I was so naive as a kid I used to sneak behind the barn and do nothing. -Johnny Carson

Check out Episode 9 of the Podcast to hear discussions about Church leader rumors and dating by Haleakala, Maven, and Tally M!

Question #78482 posted on 07/28/2014 10:48 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

My favorite Dateline reporter happens to be Keith Morrison. When he asks someone a question, gets a response, and says it back in his own words, he says so sarcastically (it really sounds like). He also gives looks to the people he's interviewing that they're stupid. It's quite comical. How did he learn to report the news or to give interviews with an underlying tone of unbelievability? Was he trained to do this or is it just the way he's always talked?

-Sage

A:

Dear Sage,

Although I didn't get a chance to interview Keith Morrison, his impressive biography suggests that much of his ability comes from years of experience and refining. Most important, however, is likely his own personality. Sure, he needed to develop his sarcasm, but it didn't pop up out of nowhere. It's simply who he is and who he's become, and the audience loves it. No amount of training can give sarcasm that artistic to someone without any to begin with.

-El-ahrairah


0 Comments
Question #78493 posted on 07/28/2014 10:48 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What are your biggest pet peeves in dystopian novels? (YA novels or adult novels; just specify which you're talking about if it makes a difference.) What makes a dystopian novel worth reading? What makes it boring? What makes you want to throw it across the room?

-sheeple

A:

Dear Sheeple,

Back in ye olden days I was a big book reviewer. Big enough that publishing houses sent me boxes of books to read and review. One summer they sent me a huge box full of all of the good dystopian novels coming out that summer and I spent a lot of time reading and reviewing hordes of these books. My main complaints centered on how unrealistic they were. As Maven mentions below, all of the adults are stupid, and the teens are somehow the only ones who can magically see what's really happening and are the only ones who can stop it from happening and there's always a love triangle (which is where I usually want to chuck the book against my wall). 

Like, hello? Does anyone else see a problem here? You are 16 year old female (or male, although most main characters are female from my experience). Why aren't you worrying about your period, or acne or boys or homework? Yeah, I get that you live in a dystopian world and that the whole point is that you probably had to grow up fast and those things might be lower on your radar, but ain't no way in heck you're going to manage to completely bring down the oppressive government with your two lovers (Side note: Love triangles do not exist in real life unless you are in a polyamorous relationship. In reality, it would be more like a triangle with one open side, since it's two characters liking one character, instead of each character liking the two others in the "triangle") because everyone else was too stupid or scared to help. 

You will, however, probably get shot in the face, especially since most dystopian characters are written with all of the innocent naivete and emotional fierceness and instability of an ornery toddler. There should be way more dying in dystopian novels than there actually is. Also less hope and love and cutesy stuff.

Also, luckiness: I read one dystopian novel where the protagonist literally escaped every possible bad thing just in the nick of time. It was so irritating. I like when the protagonist has been gravely wounded and is weak for once or can't find a run-down house to shelter in for the night, or makes a mistake and gets caught and just totally ruins everything without being able to fix it. I can relate with being weak and unable or unwilling to fight back. I can't relate or see the story from inside the head of a noble hero with a hole of personality that can be filled with whatever the author wants him or her to be at that exact moment in time. And for crying in the mud! You aren't going to always find something to eat, or just be barely able to scrape by and keep it together. You will fail, you will break down and despite all your hard work, you are not going to magically transform from an awkward, geeky girl into a gloriously fit wood nymph who is capable of changing society singlehandedly. 

I mean heck, people get scared and back down and run away and let their emotions get the better of them all the time. A dystopian setting would amplify that, if anything, so perfect protagonists get to me. Things get hairy in dystopian novels. I want to see you make a bad decision that you can't magically worm your way out of. I want to see some blood. 

-Concorde

A:

Dear Wake up, Sheeple!

Realism. Specifically, the realism of the downfall and salvation of the world. I hate it when a single instance of disaster leads to the immediate and complete demise of society. People are smarter than that! The government is smarter than that! Sure, it's not too hard to believe that a majority of people could die or catch some horrible disease or be enslaved by some government, but I have too much faith in mankind to believe that said disaster will incapacitate everyone. Everyone, that is, save a single group that alone has the chance of saving the day. Likewise, I can't stand it when a single person or action magically brings down the dystopian society. Things aren't that simple. The bad guys wouldn't be that dumb. In conclusion, I agree with Concorde—no mortal should be "capable of changing society single-handedly."

-El-ahrairah

A:

Dear Sheeple,

Technology.

It's not even that the technology is unrealistic, because I get that this could be the future where humanity has had time to learn and develop new things. It's just that it's always so frustratingly convenient. Right at the point where all is lost - maybe not at the end of the whole story, but certainly at the end of some chapter or sub-plot - the protagonist suddenly remembers some device that he/she was introduced to in the first few pages that will save his/her life.

I mean really.

- Haleakalā

A:

Dear sheeple,

First, I hate love triangles. I know I've ranted about this before, but if the world is ending, you probably don't have time to fall in love with one person, much less two. Basically, if the story is more about a love triangle than the sad, frustrating state of the universe, I have a problem with that.

Second, I dislike worldbuilding that doesn't make sense. The worldbuilding is so important in a dystopian novel. If the world or society has become a dystopia, there has to be a realistic reason this happened, not something ridiculous that isn't actually possible or doesn't make sense. At the very least the dystopia has to be interesting and well-developed. You can't take a rudimentary understanding of science and abuse it to make a dystopia. You can't overhaul every social convention and expect the world to function. In fact, I just read a YA dystopian sci-fi where people have been divided into classes named after colors and they all have predetermined jobs and stereotypical personality traits. I don't see this ever happening in real life, so I didn't like that part of the book.

Thrid, when one person (usually a teenager) can somehow save the world despite crazy odds and advanced technology against them. Sorry, not gonna happen. Why are adults portrayed as such idiots in YA dystopia? They're all old and set in their ways and somehow they lack the necessary courage or forward-thinking mindset to be capable of changing the world. What makes a teenager more motivated and qualified to save the world? That's something I like about The Hunger Games. For the most part, Katniss isn't trying to save the world. She's just trying to survive, and she can be selfish and petulant, like a real teenager. She doesn't even know half of the things the adults are planning, but she's being used as a piece in their master plan. That's realistic.

A dystopia is worth reading if the circumstances surrounding the world's downfall could conceivably happen and if it makes me think about today's society and value it, despite its faults. Two books that do a really good job of this are The Giver and Brave New World

I don't want to keep this answer any longer, but if any readers want to chat about dystopian novels, please email me! I love talking about books, and especially dystopia.

--Maven


0 Comments
Question #78478 posted on 07/28/2014 10:42 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

How does one change their beliefs or values?

For example, I like expensive new cars. I have a working car, but I want a new one. When I look for a new car I value the style, the brand, the top speed, and many other things that I really don’t need, but I value them and want them. Having a top speed of 140 MPH is not needed, but I want it. I don’t need four wheel drive, but I want that in a truck. If I could afford it I would buy a car that costs more than my house. I watch Top Gear and read about cars often. I also see the cars others drive. It seems that I am not alone in valuing things in cars that are not really needed. An entry level 4x2 Ford F-150 truck is $25,000, but you can get a 4x4 F-150 model with accessories that costs $50,000. I would be embarrassed to get the 4x2 model. I probably would not get all options I looked at to bring the model up to $50,000 either, but it is much closer to what I want. I spend many hours looking at cars that I just can’t have. I sometimes feel that I am judged by the car I drive and am not a valuable person because I don’t own an expensive car. OK, that last but was exaggerated, but I would be happier with an expensive car in my driveway.

The car is just an example. It can be money, looks, power, intelligence, or other things that are not necessarily bad, but also not necessary after a point. There was a study done once that showed that a certain amount of money was necessary to be happy, but beyond that the extra money did little to affect happiness. From reading the board I get the feeling that too many people put too much value on good looks, but that could just be me.

There are some things that I just don’t have a problem with. For example shoes and fashion in general. I own three pairs of shoes. One pair for church, one pair for work, and the previous work pair for working in the garden. I wear three different pairs of pants to work. All are the same color. I shower and change my socks, shirt, and underwear every day though.

So how do I change the beliefs and values I have that I think are bad for me? I think this becomes much harder living in a world where I see so many others valuing the things that I feel I should not value.

- James May

A:

Dear James May,

The long-term value we give something is a result of the accumulated value we give to it at all instances. In other words, you can't just decide, "I don't care that much about cars" if you consistently give them your time and thoughts. So how do you change your thoughts? First, deliberately change your actions—don't look up fancy car catalogs, etc. Use thought exercises to avoid thinking about cars. When you find yourself thinking about cars or how much you need a good one, think about something else. Prayer can help you focus on what's more important to you at these times. I've also heard snapping your wrist with a wristband can be effective at avoiding thoughts. Replace these thoughts and actions with different, positive ones. Spend those hours you would be looking at cars doing other, healthier things you enjoy.

Your observations greatly affect your thoughts and values. Like you said, it's much tougher when you see so many others valuing the same things. So hang out with people that don't. Make friends with others who have a totally different perspective on cars. Pay attention to people you value who don't have expensive cars. Discover what makes them so happy and successful. Then, where applicable, spend time and effort on those same things in your own life. As you replace your undesirable habits of thought and action with better ones, you will realize how much more important the latter are to you. You will spend more time thinking about them, and the cycle will continue.

Owlet offered another thought: when you think about how you value something, focus on the root of why you value it. Why is it important to you? For an expensive car, the root needs may be transportation and acceptance. Once you've realized that, you can focus your attention on those basic needs. You'd make sure the car you do have gets you places, and you'd note things you can do besides get nice cars that would result in more acceptance from others. She also recommends reading Board Question #77839 because it has great advice on how to change your beliefs by looking at others' perspectives.

Good luck!

-El-ahrairah


0 Comments
Question #78469 posted on 07/28/2014 8:36 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

It hasn't been very long since I finished Young Women's, and I don't currently have plans to go on a mission or get married, but I'd like to be really ready whenever the time comes for me to go through the temple. So, what would you guys recommend I do now to prepare?

-reverse procrastinator

A:

Dear Merry Galel,

I actually have a lot of thoughts on this, as this is something I've been thinking a lot lately. However, I'll attempt to condense them for you.

I believe one of the best things you can do is study those covenants you've already made and the ordinances you've already participated in up to this point. Make a careful study of your baptismal covenants

While it's on the Youth section of lds.org, the "How I Prepare for Temple Ordinances" page has been useful for guiding my personal study. 

Do your family history, even if you feel it's difficult. Going to the temple really has two parts: actually going to the temple, and finding your ancestors to do work for. Finding them and doing their work allows them to progress, and until that work gets done, they will be unable to do so.

Go to the temple and do the ordinances you can do. Do baptisms and confirmations as often and as regularly as your schedule will allow.

Many, if not all, bishops will require temple prep before you go. Some wards may do this on a "only if you're going soon" basis, but I know that in my ward, anyone who wants to go, can. It's basically an overview of the "Preparing to Go to the Temple" which is a shorted version of President Packer's "The Holy Temple."

Most importantly, be receptive to the Spirit in your personal scripture study and prayers. It will be able to guide you to know what is most important for you to focus on.

-Tally M.

A:

Dear inverter,

I've spent a while talking this question over with my wife, and one of the first things we agreed on was this: Temple prep classes, while good classes, do absolutely nothing to prepare you to go through the temple.

It's easy to go to the temple for the first time and expect a dramatic, life-changing revelation of deep or secret doctrine. I can promise you, that is not going to happen. Some people learn a lot the first time they go through the temple. Some people learn almost nothing the first time. But I've never heard of anyone learning anything totally new--it's always building on something they already knew.

Most of the endowment ceremony falls into one of two categories, ordinances (which I'll get to shortly) and instruction. Here's the thing--literally all of the instruction given in the temple is given through allegory or symbolism. It is a story rather than a sermon. The possibilities for learning are immense, but the burden is almost entirely on you to interpret it. Nobody else is going to interpret it for you.

If I had to recommend something to prepare you for that part of the endowment, I'd say you should study the book of Moses. If you're familiar with that book, then while the endowment will present you with a new perspective on the story, you will see a lot of very familiar elements that will help you as you begin to interpret it.

Interspersed in the story are the ordinances of the endowment. To prepare you for that portion of the endowment, I recommend studying the Sacrament. I have yet to find anything in the world that is a closer parallel to the endowment's ordinances and covenants, both in form and in function. Learn what covenants mean. Focus on the one-on-one relationship between you and God that such ordinances are based upon. Learn about ordinances in general.

It's easy to think, after going to the temple for the first time, that you have stepped into an alien and unfamiliar world. In fact, there are a lot of things that are very familiar about what is taught and done in the temple. It's just that you have to become familiar with the temple in order to see how similar it is to everything else.

I'm glad you're trying to prepare to go to the temple. That's a good thing. Just remember, though, that the best preparation for going to the temple is living a good life. Going through the temple isn't, and shouldn't be, a dramatic change in your life. Rather, it's just one more step in a steady progression of learning line upon line and precept upon precept. I hope this helps you, and I wish you the best!

-yayfulness

A:

Dear reverse procrastinator,

You may also like some of the advice given in the archives, particularly Board Question #19549 and Board Question #56501.

-Owlet


0 Comments
Question #78238 posted on 07/28/2014 8:36 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I am a fictional writer - I'm trying to imagine up a world. One thought I had was what if the sea floor went as high as it is deep in the ocean and all the land masses swap like that as well so they are now as deep as they are high now. So just a 100 percent swap around sea level. So the mariana Trench would be the mariana mountain.

What are some interesting things about such a world? (for example Hawaii would be some small lakes. Australia would be a small tree. Anything that would make that world not exist -- would the mariana mountain be higher than any real mountain? Russia Europe would be a ocean -- but would it be deep enough for seafaring travel?)

-Alternate World

A:

Dear Alternate,

There would be so much less water! In the world we live in, 71% of it is covered in water. With this alternate earth, only 29% of it would be water. Would this water be fresh water or salt water? If it were all fresh water, then that would be awesome for industry and development in this world, because there would be so much more usable water! However, if it were 96.5% salt water (like the water that covers this earth), the peoples' lives and cultures would be significantly different. Would people have evolved in such a way as to allow them to drink salt water? So much could change just based on this one thing!

Also, because most of the earth would be covered in land, travel would probably be made more difficult as well. Even if there were planes, large amounts of goods from one area probably wouldn't be shipped by plane, but would have to go across land more often than not, which would make trade slower (probably) and possibly more expensive. 

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger (who personally prefers living in a world where 71% of the surface is covered in water, not land) 

A:

Dear fictionist,

It has been entirely too long since I have used ArcGIS. So, I made a map.

My methodology for the map is as follows. I took as my base a map of the world's elevation, both above and below sea level. Using ArcMap, I then simply flipped the coloration--oceans are shown in green and land is shown in blue. For the purposes of this fictional world, then, any location in the real world with an elevation of 1000 meters will have an elevation of -1000 meters. I then committed one of the cardinal sins of cartography--I did not include a legend. In the interest of getting this published in a timely manner, I won't go back and make one; I plead the cartography gods forgiveness for my omission. In the oceans, the darker the blue, the deeper the ocean. On the land, the lighter or yellower the green, the higher the elevation. Each change in shade represents a change of 1000 meters.

inverse world high elevations.jpg

I have set up the picture so that it changes in size with your browser's window size. If it looks grainy, make the window smaller. If you're looking at this on your phone... basically, I am sorry.

Now, there are a couple important things to remember. First, this map projection (like any other map projection) involves a great deal of distortion. In this case, the map preserves direction but greatly distorts size as you get further from the equator. Basically, trust the Ginger's numbers rather than my picture when you're thinking about proportions.

Now, the geography of this world.

One of the first things you'll notice is that, with the exception of a very small number of islands (lakes whose base extends below sea level), the entire world's landmass is connected in a single unit. The oceans are divided into three main groups, which I'll call the Eastern Ocean (Europe, Asia, and Africa), the Western Ocean (North and South America), and the Southern Ocean (Antarctica). The next-largest body of water is the Great Australian Lake.

The coastlines pose an interesting situation. Although there are extensive lowlands on the northern borders of the Eastern and Western Oceans, in most cases the elevation drops very sharply from the World Continent to the oceans. This is the result of the swift dropoffs at the continental shelves in our real world. Even in the low-lying areas, often there is a huge cliff followed by miles of gently sloping land.

Looking at the map, you can see another interesting change--there are very few mountains. Elevation changes very slowly, so although it does vary greatly, the vast majority of the World Continent is more or less flat. In the Atlantic Belt of the continent, there is a valley running down the middle of the belt. In our real world, that is where two plates of the Earth's crust are diverging and magma is rising to the ocean floor to fill the gap. The Indian Protrusion and the Pacific Belt have more complex topographies, but the basic pattern remains the same. The biggest exception is the Mariana Mountains, along the eastern coast of the Eastern Ocean. The mountains are narrow but exceptionally tall.

Islands are few and far between. The largest by far is the Caspian Island in the Eastern Ocean. Although other islands do exist, they are all tiny. (Remember, not all lakes become islands. The only islands are the result of lakes whose floor is below sea level.) The Mediterranean Peninsula is so narrowly connected to the World Continent that it is almost an island, but it is still connected via the Isthmus of Gibraltar.

Lakes, on the other hand, are a bit more common. The Great Australian Lake is the largest, of course, and you could even call it an ocean in the same sense that you'd call Pluto a planet. Other major lakes include the British Lakes, the Japanese Lakes, the Indonesian and Lesser Australian Lakes, Lake Madagascar, and Greenlake and Icelake. All of these are lakes that extend below sea level.

Now that we've established the basic topography of the world, let's examine how climactic and geological forces would affect it.

Our first big question is presented by the joint forces of erosion and gravity. Water is a much stronger force for erosion than air is, which is why I haven't bothered describing the topography of the new ocean floor--it will be smoothed very quickly. The rather smooth continents, on the other hand, have nothing to fear from erosion. The problems come where elevation changes abruptly. Depending on the underlying geology, the seaside cliffs and the Mariana Mountains could end up being smoothed over time. This is fiction, though, so you can make the geology be whatever you want it to be. Just beware of landslides.

Next, there is the climate. If we assume that it is only the land structure that has changed and the planet's orbit and tilt remain the same, then the Southern Ocean will be more or less permanently frozen over, much as the Arctic Ocean is in our world. The same is likely to be true of most or all of Greenlake. The northern lowlands of the World Continent will be much like the northernmost reaches of Siberia and Canada, on the outermost fringe of suitability for human habitation.

This may be modified, however, by a consideration I did not account for when I first started answering this question. While the original source of the Earth's heat energy is the Sun, that energy travels through outer space as electromagnetic radiation and is converted to heat after it reaches the Earth. While some of it is converted to heat in the upper atmosphere, about two-thirds of the electromagnetic radiation that is converted to heat is converted to heat at the planet's surface. Some of this heat remains on the surface, while some is transferred immediately back to the atmosphere. Not surprisingly, water and land behave very differently in this equation. In all honesty, I do not understand this process well enough to tell you how increased land surface area and decreased water surface area would affect this process. If I had to guess, though, I would say that the world would be slightly cooler. This has much more to do with physics than geography, though, and I am most definitely not an expert on physics.

One of the most important basic principles of meteorology is that land changes temperature more rapidly than water. The surface of a land area will both gain and lose heat relatively quickly. The surface and subsurface of a body of water will gain and lose it gradually, and will not reach the same extremes. There are reasons for this, but they're not terribly important as long as you understand the basic fact. Because of the interaction between surface temperature and air temperature, large bodies of water also exert a moderating effect on coastal regions. So, in general, temperatures (both hot and cold) will get more extreme the further you get inland.

The influence of ocean currents will be much less significant in our inverse world than it is in the real world. I do think they would probably exist, but they would be fewer, and they would not interact with each other. In the northern hemisphere, currents move in a clockwise direction; in the southern hemisphere, they move counterclockwise. My best guess is that there would be four of them--one in North America, one in South America, one in Eurasia, and one in Africa. In the real world, currents affect temperature by bringing warm equatorial water towards the poles and cold polar water towards the equator. The east coast of a landmass is generally heated by equatorial water, and the west coast is generally cooled by polar water. There are exceptions caused by non-circular currents, but in the inverse world the oceans would be too disconnected for anything like that to exist.

Certain contributors to temperature would not change at all, of course. For instance, higher elevations will generally be cooler than lower elevations. Areas closer to the poles will be colder, while areas closer to the equator will be warmer. Seasonal variations will exist. Their biggest effect will be in the areas between the equator and the poles, where summers will be hot and winters will be cold. Near the poles, it will be cold year-round; near the equator, it will be hot year-round.

Wind is a very complex topic and the differences probably won't be hugely important, so I won't spend much time on it. Suffice it to say that coastal areas and mountainous areas will have the most persistent winds. Generally, winds will move from sea to land during the day and during the summer, and from land to sea during the night and during the winter. The day-night distinction is more of a localized phenomenon, while the summer-winter distinction is more regional or global. It is this summer-winter reversal of air flow that causes monsoons in certain parts of the world, and you could expect to find a smaller but still significant monsoon effect in some parts of the inverse world. It would probably be most noticeable on the southern coast of the Eastern (Eurasian) ocean, although other equatorial regions near large bodies of water may experience it to one degree or another.

Now, precipitation. Precipitation is a complex process as well, but one constant element is that warm and wet air is forced upwards until it cools and the moisture condenses. This generally happens in one of three ways. Convective uplift (a vertical circular pattern of air movement) create large thunderclouds and is characteristic of warm parts of the world and warm seasons. Orographic lifting is caused by mountains; warm wet air goes up a mountain, cools, drops rain on the windward side of the mountain, and then descends the other side of the mountain both drier and hotter than it was when it started. (This is the cause of rain shadows, and the reason that the pattern of oceans followed by mountains followed by deserts is common.) Frontal lifting (and its less common variant, convergent lifting) is caused when two dissimilar bodies of air meet and the warmer body is forced above the colder body. This creates generalized steady precipitation and tends to occur in the middle latitudes where cold polar air meets hot tropical air. Bodies of air near the poles and the equator are too uniform for this type of precipitation to be common.

Globally, precipitation in our world is highest in the tropical regions. The trade winds move from east to west, so the east coasts of landmasses tend to be on the receiving end of higher precipitation. Coastal mountain ranges in northwestern North America and southwestern South America also produce high precipitation. I suspect that the tendency of the tropics to be particularly rainy would carry over to the inverse world. The west coast precipitation in the Americas obviously would not carry over. However, I suspect it might have a parallel on the eastern end of the Eurasian ocean, between the ocean and the Marianas Mountains. In all of these cases, rain shadows would be strongly accentuated.

Low precipitation in our world tends to occur on the western ends of continents in subtropical latitudes (i.e. 30 degrees), especially if there are mountains to the east. Inland areas may also be very dry simply because of the distance from large bodies of water. Also, the poles have essentially no precipitation. Although they may have permanent snow and ice cover, the complete absence of precipitation makes them technically deserts. All three of these effects would carry over to the inverse world. The inland effect, in all likelihood, would be by far the most significant. Much of the Pacific landmass would be extremely dry.

As a general rule, wet areas have little variation in yearly precipitation, and dry areas have a great deal of variation. Put another way, wet areas are always consistently wet, but dry areas are not always consistently dry.

Because of the placement of the oceans, hurricanes are extremely unlikely and the only region with any reasonable potential for hurricane development is in the northern portion of the African Ocean. (The reasons are too long to include; if you want details, Wikipedia is your friend.) These hurricanes would move northwest after their development, losing force after landfall just as they do in the real world. 

As previously mentioned, there will be several large lakes. However, in this world, just as in our world, not all lakes will be below sea level. The lakes shown on the map will probably all be saltwater lakes. Any rain that falls, however, will be fresh water, and it will flow through rivers and freshwater lakes just as it does here and now. The inland valleys visible in the map will probably hold a large network of lakes; depending on the amount of rainfall, some of them may even become one long, narrow lake. Whether these lakes are freshwater or saltwater would depend on whether they are connected by rivers to the various oceans. Such a connection would usually be plausible. Rivers in the uplands will likely cut canyons leading either to the central lakes or to the oceans. Once they pass the cliffs and enter the lowlands, they will do what water always does at the base of a mountain: slow down and spread out.

All of this is very interesting, of course, but for the most part it's only background to the background of your story. The most important part of all this is how it affects where and how people live.

The first thing you can expect is a significant concentration of population in coastal areas. With the exception of the Antarctic Ocean, most coasts will contain major population centers. Population will also be higher near rivers and lakes. The Atlantic and Indian landmasses will contain such bodies of water, as will the western portions of the Pacific landmass. Conversely, dry inland areas will be sparsely populated. The Pacific landmass is the biggest example; most of it may very well be almost uninhabited. If it does have inhabitants, they will be nomadic rather than settled. In pre-modern eras, at least, access to water is one of the biggest prerequisites to the formation of (relatively) large cities, and severe lack of water may make nomadism the only realistic option for finding sufficient resources to raise food.

Beyond this, I think you'll be as good a judge of how to interpret the effects on life as I am. A good study of history, including where and how ancient cultures developed, will give you the tools necessary to make accurate representations of the inverse world's civilizations.

I'd apologize for the length of this answer, but really, I am not sorry at all. I have had entirely too much fun doing this, and I hope I get the excuse to do it again soon. In the interest of time, I've only included one map; however, if you'd like me to take any of my words and convert them into maps (for instance, climate maps), just email me or submit a follow-up question and I will be extremely happy to make them for you. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did!

-yayfulness


0 Comments
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Question #78483 posted on 07/27/2014 4:42 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

The recent Supreme Court question made me wonder something. Why is Roberts Chief? He isn't the one with the most seniority there. Is it just his slot, or in other words, because the one he happened to replace was chief, and whoever replaces him someday will get the chief slot?
Also, what properties does the chief slot have that the others don't?

-Gil

A:

Dear Gil,

The position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is one that is filled by presidential appointment. The Constitution doesn't specify much beyond the vague existence of this position, so seniority or merit has nothing to do with the appointment. The President can appoint whichever Justice he pleases through nomination, so long as the Senate confirms his decision. Technically, since there is no Constitutional requirement for how the Chief Justice should be selected, it can be changed. For example, the Justices could theoretically be allowed to select the Chief Justice themselves.

The Chief Justice has many additional roles. The Constitution specifies that he (or she) presides over presidential impeachment trials but all of his other roles are more traditional. He is the one who typically swears in the new president, chairs conferences with the other justices and has a general agenda-setting power within the Supreme Court. He also traditionally speaks first, so although his vote carries the exact same weight as the rest of the Justices, he might have slightly more persuasive power than the other justices. 

-Concorde 


0 Comments
Question #78489 posted on 07/27/2014 2:24 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Wanting to understand worldly culture beyond my safe, happy, Mormon bubble, I have a few questions for you concerning alcohol and coffee. **Note: I have no interest in drinking it or being a part of the culture -- I just want to understand an aspect for the big world out there.

So:

1) Does drinking coffee actually help people sober up? I always see on TV/Movies when someone is drinking alcohol and suddenly they are called to do surgergy/perform a speech, etc. (Of course, they would get sued in the real world), but I'm wondering.... does coffee actually like reverse drunkeness? Sober people up a bit? How quickly?
2) Does coffee help with hangovers? Are Hangovers like a bad migraine? Or less than that?
3) I imagine that people must build a tolerance to the caffeine in coffee so does coffee at some point stop stimulating them (waking them up) and they are just drinking it to prevent withdrawals? So they are still tired? Also, I need a little help waking up in the morning, what drink (obviously within the confines of the WoW)/food can I partake of to get a boost of energy in the morning or that dead,sleepy time during the afternoon?

-Kool-Aid Man Smashing through a Brick Wall (Part 1)

P.S. Oh-yeaaaaah

A:

Dear Kool-Aid Man, 

I am a writer who has actually been drunk before, which I admit with considerable shame and difficulty and which necessitates anonymity. While I did imbibe, I have never actually drunk coffee, which is a weird dichotomy, but that's beside the point. Most of my friends drank coffee as well as alcohol, however, and on mornings when I would sleepover and we would wake up with hideous hangovers they would chug coffee like there was no tomorrow. However, from their reports, it didn't actually do much. The caffeine made them feel slightly more alert and energized despite the hangover, but it doesn't really help you sober up or get rid of hangovers. 

A hangover, in my experience, is a terrible, terrible headache. Your entire head feels like it's been stuffed with fluffy cotton balls and bits of sharp metal at the same time, furiously jumbling around. It feels like it's scraping the insides of your skull. You're very sensitive to light and loud sounds because they make the bits of metal and fluff move faster. It's accompanied with cotton mouth, nausea and just general yuck-iness and the only way to get rid of it is to just let time take its course. 

Getting plenty of good food and hydration helps (think huge Denny's breakfasts the morning after) as well as some motrin or aleve, but it doesn't really go away. 

As for your last question, my friends tell me that they don't really build a huge tolerance to their morning coffee. It still wakes them up, but it could also be a placebo effect just because that's what their body is expecting, but most of them tell me that they are addicted and it still helps them wake up in the morning. When I had an early morning internship that left me exhausted I would sniff coffee beans in the morning right before I made the coffee for my boss. I know that's super weird, but at 6 AM after four hours of sleep coffee beans smell delicious and I would lean over and just inhale furiously and that would make me feel more awake. 

More normal methods include drinking ice-cold orange juice, exercise and healthy eating. 

-None

A:

Dear human,

You are right, people do build up tolerance to caffeine over time. And they also keep drinking it largely to prevent withdrawal. In this respect, it's very much like other addictive substances.

As for the best way to wake up and stay awake during the day, make sure you are getting enough sleep. If you are consistently having a hard time getting up in the morning and if you are sleepy in the afternoon, then you probably aren't. There is no real substitute for sleep and you will have a hard time solving this problem by eating or drinking something. 

-Sheebs

A:

Dear Kool,

Mythbusters investigated the "use coffee to sober up" myth and found it was entirely fictional.  The most interesting aspect they reported, however, was that it may cause a person to feel more sober due to the caffeine stimulation, but they don't actually have any improved cognitive ability.

-Curious Physics Minor


0 Comments
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Last week, the world watched two atrocious events unfold. There was Malaysian flight that was shot down (full of innocent civilians) because of the fighting between Russia/Ukraine and the increased tensions between Hamas and the Israelis. The term "ceasefires" have been used in discussion of both events.

Egypt I guess was working hard on ordering a "ceasefire" between Hamas in Gaza and the Israelis. The Israelis refrained from fighting momentarily (observing the ceasefire), but Hamas continued their attacks, which resulted in Israel responding with drastic measures.

My question is: Who orders these ceasefires? Who gave them the authority? How do they enforce it? Do they just say "ceasefire" and expect the people to listen instantaneously? Or do they say "at this time... on this day... we would like you to stop fighting." Why do the fighting parties care what a random outsider says? Why does everyone make a big deal about whether another country calls a "ceasefire" on another country, etc? Like is "Obama Administration (Kerry) going to set a ceasefire?" Even if they did, that doesn't guarantee it's gonna happen. Does the person who calls a ceasefire, set an ultimatium and list consequences of those who break the "ceasefire"? Can anyone call a ceasefire?

I don't understand how war rules work. It seems like in war everything is tossed out the window. It's war.

-Spit Fire

A:

Dear Spire,

Ceasefires can be called for by several different groups. First, the groups involved may ask the other side for a ceasefire, which would give both sides a chance to recuperate and potentially discuss a permanent armistice. Allies who possess a lot of sway with one or both sides of the conflict can call for a ceasefire. With the current fighting in the Gaza Strip, the US and Egypt, among other influential powers, have called for ceasefires from both Israel and Hamas on multiple occasions. Finally, the UN security council can ask for a ceasefire among warring countries. In fact, on Tuesday (7/22/14), Jordan circulated a draft resolution in the Security Council to cease fire in the Gaza Strip. When it comes to ceasefires called for by the UN, the request doesn't have any teeth. This is because the UN doesn't have the power to enforce such things. By calling for a ceasefire, they can encourage countries, using various political pressures, to impose compliance if the groups don't submit to the request. This is also how calls for ceasefires work with allies and other countries. If the US tells Israel to broker a ceasefire with Hamas, and they don't comply, they can stop supplying them with necessary aid to continue the conflict or stir more anger against them in the international community. However, more often than not, such forms of pressure are idle threats. 

Ceasefires don't happen instantaneously. Once they are called for, a time for the ceasefire must be determined between the conflicting foes. For example, Israel and Hamas agreed to cease fire last Friday for five hours. This agreement was made several days in advance. There wasn't any way to enforce it though, except for the mutual desire (if there is a mutual desire) to end the killing, if only for a brief respite. It's kind of a prisoner's dilemma concept. If neither stop bombing each other during that time, then no one benefits; if both stop bombing everyone benefits, and they may take the time to begin talking about an armistice; if one side stops the fighting, and the other doesn't, it gives the attacking side the benefit. Looking at these incentives, it makes ceasefires very difficult to create and a gamble to hold. 

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger (who doesn't expect any ceasefire to really hold when it comes to the Gaza Strip right now, especially after Hamas failed to keep the last one) 


0 Comments
Question #78487 posted on 07/27/2014 2:18 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have a bone to pick with a government official. A hummingbird got stuck in my garage and couldn't know how to get out, and flew around so much in the hot weather (100 degrees), and got so tired it fell to the ground... and I'm trying to nurse it back to health.

What's this got to do with a government official, you ask?

Well, I was reading this (for tips on how to help my hummer friend): http://www.hummingbirds.net/about.html#garage and apparently hummingbird are attracted to the red thingy that hangs from your garage thingy (they think it's flowers), and apparently that color is mandated by the government.

Anywho... the question that remains: is why does the government insist on making red handle thingy that hangs from the garage thingy red (such technical terms, I know!)? Why not another color? Is it because otherwise cars would run into the wall? What's the reason? Which branch of government made that law?

Once you've answered that... can you tell me what consequences are stipulated if I painted my handle to a less flowery color? (So as to prevent hummer deaths?) My guesses are that no one would prosecute me if I changed my color.... but I was wondering what are the technical punishments for that? (I'm not worry... I'm just curious).

Has PETA or any other animal organization approached the government that insists on the red color (or the company that makes them) and told them about the hummingbird death trap?

-Humdinger! in a Bah Hum Bug mood

A:

Dear Bah,

The red handle is an emergency release.  It is there so if your garage door is crushing a person to death you can grab it and disconnect the door from the motor of the opener.  It is also useful if the opener is just broken and you still want to be able to get in and out of your garage.  Emergency/safety devices are often required to have consistent design/look/color to make them easily identifiable.  You don't want fire extinguishers to blend in with their surroundings.  You don't want someone wondering whether that thing is the safety shut-off or not.  You don't want people trying to remember the phone number for emergency help for this state versus that state.

In case you were wondering, the actual regulation that the emergency release handle be colored red can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 16 Chapter II Subchapter B Part 1211 Subpart A Section 1211.9.

I don't know what the penalty is for changing the color of the emergency release handle.  It's not clear to me from my reading whether these regulations apply to you as an individual consumer or home-owner.  The regulations appear to be directed at manufacturers and retailers.  Your behavior may be governed by a local housing-safety regulations rather than a product manufacturing requirement.  You would probably need to ask a lawyer specializing in residential safety regulations.  My best guess would be that, like smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors (in California at least), when you sell the property it has to meet minimum safety requirements, but otherwise no one is going to bother you about it.  If it is a rental property than there are probably additional safety requirements that have to be met.

As for which branch of government made that law, only one branch of the federal government is allowed to make law—the Legislative Branch (that is, Congress).

-Curious Physics Minor


0 Comments
Posted on 07/27/2014 2:04 p.m. New Comment on: #78477 I'm looking for a non-comedogenic facial moisturizer (easy to find) that smells fantastic (not so easy ...
Posted on 07/27/2014 2:04 p.m. New Comment on: #78477 I'm looking for a non-comedogenic facial moisturizer (easy to find) that smells fantastic (not so easy ...
Question #78472 posted on 07/27/2014 1:18 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I am not a BYU student yet, however, next year I plan on attending. I want to live in New Heritage. Can you give me an update on the construction going on there? How many buildings are they building? Is Old Heritage completely torn down? When will the new construction be completed? Thanks!

-the anglophile

A:

Dear TARDIS,

There's surprisingly little information regarding the construction of New Heritage online. However, I can tell you that there are still a few traditional buildings standing. There are eight new buildings currently built, and five buildings under construction right now.

-Tally M.


0 Comments
Question #78459 posted on 07/27/2014 1:18 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Are there any grocery stores in Provo (or close by) that carry poke? (Basically hawaiian's version of tuna sashimi)
If not, are there any restaurants that you can buy it from in larger quantities than just a single serving like you would from their menu?

- Heart (and taste buds) left in Hawaii

A:

Dear HH,

Unfortunately, the collective wisdom of the Board has been unable to find exactly what you're looking for. A Google search did turn up a couple restaurants that serve poke. Since they do offer catering (as far as I can tell), it may also be possible to arrange for the purchase of a larger quantity of poke than a single serving. Your best bet at this point is to contact one of the restaurants yourself and see if they're willing to sell exactly what you're looking for.

Readers, if we've missed something, please correct us!

-yayfulness


0 Comments
Question #78392 posted on 07/27/2014 12:36 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I recently read Confessions of a Sociopath by M.E. Thomas. The author is a 30 year old female, LDS, law professor. She says that it's probably likely that many sociopaths, like her, attend law school. True? Not true? She also believes that sociopaths would make for good surgeons and finance directors. What do you think? Out of all the sociopaths who are able to live a fulfilling life in society, what is their main profession?

-Christmas Cactus

PS. The author attended BYU for her undergrad in music. She wrote the book under a pseudonym, but can you find out what her real name is and where she attended law school and where she teaches now?

A:

Dear Chrictus,

According to psychologist Kevin Dutton, in his book, The Wisdom of Psychopaths, the top five jobs likely to attract a sociopath are:

  1. CEO: Big business is often characterized as heartless and sadistic, with endless power, autonomy and status. Here a sociopath, with their lack of empathy and emotion, might thrive. CFOs have similar amounts of power and ability in corporations. In essence, Dutton agrees with Thomas on this point. 
  2. Lawyer: Dutton seems to agree with Thomas on this front as well, arguing that lawyers, who cloak meaning in ambiguous jargon, could include a large crop of sociopaths. They would have the abilities to distance themselves from every case, because they don't connect or empathize. In addition, their desires for status would be satisfied by the power to make or break the lives of others in this occupation. 
  3. Media: A career in radio or television might satisfy the egomania common among sociopaths. In such a position they would inform, entertain, and influence the collective mind of millions.
  4. Salesperson: This career might appeal to a sociopath because it is a game of overcoming other people, and manipulating their emotions and desires. It requires charisma, and in shadier businesses, concealment of truths and half-truths to make a sale.
  5. Surgeon: Not only does the field of surgery offer the power of life and death, but it is a high-stakes arena where emotions can get in the way. Not only would a sociopath's deficiencies be utilized, but they could aggrandize their status by playing God on a daily basis. 

While there isn't any overarching research on where people with this disorder work, there is likely some draw to them of these kinds of careers. However, this isn't always the case. Sociopaths can, and likely do, work in any and all professions, and their disorder affects them all in different ways. I have a cousin who was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder at a young age, and as part of that he lacks the drive to create something of his life, and instead takes advantage of his parents and their generosity. 

While this isn't the case of every, or even most, sociopaths, it does demonstrate that they all are attracted to different walks of life.

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger (who hypothesizes that along with careers in television or radio, being a writer on the Board or an administrator in an anonymous system similar to the Board, may be very attractive to a sociopath...)

A:

Dear you,

I'm going to law school. Judge for yourself.

~Anne, Certainly (evil grin)

A:

Dear friend,

Regarding the author's identity, she has intentionally remained anonymous to protect her family. I'm sure we could find some leads with a few minutes of Googling, but I wouldn't feel comfortable publishing the information on this very public forum. If you really want to know, you have access to the same Internet we do.

Peace,

-Stego Lily


0 Comments
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Question #78480 posted on 07/26/2014 11 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I've never had a boyfriend before and while I've wanted one, I've been relatively fine without one. I'm independent and get along fine alone, but I do feel lonely sometimes, of course. Guys have just never really been interested in me and I've sort of grown to accept them.

This past summer a potential suitor has come into my life. Nothing is official and it's still in the awkward beginning stages, but I've noticed that since I've become aware of the fact that a guy is interested in me, I've felt better in general. I take care of myself more, I'm happier and I experience fewer emotional lows. I just do a lot better as a person on the whole.

Is this normal? Everyone always says to learn to be happy by yourself and be independent and not be emotionally dependent on others. But knowing that a guy potentially likes me makes me happier. Is this a sign of future emotional dependency? It makes me feel like I didn't actually like being alone, and that I was pretending that I was getting along fine. Additionally, what's wrong with admitting to not liking being alone? I feel like you're kind of expected to just enjoy being single, but sometimes I just don't want to be single anymore.

-Needy Nelly

A:

Dear Doctor,

Guess what? You're normal!

Happiness can and should be found in a variety of places. When you are single, you can and should find happiness in places that don't involve being in a relationship. If you depend your happiness on the pursuit of a relationship and not wanting to be alone, you will be more disappointed that if you search for happiness in other aspects of your life. It's better to be happily single than unhappily single.

When you have the opportunity to be in a relationship, you have a new opportunity to be happy beyond those things in which you found happiness before, which can result in an increase of happiness like you're experiencing.

Humans are intended for the companionship of others and don't naturally like being alone, so once again, yes, you are normal.

-Tally M.


0 Comments
Question #78477 posted on 07/26/2014 7:36 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm looking for a non-comedogenic facial moisturizer (easy to find) that smells fantastic (not so easy to find). I'm talkin' fruity/flowery Bath and Body Works fantastic.

I'm using an anti-acne treatment that contains sulphur and the smell is keeping me awake. I'd love something to put over it.

-Eloise Midgen

A:

Dear you,

I've used the facial cleanser but not the facial moisturizer from the Neutrogena Visibly Clear Pink Grapefruit line, and that might be worth checking out (and probably shouldn't be too difficult to find, either).

~Anne, Certainly


2 Comments
Question #78476 posted on 07/26/2014 6:54 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Like a typical girl, I hit up the mall and purchased a stylish black and white stripped shirt. While I think it's adorbs... it reminds me of the good old days.... you know... back in the day when the jailers wore black and white stripped jumpsuits. This inspired me to ask this question: Why did jailers use to wear black and white stripes? Does it have anything to do with the bars on a jail cell?

I understand the change to the new black (aka: orange) because it makes the prisoners/jailers stand out more, but when did this change take place? Or was it a gradual transition?

Does anyone else still use black and white stripes for their jailer uniforms (is that the right word)?

-Jailbird

A:

Dear Kurt Vonnegut,

According the the book Dress Behind Bars: Prison Clothing as Criminality by Juliet Ash, the striped prison unfirom emerged in Newgate Prison in 1815. While the primary reason for adopting the uniform was the reduced cost of using a simple pattern of cloth, the stripes (as you suspected) also represented the bars of the jail cells and served as a symbol of imprisonment. In 1904 the United States abandoned the striped uniforms because they had become a "badge of shame" and a source of humiliation for the inmates. As attitudes towards the penal system began to change, some prisons began to use the striped uniforms again. One recent example is the Saginaw County Jail, which transitioned from the orange jumpsuits because the popularity of Orange Is the New Black made those jumpsuits fashionable both in and out of the jail.

The surprising twist is that orange jumpsuits are not as commonly used as we often make them out to be. A lot of jails use denim or khaki clothing in their uniforms instead of jumpsuits. New York has banned the use of orange in prison uniforms. Orange jumpsuits are used by many jails when transporting prisoners, especially in public, even when the jumpsuit is not the jail's typical prison uniform. This practice originated only a few decades ago in order to distinguish prisoners as such.

-M.O.D.A.Q.


0 Comments
Question #78474 posted on 07/26/2014 4 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Have we been counseled by the Brethren (not commanded) to *not* abbreviate The Doctrine and Covenants to D&C in our speech (though written is fine)? I have noted I never hear the abbreviation in General Conference and I did hear this counsel some years ago (maybe a decade or more) but it could have been a Stake or Regional Conference. I personally dislike the abbreviation however I don't want to spread spurious teachings so would like to know, if it was given, when and by whom?

Thanks.

-Brit

A:

Dear Brian Braddock,

I know of no official statement from Church Headquarters on the proper way to refer to Doctrine and Covenants. I don't think it is such a pressing issue as to warrant any sort of specific counsel. That being said, just because we aren't counseled in all things doesn't mean we can't believe that one way or another is correct! I completely agree with you that we should say Doctrine and Covenants but unfortunately I have not been cleared to preach this as doctrine in my Elders Quorum lessons. Growing up I remember discussions with my siblings about not saying "dee and cee" based on the logic that we don't say "prov" when we are referring to Proverbs and so forth. When I was in the MTC my teacher who had served in London sternly encouraged us to use the full name of the book because many people, particularly those in the United Kingdom, associate a different meaning with D&C (although I don't think that was as much of a problem where I served). Additionally, all the many acronyms we use in the Church can be confusing to new members.

I am very opinionated about this particular topic and would add that although the Brethren haven't made an official statement they have set an example. I personally have never heard an Apostle say "dee and cee" during General Conference and that's enough justification for me to cling to my personal preferences in this matter.

-M.O.D.A.Q.


0 Comments
Question #78427 posted on 07/26/2014 3:30 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What is the number of times that Lee Jordan gets reprimanded or the megaphone almost taken away from him?

-the only interesting part of Quidditch

A:

Dear Person who doesn't appreciate these books nearly enough, 

Thanks to the handy-dandy text search tool on my Kindle, I went through the books, and meticulously found every instance of this occurring. Here are the results: 

Sorcerer's Stone: 2 (Ch. 11: Quidditch)

Chamber of Secrets: 0

Prisoner of Azkaban: 4 (Ch. 15: Quidditch Final). Best line from it: "THIRTY-ZERO! TAKE THAT, YOU DIRTY, CHEATING--" "Jordan if you can't commentate in an unbiased way--!" "I'm telling it like it is, Professor!" 

Goblet of Fire: 0

Order of the Phoenix: 0

As of The Half-Blood Prince, Lee Jordan is replaced by a Hufflepuff, Zacharias Smith, as Hogwarts Quidditch commentator. So in total, he is reprimanded by McGonagall six times, but she never actually takes the megaphone away from him. 

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger


0 Comments
Question #78473 posted on 07/26/2014 3:24 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Picture the stadium. Directly to the east of it, there is a large, dorsal-fin shaped parking lot. In the middle/slightly east side of the north edge of the parking lot resides a tree. An apricot tree. Said tree is perfectly laden with beautiful, luscious apricots, but (as far as I can tell) no one is picking them! They're all falling to the ground!

My questions are these:
To whom does the tree belong?
Would they let me harvest some for my own apricot loving tastes?

-I tasted a few and they're wonderful

A:

Dear Taste,

The tree belongs to BYU, and as such it is free game. They will just go to waste if you do not pick them.

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger 


0 Comments
Question #78462 posted on 07/26/2014 3:12 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What is your favorite moment in a movie?

-Em

A:

Dear Em,

The end scene of Warrior. At this point in the film the two brothers are the final two in the MMA match, and if Brendon (played by Joel Edgerton) doesn't win against his brother Tommy (played by Tom Hardy), he and his family will ultimately lose the house. If Tommy doesn't win, he will not be able to help out the family of his fallen brother in arms. So there they are beating each other up--letting out all the anger and hurt they feel towards one another, after some indeterminate number of years of being estranged. The whole time Brendan is saying, "I'm sorry Tommy. I'm sorry," and you know in your heart he is apologizing, not just for beating his brother in this tournament, and hurting him physically, but for not going with him all those years ago, and for staying with his abusive father; for not being there when their mother died. He eventually puts Tommy in a hold, and amidst the roar of the crowd, and pain racking both of their bodies, Brendan says to his brother, "It's okay Tommy. I love you." Tommy--angry, spiteful, hurt, invulnerable Tommy--taps out, by patting his brother on the back, as if to say, "I love you too."

We then see Brendan supporting Tommy, who is cradling a dislocated shoulder, as they walk out of the arena, with "About Today" by the National slowly increasing in volume. It's beautiful.  

Sincerely,
The Soulful Ginger  (who almost hates herself for how terribly emotional and sentimental this sounds. It doesn't make it any less beautiful though.)

A:

Dear human,

So The Sound of Music makes me tear up a little bit when Maria comes back to the Von Trapp family after briefly returning to the convent. The children are singing "My Favorite Things" sadly because they think she is gone forever and they are trying to comfort themselves the way she did but it doesn't work... and then all of a sudden she joins in and the children slowly stop to listen to her beautiful voice sing the song to them and brings joy and is wonderful and Julie Andrews. I just love her so much that I can't help the tears.

-Sheebs, the incredibly sentimental

A:

Dear you,

Anne of Green Gables has some beautiful moments, including Matthew trying to buy Anne a dress with puffed sleeves and buying 20 pounds of brown sugar and a garden rake (in the winter) before he gets up the courage to ask. The sequel has the moment when she finally ends up with Gilbert (probably my favorite fictional man) and so that also is amazing.

~Anne, Certainly

A:

Dear Em,

Whenever there is a pun. The cornier, the better. I pretty much die whenever I watch Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2.

-Ms.O'Malley

A:

Dear Em,

Right now, the ones I'm thinking of are the "married life" sequence of Up (with bonus points for the part when Carl goes through the adventure book at the end) and the final scene of Mr. Holland's Opus. They get me every time.

--Maven

A:

Dear Paprika,

I adore that moment at the end of North and South (yes, all four hours of it), when they're at the train station and it's all dramatic and romantic and perfectly lit. That's the best.

-Marguerite St. Just

A:

Dear Em,

I'm not going to take the effort of figuring out my very most favorite, but this is what came to mind first. "Whoa!" "What?" "Nothing." I like subtle jokes that happen so quickly they're easy to miss.

-Owlet

A:

Dear Em,

My favorite movie moments teach timeless lessons, but in funny or epic ways:

The Lego Movie: Emmett realizes that cheesy inspirational quotes can still be true.

The Incredibles: Frozone's wife stresses the importance of family.

Man of La Mancha: Don Quixote remembers his "true" identity.

Les Miserables (1998): Bishop Myriel redeems Jean Valjean.

-El-ahrairah

A:

Dear Em,

This scene from Megamind will always be my absolute favorite. 

"What's it like in your in vacuum?" 

-Concorde


0 Comments
Question #78468 posted on 07/26/2014 2:18 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So I recently started going out with a very conservative, very successful, all-in LDS guy. I am quite liberal, have been off-and-on in activity for years, and have many deeply-held social views which are very difficult to reconcile with various parts of Mormon culture and praxis.

I was moderately surprised when he told me that he believed I would be the type of person he could “take to the temple.” While not entirely opposed to the idea, it is not something I had seriously considered for a long time.

We are both in our late mid-to-late-twenties. There’s the adage to not confuse the Spirit with emotional or sexual feelings, and I actually agree with that idea. I feel it would be dishonest to express a degree of confidence in the LDS Church I don't feel in order to pursue a relationship with someone I really like. What do you think? I’m well-aware of the advice on the Board to generally take things slow, but I feel like this is a somewhat unusual situation.

Marriage-Minded Unsure Mormon

A:

Dear you,

I agree that you should be honest in your relationships. If you don't feel that you're the person he thinks you are, then at some point an honest and open discussion about what realistic expectations for your relationship are would be important. 

If what this man wants aligns with what you want, discuss this with him. If, however, the things that are deeply important to him are not deeply important to you, that's probably something he deserves to know - furthermore, you deserve to know how he feels about you as you are, not as he thinks you are.

~Anne, Certainly


0 Comments
Posted on 07/26/2014 12:29 p.m. New Comment on: #78458 As the commenter pointed out in Board Question #77620 , there is fry sauce outside of ...