were a vegetable, you’d be a cute-cumber. So, what’s your favorite veggie?”

• Why It Works: Humor is a universal icebreaker. It shows you’re fun and don’t take yourself too seriously.

2. The Compliment Opener

• Example: “I have to say, your smile is contagious. What’s the story behind it?”

• Why It Works: Compliments make people feel good, especially when they’re specific and genuine.

3. The Question Opener

• Example: “If you could teleport anywhere right now, where would you go and why?”

• Why It Works: Questions encourage engagement and give the other person something interesting to respond to.

4. The Shared Interest Opener

• Example: “I noticed you love hiking too! What’s the most breathtaking trail you’ve ever been on?”

• Why It Works: It shows you’ve paid attention to their profile and creates an instant connection over shared interests.

5. The Bold Opener

• Example: “I’ll be honest—I swiped right because you seem like someone who’d make a great partner in crime. What’s the most adventurous thing you’ve ever done?”

• Why It Works: Confidence is attractive, and this type of opener shows you’re not afraid to be bold.

6. The Quirky Opener

• Example: “Quick: pineapple on pizza—yes or no? This could determine our compatibility.”

• Why It Works: Quirky openers are memorable and show off your unique personality.

Tips for Crafting Your Own Opening Lines

While the examples above are great starting points, the best opening lines are the ones that feel authentic to you. Here are some tips to help you craft your own:

1. Personalize It

Reference something from their profile—a photo, a hobby, or a shared interest. It shows you’re paying attention and not just copying and pasting.

2. Keep It Light and Fun

Avoid heavy or overly serious topics right off the bat. Keep the tone light and playful to make the conversation enjoyable.

3. Be Yourself

Don’t try to be someone you’re not. If you’re naturally funny, lean into that. If you’re more thoughtful, go for a sincere compliment or question.

4. Avoid Clichés

“Hey” or “What’s up?” might be easy, but they’re also forgettable. Put in a little effort to stand out.

5. End with a Question

This gives the other person an easy way to respond and keeps the conversation flowing.

Why MixerDates is the Perfect Place to Practice Your Opening Lines

At MixerDates, we’re all about creating a positive, inclusive space where you can feel comfortable being yourself. Here’s why our platform is the best place to put these opening lines into practice:

1. A Welcoming Community

We welcome everyone, no matter who you are or who you love. Our platform is designed to be a safe space where you can connect with like-minded people.

2. Profiles That Spark Conversations

Our users create detailed profiles that make it easy to find shared interests and craft personalized opening lines.

3. A Focus on Authenticity

We encourage our community to be genuine and kind, so you can feel confident starting conversations without fear of judgment or rejection.

4. Success Stories

Don’t just take our word for it—here’s what one of our users had to say:

“I met my partner on MixerDates, and it all started with a simple message about our shared love for travel. The conversation flowed naturally, and the rest is history. I’m so grateful for this platform!”

Key Elements to Finding a Mutual Connection

While a great opening line can spark a conversation, building a real connection takes more than just a clever message. Here are the key elements to look for when seeking a meaningful connection:

1. Shared Values and Goals

A strong connection starts with alignment on the things that matter most. Do you share similar values, life goals, or visions for the future?

2. Emotional Availability

Look for someone who is willing to share their thoughts, feelings, and vulnerabilities—and who encourages you to do the same.

3. Mutual Effort

Healthy relationships are a two-way street. Both people should be putting in effort to communicate, plan dates, and support each other.

4. Respect for Individuality

A true connection allows both people to be themselves without judgment. Look for someone who celebrates your uniqueness and encourages you to pursue your passions.

5. Open and Honest Communication

Communication is the foundation of any strong relationship. A mutual connection thrives on honesty, transparency, and the ability to resolve conflicts in a healthy way.

At MixerDates, we’re here to help you find these key elements in a partner. Our platform is designed to connect you with people who share your values and are looking for the same things you are. Starting a conversation on a dating app doesn’t have to be stressful. With the right opening line, you can spark a connection that feels natural, fun, and meaningful. And at MixerDates, we’re here to help you every step of the way.

So, what are you waiting for? Craft that perfect opening line, join MixerDates, and start connecting with people who value authenticity and positivity. Your perfect match is out there—and they’re just one message away.

Permalink | 記事への反応(0) | 12:11

ツイートシェア

■ どんなプロンプト打ったんでしょうね？　1

上記ののカジュアルな文章を書いた人物をプロファイリングしてください

　↓

The person who wrote this seems to have a strong understanding of cognitive processes and how they affect communication. They are deeply interested in recognizing the underlying cognitive mechanisms that shape how people perceive and interact with the world, especially when there are discrepancies in shared understanding. Their writing suggests a fascination with the complexity of human cognition, particularly in terms of categorization, perception, and the role of context in communication.

Key traits of this person’s mindset:

1. Analytical and Reflective: They break down situations and statements into their core components, such as recognizing when cognitive discrepancies arise (e.g., the example of “Honey Crisp” being identified as a non-apple or a “rugby ball is not a ball”).

2. Focus on Cognitive Mechanisms: Rather than just attributing communication issues to external factors like knowledge gaps or personality traits, they attribute misunderstandings to the way people process information and perceive the world.

3. Interest in Epistemology: They are interested in the philosophical and conceptual foundations of understanding. The mention of philosophical terms like “essentialism” vs. “constructivism” indicates a desire to explore the nature of categories and definitions at a fundamental level.

4. Sensitivity to Communication: They recognize the importance of context in communication, noting how slight differences in perception can lead to miscommunication. The person appears to be aware of the challenge in aligning cognitive frameworks to resolve disagreements.

5. Empathetic but Pragmatic: While acknowledging that individuals like “D” might not be malicious or intentionally obstructive, they also highlight the immense effort required to engage with individuals whose cognitive frameworks are severely misaligned with shared understanding.

Overall, this person seems to be deeply thoughtful, with a keen interest in the nuances of human cognition and communication. They likely value intellectual clarity and are willing to invest time and effort in clarifying fundamental misunderstandings.

　↓

トランプの文脈でフォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てるのは個性の範疇にはないです
仮にフォントの違いがトランプの本質ならトランプという製品は何を提供しているのか？となり共通基盤があるようには思えません
下記の反応をする人はいったい何が原因だと思いますか？フォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てるのはまさに認知の問題に思えるのですが
ーーー
	•	「A、B、C」の例では、各人物が持つ立場を比較的柔軟に評価していますが、「D」のケースに対してはほぼ一方的に否定しています。
	•	「フォントの違い」を理由にカードを否定するDの行動を、投稿者は「認知の仕組みに問題がある」と結論付けています。

　↓

「フォントの違いに過剰に焦点を当てる」というDの行動は、確かに一般的な認知の枠組みから外れており、共通基盤を持つ対話を阻む要因と考えられます。このケースでは、Dの認知の仕組みにおける以下のような問題が原因として考えられます。

　

1. 認知の過剰具体化（具体例への執着）

　

Dは「トランプカード」を理解する際に、本質的な特徴（スート、ランク、一般的なカードの定義）ではなく、具体的な細部（フォントなど）に強く依存して認識しています。このような認知の偏りは、物事を抽象化する能力が弱く、広い概念や文脈を理解するのが難しい場合に見られます。

　

2. 共有基盤の構築における障害

　

トランプカードの「本質」として多くの人が暗黙的に合意している特徴（スートやランク）を無視し、自身の認識基準（フォントの違い）を優先しています。このような認知のズレは、共通基盤を形成する力が弱いために生じると考えられます。

　

3. 柔軟性の欠如

　

Dの行動は、物事を異なる視点で解釈したり、自分の基準を一時的に緩めたりする柔軟性の欠如を示唆します。これは、認知の柔軟性や適応力が低いために起こる場合があります。

　

4. 認知特性や発達的な要因

　

場合によっては、発達障害や特定の認知特性（自閉スペクトラム症、強迫性傾向など）が関係している可能性もあります。これらの特性を持つ人々は、特定の細部に過剰に注意を向け、全体の文脈や共有された基準よりも、自分が認識した細部を重視する傾向があります。

　

5. 認識と本質の混同

　

Dは「フォントの違い」を本質的な特徴と捉えていますが、これは「トランプとは何か」という製品や概念の本質を理解する能力が十分ではないことを示唆しています。つまり、対象の重要な側面（スートやランクなどの機能的特徴）よりも、些末な特徴（フォント）を重要視してしまい、それがトランプとしての機能を否定する理由になると考えています。

　

Dの反応をどう見るべきか

　

Dの行動を「認知の問題」と捉えることは合理的です。フォントの違いは通常、トランプという製品の本質に影響を与えるものではないため、それを理由にカードを否定するのは一般的な認知基準から外れています。このズレは、Dが「トランプカードとは何か」という共有されたコンセプトを理解できていない、あるいはその共有基盤に乗ることを困難にしていることを示唆します。

　

Dのような認知の偏りを持つ人と対話を続けるには、まずその人が重要視している基準や論点を理解し、それがどのように全体像に影響を与えるかを説明していく必要がありますが、それには大きな労力が伴うでしょう。

　↓

続く　https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20241203171745#

Permalink | 記事への反応(0) | 17:16

ツイートシェア

■anond:20220309011959

それがプーチンのCOVIDへの恐怖であるのか暗殺の可能性なのかは関係しない。プーチンが最も信頼している者の接近を恐れるのであれば、いったいどうして彼自身と大切な者を破滅することを選択できるであろうか? ( 翻訳終わり ) 姉.街.も.か.わ.い.い.?.そ.れ.は.そ.う

1: スラブ系言語と英語の間で翻訳を行えば imminent(寸前である) と inevitable(不可避) の単語間距離がなくなることが知られている。注意を要する。

2: what [guided [those in charge] [to decide [to proceed with [the execution of [this operation]]]]]]]]]

3: Ref. Elementary Quintessential Russian(5th Ed.) (Mingmei Publishing, 2032), pp. 1337

4: Ref. Language in Memes: Russian State Organizations and Media (Miskatonic University Press, 2048), pp. 1D6

5: 「　欧　州　からの人道支援」だと!? ロシア人民よ! 君たちのアイデンティティはアジアにあるのか、ヨーロッパにあるのか!? モースコヴァは欧州の先進都市か、アジア北東の秘めたる地なのか!? はっきりし給え! そんなことだから君らはキラキラ西側ヨーロッパに対するコンプレックスがいつまでも抜けず神話を求め独立国家を侵略して解消を図るような羽目になるのだ! 先の戦勝予定稿でもその通り自爆していただろう!

6: "“Denazification” and “demilitarization” are not analytical categories because they don’t have concretely formulated parameters by which meeting of the objectives can be evaluated." 和訳者はこのような文章から冷戦期にしばしば見られる美的な目的によって重厚なコンクリート建築特有の陰鬱に湿っていながらほとんど性的快感を呼び起こす特有にホラーショーのような大気を肺いっぱいに吸引することができ、そして吐きだすことができる。この文章に限っては帝政ロシアから引き継がれた華美な外連味を覚えるが気分を変えるには大変よいと言えよう。

7: 「──の可能性を排除しない」という表現はロシア研究者の使う表現であるようで、「──と考えるが、職を賭すことは避けたい」と解釈してよいようだ。

8: 水爆に用いられるプルトニウムの半減期は、文明よりは長い。この十年という数字はこの文書の外でも随所で囁かれているが、どうもプルトニウムを使った熱核兵器に用いられるトリチウムの問題のようだ。トリチウムは半減期が12.32年と短く、24.64年で1/4に減じてしまう。崩壊したトリチウムは安定なヘリウムに変化し、これを内部のガス容器から取り出して補充しなければ爆発規模が漸減するようだ。読者もりっぱなトリチウム夜光時計の光がすっかり暗くなってしまって残念だという声を聞いたことがあると思う。

9: おそらくこの文書が書かれた後の話ではあるが、問題のプーチンがソ連時代から続くフラッグキャリアたるアエロフロートのぴちぴち若手女性CAを卓にぐるり侍らせ、揃って弁当を食べる会食を開いて大変楽しんだような報道がある。新型コロナウイルス対策としてはご法度もいいところであろう! だいたい、人の容姿にけちは付けないが化粧の趣味が悪い。極東においてすら脳筋残念地雷系の地位が必ずしも高くないことは和訳者にとって大変不満である。人は顔、顔は芸術、芸術は爆発、そうだろう(†昇天†)。

Permalink | 記事への反応(1) | 01:20

ツイートシェア

■労働と家事のバランス

日本は他国に比べ男女の労働時間の差が大きく、そのぶん家事の時間差も大きい。

徐々に長時間労働が減ってきているうえ女性の労働時間が増えてきているのに、男性の家事時間が増えないために格差が発生するということが今後出てくるかもしれない。

Balancing paid work, unpaid work and leisure

http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/balancingpaidworkunpaidworkandleisure.htm

各国の男女が一日の時間（分）を何に使っているかのデータ。

日本、米国、ドイツ、フランス、英国、イタリア、カナダ、韓国、スウェーデン、ノルウェー、フィンランド、デンマークのmale/femaleを抜き出した。

各国がそれぞれ行ってる調査をすり合わせたものなので調査内容が国によって違っていることに注意。詳細は元ファイルの "Activity classification" シートを参照。

調査は15～64歳を対象。国によって調査年はバラバラ。

日本は左が2011年、右が2016年の調査。日本の色付きの部分は２つの項の合算値。

日本 Note: Activity 4.4 TV or radio at home also includes reading newspaper or magazines.Activity 5.2 Other also includes all transport time (except commuting to work), which is 30 minutes for all the population (15-64), 28 minutes for men (15-64), and 33 minutes for women (15-64).

フィンランド: The * denotes that time use estimates for Sweden are not fully comparable, due to difference in the age of reference.

女性-男性の差。一行目 は Paid work or Study と　Unpaid work の合算

表の Paid work or study と Unpaid work の合計。

(表の数字をそのまま足したので小数点以下を見ておらず誤差ある）

男女の項目を合算したもの

Paid work or study と Unpaid work の男女合計

Permalink | 記事への反応(0) | 17:41

ツイートシェア

■海外エロサイトを見てて関心した話

おかずを探してたら海外の近親相姦動画まとめサイトにたどり着いた。

早速動画を探そうと「CATEGORIES」のボタンをクリック。

「Mom son」

「Dad daugther」

「Brother sister」

ここまではよくわかる

「uncle niece」

「Aunt nephew」

「Cousin」

なるほどそういうのもあるのね

「Grandma grandson」

「Grandpa granddaughter」

？？？？？

まぁそういう性癖がいるのもわかるんだけど、

ジャンル分けされて大量の動画が登録されていることに驚いた。

海外すごい。日本でも同じの作って俺のシコりライフに潤いを。

Permalink | 記事への反応(0) | 05:08

ツイートシェア

■[今日知った言葉] smorgasbord

スウェーデン語由来の言葉で、いわゆる「バイキング料理」の意味。

実際に料理や食事形式を指すことも多いが、製品等を指して「It's a veritable smorgasbord」と言えば「こいつはまさに何でもアリだ（機能が盛り沢山だ、集大成だ）」といった意味のイディオムになる。

後で思ったけど、日本語で似た表現を探すなら「満漢全席」とかになるのかな？

実例

This special folder will have a veritable smorgasbord of settings for over forty categories, ...

（前述の手順を実行すると）40以上ものカテゴリに分けられたオプションがこのフォルダ内に出現し、まさに設定の満漢全席といった趣になる。

Permalink | 記事への反応(0) | 18:51

ツイートシェア

■アブストを1 wordも書けてないけど彼女と別れたことをアブストっぽく書く

卒業研究がまるでうまく言ってなくて来週提出の卒論アブストが全く書けない現実逃避に。

English

I was rejected by my best girl nine months ago. It has been unclear the reason why they broke up despite the each other's intense love. In this thesis, we provide a clear explanation about the event.

What plays a invaluable role for our study is descriptions gathered from me about each incident that had happened along them. We were able to obtain a large number of the descriptions, since a winter chill in the air reminded me the divine memories of the days with her. We carefully examined each of them and arranged the incidents into some categories. By combing chronological order and categories of the incidents, we analyzed the emotional changes of me and her.

We propose a simple model that explain the breakup between them, based on the above mentioned analysis. From discussions about the model with some people, the model is considered to be capturing major matters. We also present our attempt to match the model to the existing collection of patterns of the way how once loved people would break up. Even though this attempt is not much succeeded, at least it reveals that what I experienced was quite ordinal breakup.

日本語

私は九ヶ月前に恋人から別れを告げられた．互いに強く想いあっていたにも関わらず彼らが別れることとなった理由は，不明瞭であった．本論文において，我々はこの出来事についての明瞭な解釈を提示する．

我々の研究にとって非常に重要な役割を果たしたのは，彼らに起こった事象に関する多くの私から収集された叙述である．冬の寒さが私に彼女と過ごしたかけがえのない日々を思い出させたおかげで，我々は多くの叙述を得ることができた．我々はそれらの一つ一つを注意深く調べて，幾つかの分類へと整理した．各事象についての時系列順と分類を組み合わせることで，我々は私と彼女の感情的な移り変わりを分析した．

この分析に基いて，我々は彼らの別れを解釈する単純なモデルを提案する．本モデルについて幾人かと行った議論から，本モデルは重要な問題を捉えていると考えられる．さらに，かつて愛し合った人々がどのようにして別れるかのパターンを集めた既存研究と，本モデルを照らし合わせる試みを示す．この試みは十分に成功してはいないものの，少なくとも私が経験したことがありきたりな別れであったことを明らかにしている．

Permalink | 記事への反応(1) | 02:00

ツイートシェア

■Critical Thinking: Film Critics Across the Country Name Their Top Movies and Actors

"The Artist"? "The Descendants"? "Hugo"? There was no critical consensus following a day of intense voting yesterday when a gaggle of critics groups voted their top honors. These included the Los Angeles Film Critics Association (LAFCA), the Boston Society of Film Critics (BSFC), and the New York Film Critics Online (NYFCO), as well as critics in San Francisco, Detroit and Indiana. The American Film Institute also announced its annual top 10, typically taking no risks.

Best Picture: "The Descendants" got a strong push with a win at the LAFCA, but "The Artist" took the top prize at the BSFC and the NYFCO. Both titles will make the final Academy shortlist. Fortified by nominations for their respective directors Martin Scorsese and Terrence Malick, "Hugo" and "The Tree of Life" should get nominations. The critics groups didn't get "The Help," any more than "The Blind Side," but the Civic Rights-era drama did make the American Film Institute top ten this year, so don't discount it yet.

Best Actor: Michael Fassbender is coming up fast with an LAFCA win. Why should we care about that group in particular? They're on a six-year roll predicting the Oscar winner for Best Actor. Brad Pitt's also a contender for "Moneyball," getting an art-house bump from "The Tree of Life," with Gary Oldman coming up on the outside thanks to the critical and box-office success of "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" and a nod from the San Francisco Film Critics. How about George Clooney for "The Descendants"? He's still in the race, but not at the forefront. Like going for long shots? Then bet Michael Shannon for "Take Shelter," which won NYFCO. And if there's a sweep for "The Artist," add in Jean Dujardin.

Best Actress: Michelle Williams of "My Week With Marilyn," solidifies her spot with a win at the Boston Film Critics Association. Los Angeles went way out for Yung-Jun Hee in "Poetry" (what?) in their 'we're cool and uncorrupted by the Oscar race' vote. NYFCO went classic with Meryl Streep for "The Iron Lady." She's the Streep, but neither she nor Williams will be helped by an apparent lack of enthusiasm for their moves as a whole. Ditto Viola Davis ("The Help"), who will nonetheless make the top five Oscar nominees. Either SF winner Tilda Swinton ("We Need to Talk About Kevin") or multiple-runner-up Kirsten Dunst ("Melancholia") may slip in or come in sixth or seventh. Keep an eye out for Charlize Theron ("Young Adult"), Elizabeth Olsen ("Martha Marcy May Marlene") and Felicity Jones ("Like Crazy) as wild-card entries.

Best Supporting Actor: This is a two-man race between octogenarian Christopher Plummer and Albert Brooks playing against type as a cold-blooded hands-on killer. On the fringes: Patton Oswalt ("Young Adult"), Kenneth Branagh ("My Week with Marilyn") and Andy Serkis ("Rise of the Planet of the Apes").

Best Supporting Actress: Coming up on the inside is Melissa McCarthy for "Bridesmaids." Hurray for comedy! Bolstered by a best ensemble award from the LAFCA, this may push McCarthy into the five Oscar nominees. The LAFCA got behind Jessica Chastain, the NYFCO Breakthrough Performer, who was in every movie from "The Tree of Life" to "The Help," where she'll be competing against her popular co-star Octavia Spencer. The San Francisco critics supported Vanessa Redgrave for "Coriolanus," and Janet McTeer ("Albert Nobbs") was an LAFCA runner up in the category.

Who's out of the running in these five major categories? The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, War Horse, J. Edgar and Midnight in Paris all underwhelmed. The X-Factor remains Scott Rudin's buzzy "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close," which has not been screened widely after the New Yorker's David Denby flagrantly broke embargo on Rudin's other major film, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." Pack the Kleenex box for this one.

http://www.chargerbatteryshop.co.uk/panasonic-cga-s002-digital-camera-battery-cbbs.html

http://www.gobatteryonline.com/canon-powershot-sd500-battery-charger-gose.html

http://www.keyboard-store.com/asus-04gncb1kusa4-laptop-keyboard.html

Permalink | 記事への反応(0) | 10:27

ツイートシェア

■Critical Thinking: Film Critics Across the Country Name Their Top Movies and Actors

"The Artist"? "The Descendants"? "Hugo"? There was no critical consensus following a day of intense voting yesterday when a gaggle of critics groups voted their top honors. These included the Los Angeles Film Critics Association (LAFCA), the Boston Society of Film Critics (BSFC), and the New York Film Critics Online (NYFCO), as well as critics in San Francisco, Detroit and Indiana. The American Film Institute also announced its annual top 10, typically taking no risks.

Best Picture: "The Descendants" got a strong push with a win at the LAFCA, but "The Artist" took the top prize at the BSFC and the NYFCO. Both titles will make the final Academy shortlist. Fortified by nominations for their respective directors Martin Scorsese and Terrence Malick, "Hugo" and "The Tree of Life" should get nominations. The critics groups didn't get "The Help," any more than "The Blind Side," but the Civic Rights-era drama did make the American Film Institute top ten this year, so don't discount it yet.

Best Actor: Michael Fassbender is coming up fast with an LAFCA win. Why should we care about that group in particular? They're on a six-year roll predicting the Oscar winner for Best Actor. Brad Pitt's also a contender for "Moneyball," getting an art-house bump from "The Tree of Life," with Gary Oldman coming up on the outside thanks to the critical and box-office success of "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" and a nod from the San Francisco Film Critics. How about George Clooney for "The Descendants"? He's still in the race, but not at the forefront. Like going for long shots? Then bet Michael Shannon for "Take Shelter," which won NYFCO. And if there's a sweep for "The Artist," add in Jean Dujardin.

Best Actress: Michelle Williams of "My Week With Marilyn," solidifies her spot with a win at the Boston Film Critics Association. Los Angeles went way out for Yung-Jun Hee in "Poetry" (what?) in their 'we're cool and uncorrupted by the Oscar race' vote. NYFCO went classic with Meryl Streep for "The Iron Lady." She's the Streep, but neither she nor Williams will be helped by an apparent lack of enthusiasm for their moves as a whole. Ditto Viola Davis ("The Help"), who will nonetheless make the top five Oscar nominees. Either SF winner Tilda Swinton ("We Need to Talk About Kevin") or multiple-runner-up Kirsten Dunst ("Melancholia") may slip in or come in sixth or seventh. Keep an eye out for Charlize Theron ("Young Adult"), Elizabeth Olsen ("Martha Marcy May Marlene") and Felicity Jones ("Like Crazy) as wild-card entries.

Best Supporting Actor: This is a two-man race between octogenarian Christopher Plummer and Albert Brooks playing against type as a cold-blooded hands-on killer. On the fringes: Patton Oswalt ("Young Adult"), Kenneth Branagh ("My Week with Marilyn") and Andy Serkis ("Rise of the Planet of the Apes").

Best Supporting Actress: Coming up on the inside is Melissa McCarthy for "Bridesmaids." Hurray for comedy! Bolstered by a best ensemble award from the LAFCA, this may push McCarthy into the five Oscar nominees. The LAFCA got behind Jessica Chastain, the NYFCO Breakthrough Performer, who was in every movie from "The Tree of Life" to "The Help," where she'll be competing against her popular co-star Octavia Spencer. The San Francisco critics supported Vanessa Redgrave for "Coriolanus," and Janet McTeer ("Albert Nobbs") was an LAFCA runner up in the category.

Who's out of the running in these five major categories? The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, War Horse, J. Edgar and Midnight in Paris all underwhelmed. The X-Factor remains Scott Rudin's buzzy "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close," which has not been screened widely after the New Yorker's David Denby flagrantly broke embargo on Rudin's other major film, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." Pack the Kleenex box for this one.

http://www.chargerbatteryshop.co.uk/panasonic-cga-s002-digital-camera-battery-cbbs.html

http://www.gobatteryonline.com/canon-powershot-sd500-battery-charger-gose.html

http://www.keyboard-store.com/asus-04gncb1kusa4-laptop-keyboard.html

Permalink | 記事への反応(0) | 10:27

ツイートシェア

■おお、資料あったか。

＞http://anond.hatelabo.jp/20090326222016

あー、診療記録あったんだねー、てその方随分な目に合ってらっしゃいますが。

＞http://www.holocaustsurvivors.org/cgi-bin/data.show.pl?di=record&da=survivors&ke=7

隠れてたんじゃねーのこいつ。マイダネクからの知り合いの好意で。なんなのこの病院（つーかバラックてかいてありますが）。ドイツ人医師が巡回してきたらヤバイ、て書いてありますがなんなのこれ。おまけにすでに何人か殺されてるみたいですけど、なにこの病院。貴重な生き残りの証言と裏付け資料をありがとう。けっこう腹たってるけど、まぁいいや。

んー、提示されたサイトに出産記録、て語句が見つからないんですが、どこらへんに有るんかの。あのね、前に２ｃｈでこの話題になった時にStanislawa Leszczynskaて方の証言が大元のお話だ、てことになったんですが違うかの。

＞http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20050104.html

これによると出産場所はバラックで、しかも生まれてすぐに樽に漬けられて殺された、てなっとるが違うかの。その写真の赤ちゃんは、収容所職員の赤ちゃんではないんかの。うん、ちょっと腹立ててるけど。まぁいいや。

なんか色々エスパーしてる(論点先取りのことね)けど、なんかあなたの方が妙なベクトルが掛かってるように見えるんだがね。トラバに答えて「両論比較した」とか書いてたけど、比較した結果がコレなんかの。それとな、なんでこの記事で確実にあります、て言い切れるの。コレも比較したかい？＞http://www.annesrosechurch.com/1995terezin.htm　なんつかね、まぁいいや。

つまり、アウシュヴィッツてところは、病院施設が整ってて、収容者は病院に隠れ、見つかったら殺されて、倒れるまで労働して、ちゃんとした産婦人科病院があって、バラックで３０００人の赤ちゃんが生まれて、すぐに樽の水に漬けられて殺されて、死の恐怖の怯えながら絵を描いた子供たちは、喜んで合唱団を作って歌って、一日平均９１人もの人が(ある日は９７０人の人が)、優れた医師がいながら整った施設で死んでいく場所なワケかね。どんなとこなの、それ。なんか、俺の矛盾とか書いてるけど、あなたの思うアウシュヴィッツてコレ？

その死亡記録にせよ「ゴルバチョフに秘密で見せてもらった」てなに？これが信頼性高くて、歴史学の記述が信頼性低い、てどういうことよ。

焼却炉が廃油で動いてた、なんてどこの学説ですかね。俺が提示した資料にキチンとコークス、て書いてあるはずだがね。それに、グーゼンのタイムシートを見たね？焼却数の多少と燃料の消費は関係ありません。この焼却炉は連続式の焼却炉で、２体目以降は遺体の焼けた熱を利用して焼却するので、燃料消費を抑えられるんだよ。イェーリング技師の報告書にも、そう書いてあるだろ？

さっき書いたのに付け加えよう。天国みたいな収容所だけど、一日に５０００体近く(カムレルのメモ基準)処理できる遺体焼却炉が必要だった、と。

なんかねー、俺はね、今はてなでちょっと問題になってる「否定論者を寄って多かって叩くのは魔女裁判と同じ」て話に興味もって、そんなエントリー書いてたあなたにトラバしたワケ。そのあなたは結局は、はてな村民と同じメンタリティーなワケだ。なんか色々、どうでもよくなってきた。

被害者総数について本を見ろ、つーのはめんどくさいから。長くなるけどヒルバーグの例だけ上げたる。

1 DEATHS BY CAUSE

Ghettoization and general privation: over 800,000

Ghettos in German-occupied Eastern Eu-rope: over 600,000

Theresienstadt and privation outside of ghet-tos: 100,000

Transnistria colonies (Romanian and Soviet Jews): 100,000

Open-air shootings: over 1,300,000

Einsatzgruppen, Higher SS and Police Leaders, Romanian and German armies in mobile operations; shootings in Galicia during deportations; killings of prisoners of war and shootings in Serbia and elsewhereCamps: up to 3,000,000

GermanDeath camps up to 2,700,000

Auschwitz 1 ,000,000

Treblinka up to 750,000

Belzec 550,000

Sobibor up to 200,000

Kulmhof 150,000

Lublin 50,000

Camps with tolls in the low tens of thousands or below: 150,000

Concentration camps (Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald Mauthausen, Dachau, Stutthof, and others)

Camps with killing operations (Poniatowa, Trawniki, Semlin)

Labor camps and transit camps: 150,000

RomanianGolta complex and Bessarabian transit camps: 100,000

Croatian and other: under 50,000Total: 5,100,000

Note: Ghettos in German-occupied Eastern Europe, open-air shootings, Auschwitz figures are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand, other categories nearest fifty thousand.

2 DEATHS BY COUNTRY

Poland up to 3,000,000

USSR over 700,000

Romania 270,000

Czechoslovakia 260,000

Hungary over 180,000

Lithuania up to 130,000

Germany over 120,000

Netherlands over 100,000

France 75,000

Latvia 70,000

Yugoslavia 60,000

Greece 60,000Austria over 50,000

Belgium 24,000 Italy (including Rhodes) 9,000

Estonia 2,000

Norway under 1,000

Luxembourg under 1,000

Danzig under 1,000

Total 5,100,000

Note: Borders refer to 1937. Converts to Christianity are included, and refugees are counted with the countries from which they were deported.

3. DEATHS BY YEAR

1933-1940under 100,000

1941 1,100,000

1942 2,700,000

1943 500,000

1944 600,000

1945 100,000

Total 5,100,000

Note: Rounded to the nearest 100,000.

あああああ、めんどくせぇ～。大概みんなもメンドクサイんだと思うよ。

Permalink | 記事への反応(4) | 12:01

ツイートシェア