#cru jones

[radcru-awesome]

[moonsworndandelion]

...

comment ça ya des livres bob morane

Tournoi Memique - Round 1 : L'Aventurier VS Sans Contrefaçon

Catégorie "Chansons Memifiées"

Pour ceux à qui ça ne parle pas :

[gregarnott]

Cru Jones, RAD

[blogger360ncislarules]

Have you met Jesus? Well, we’ve met actor Jonathan Roumie, which feels pretty close to the real deal. Though he’s quick to point out that he is not, in fact, the Son of God, the gracious star of The Chosen has given fans all around the world the gift of one of the most well-rounded portrayals of Jesus in TV and movie history. He jokes with the Apostles, He dances at weddings, He plays ball — and we want to follow Him. We also see the anguish behind His eyes at what’s to come. Like the olive in the press, Jesus feels the weight of the world, and in Season 5, that pressure continues to squeeze.

Roumie takes the daunting task of portraying Jesus’ Crucifixion onscreen seriously, and though Season 5 will only take the series as far as the Garden of Gethsemane, it’s always looming. But as we sat down with Roumie in July 2024 on the Midlothian, Texas, set, his spirits were high. The Catholic convert celebrated his 50th birthday earlier that week and had recently returned to the Season 5 set after spending time with his family.

And how could life be anything but good? Aside from starring on the mega-hit, Roumie was awarded an honorary Doctor of Fine Arts degree for his dedication to his faith in March 2024. He’s met the Pope on more than one occasion and been nominated for a papal knighthood. “It can be surreal at times,” he told TV Guide Magazine in 2023. “[Playing Jesus has] completely deepened my faith and affected my relationship with God. It makes me want to be a better version of myself and the best human being possible. I’ve been put here to play this character for a reason, I believe. And if that’s to allow people to get closer to their faith and to develop a relationship with God, what more could I ask for as an actor?”

Roumie talks about picking up the whip and teases the drama to come.

Paul Archuleta / Getty Images

You recently turned 50, but you play Jesus in His thirties so convincingly that most people watching don’t even realize that there’s a nearly 20-year age gap. What’s your secret?

Jonathan Roumie: I don’t think of myself as a particular number. I don’t feel my age. I think, biologically, I’m probably much younger. I think it’s what allows me to pass as the age of the character. So I think God knew what He was doing. [Laughs] You know, I live a pretty clean lifestyle, so I think that’s all helped, and genetics help as well.

I’m grateful that I get to play this role, which has been one of the most impactful and incredible roles an actor can ever play. It’s one of the most complex I think anybody could ever play. So I feel very, very fortunate.

There are some heavy scenes coming up in Season 5. Jesus is going to lose His temper, and we’ll see the cleansing of the temple from Scripture. Did you have to do any whip training for those scenes?

I did. I trained with a legendary whip master named Anthony De Longis, who trained Harrison Ford for one of the Indiana Jones films [2008’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull] and Michelle Pfeiffer for Batman Returns. Once I knew that there was some whip craft needed for Season 5, I wanted to make sure that I knew what I was doing, and I didn’t injure myself. I spent a lot of time with [the whip], and it’s now a new passion and a hobby. I love it.

What’s going on in Jesus’ head when He picks up that whip in The Chosen?

I think He’s calling out injustice. He’s at the limit of his tolerance for injustice because of how the poorest of the poor are being treated by the so-called religious authorities. And He, being the ultimate religious authority, calls them out, and He calls them out in a way that irrevocably changes His fate on Earth. So that’s something that’s just been really a joy to get to play.

You’re most of the way through shooting the fifth season. What is your mindset in terms of preparing for the Crucifixion in Season 6?

It’s getting closer and closer. We’re literally on the doorsteps of the Crucifixion scenes, and narratively, chronologically, we’re within 24 hours of that coming to fulfillment. And so, I have to start thinking about it a little bit now.

Meanwhile, Jesus is still trying to explain what’s going to happen to His disciples — and it’s not going well.

Our conversations in Season 5, mostly, are centered around Jesus trying to impress upon the somewhat hapless disciples the gravity of what is to come in the next several days [seen] throughout the season, and them wrestling with not actually quite getting it. He’s really trying to speak very plainly, and it’s just not registering. And it doesn’t, as we know from Scripture, quite register until the Resurrection.

[lboogie1906]

Michel’le Denise Toussant (December 5, 1970) known mononyously as Michel’le, is an R&Bsinger known for her songs from 1989 to the early 1990s. Her highest charting song is the top ten US Hot 100 hit “No More Lies”. Between (2013-15), she was one of six members of R&B Divas: Los Angeles. She is the subject of Surviving Compton: Dre, Suge & Michel’le.

She is a native of California, and was originally a featured female vocalist of World Class Wreckin’ Cru’s 1987 single “Turn Off the Lights”. She was signed to Eazy-E’s Ruthless Records. In 1989, her self-titled debut album was released. The album contained the single “No More Lies” which peaked at #7 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and the hit R&B singles “Nicety” and “Something in My Heart”. She was certified Gold on April 25, 1990, for sales of over 500,000 copies in the US. The West Coast All-Stars, in which she had a role, scored a nomination for Best Rap Performance by a Duo or Group at the 33rd Grammy Awards for the single “We’re All in the Same Gang”.

In 1998, she released her second album, Hung Jury, on Death Row Records. She provided vocals on 2Pac’s song “Run tha Streets” on his album All Eyez on Me, and Tha Dogg Pound’s song “Let’s Play House” on their debut Dogg Food.

She contributed to the soundtrack of Dysfunktional in 2003. She has since confirmed through several media outlets that she’s been working on new material and looking for a label for her third album. In 2011 and 2014, she released new singles “Freedom to Love” and “It Still Hurts”, though she hasn’t released an album since 1998.

She was included in No Vaseline on Ice Cube’s 1991 double platinum effort, Death Certificate. She was cast as herself in the stage play Love Jones: The Musical.

She was engaged to Dr. Dre. She was married to Suge Night. She has two children. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence

[wh4thefnk]

Thinking about how off I was, I never thought he was retiring, that is not what he said, but yes, the break lasted shorter than expected, and the workload he’s choosing isn’t as light as he lead people on (* ^◇^)_旦

I’m still stuck on him saying that he wanted to take a step back from Hollywood and focus on his home life. Not even four months go by and he’s back trying to be in the Hollywood loop lmfao

[senseofnewness]

i cannot stand glen powell with every ounce of my being and i’m sorry i’ll say it i don’t care for daisy edgar jones or paul mescal either. THOSE MET GALA PHOTOS ARE UNFORGIVABLE

while i agree with glen, he's too clean cut, very t*m cru*se

I WILL NEVER AGREE FOR PAUL AND DAISY, they have such a cute friendship and tbh don't give a damn about phoebe, maybe she deserved it

[christophe76460]

SE VANTER DE LA CROIX.

Galates 6.14 "Quant à moi, je ne veux me vanter que de la croix de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ"

"Le chrétien ne se glorifie pas seulement de la croix, il se glorifie de la croix seule. Il ne se glorifie de rien d’autre. . . .

Il y a là un caractère exclusif, ce qui signifie que pour le chrétien, c'est la chose principale de l'histoire, l'événement le plus important qui ait jamais eu lieu. Cela signifie que pour lui, il n’y a rien qui s’en rapproche en termes de signification. Cela veut dire qu'il repose tout sur cela, que cela signifie tout pour lui, qu'il est ce qu'il est à cause de cela. Il s'en glorifie.

Je veux poser une question à tous les chrétiens.

Est-ce que vous vous glorifiez de la croix ?

Ou dites-vous simplement : Bien sûr, j'ai toujours cru, j'ai été élevé dans ce sens.

Pouvez-vous parler ainsi de la croix ?

Le test du chrétien est qu’il s’en glorifie, qu’il s’en réjouit, qu’il s’en vante. C'est tout pour lui, sans cela il n'a rien.

Il doit tout à cela, cette croix est le centre de son univers à tous égards. C’est ce que signifie se vanter."

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, La Croix : la voie divine du salut (Crossway, 1986), 54-55

[us-cj]

Environmentalism has been rebranded into climate change and is nothing more than a sales pitch for politicians and wealthy industrialists betting on the new trend. Recall, the “Climate Gate” scandal broke on November 17th 2009. But by now there are several associated issues, such as “Glacier Gate” (1) and “Amazon Gate” (2), and it is time to figure out what it all means.

Climate Gate was the release (by a hacker or an insider) of thousands of e-mails and commented source codes from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU). There is enough fascinating material to write books about it (3), but one of the e-mails that have attracted most attention is one from November 1999 where Phil Jones of CRU wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes (the authors of the famous “hockey stick” graph that suggested unprecedented warming during the last century) saying: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” By itself, that could mean anything, but the source code of the related computer program makes abundantly clear that they substitute Keith Briffa’s original tree ring temperature proxy with Hadley’s instrumental record from 1961 onwards in order to hide the apparent decline in temperatures indicated by the tree-ring data (4).

The general impression that one gets from reading the material is that a small group of generously funded researchers have been torturing the temperature data from all over the globe to get it to show a 0.8ºC increase over the last 150 years, and, amazingly, they (together with Al Gore, MSM, IPCC and others) have managed to convince most people that such an increase is unprecedented, caused by human CO2 emissions, and disastrous for all life on the planet.

One of the other main issues in the climate gate scandal is that the Hadley Climate Research Unit has resisted releasing data and methods, so that other researchers could verify their results. The scientific method in general requires researchers to make their data and methods available for independent replication, and the British Freedom of Information Act specifically requires publicly funded institutions to do so, but the hacked e-mails make clear how the involved climate researchers have resisted and evaded legal and reasonable information requests.

Glacier Gate, on the other hand, is the debunking of the claim in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report that Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”. This statement has proven to be completely unfounded, and one glaciologist, Professor Cogley at Ontario Trent University, believe the IPCC has misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350. The IPCC has now officially retracted the statement (5), but what makes it particularly embarrassing is that the IPCC chairman had ridiculed Indian scientists who refuted the claim, calling their work “voodoo science” (6).

Amazon Gate is another example of the flimsy evidence on which the IPCC have based their claims of climate calamities. In the Working Group II report of 2007 they state that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” on the basis of a non peer-reviewed WWF report whose lead author, Andy Rowell, is a free-lance journalist. If you follow the reference used by WWF, it leads to a 1999 article in Nature about the impacts of logging. IPCC could have used that reference, as it is at least peer-reviewed, but the problem may have been that the Nature-article mentions nothing at all about climate change (2).

However, by now it doesn’t matter much what the evidence shows or does not show. The Climate Change Train is going at full speed and it is difficult to get off. Many institutions, which jumped on the climate change bandwagon before the Copenhagen summit, have committed themselves and their budgets to climate change activities instead of their usual activities, and now find it difficult to backtrack...

SOURCE: This is "The Runaway Climate Train", by Lykke Andersen. Lykke Andersen is the Director of the Center for Economic and Environmental Modeling and Analysis (CEEMA) at INESAD.

---------------------------------------

(1) See summary at The Sunday Times “World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown” https://web.archive.org/web/20100124015736/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

(2) See summary by James Delingpole at the Daily Telegraph “After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate” https://web.archive.org/web/20100213010322/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/

(3) That has already been done. See, for example, “Climategate: Caught Green-handed” by Christopher Moncton [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf] or “Climategate: The CRUtape Letters” by Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller [https://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Crutape-Letters-Steven-Mosher/dp/1450512437/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264982554&sr=1-1]

(4) See analysis by Steve McIntyre https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483

(5) See The Times: https://web.archive.org/web/20111007072623/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

(6) See The Guardian: https://web.archive.org/web/20130908063242/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

[thewineauctionroom]

New Post has been published on https://wineauctionroom.com/now-is-the-time-to-invest-in-wine/

Now IS the time to invest in wine

A year ago, the New Zealand Herald posed the question “Is Now The Time To Invest In Wine?”.  In talking with several wine specialists in New Zealand, including our team at The Wine Auction Room, the answer was a resounding yes. And this answer holds true today.

At The Wine Auction Room, we’ve noticed local wine auctions are following global trends. Liv-ex is the global fine wine trading platform that tracks fine wine resale prices through its various indices. As measured by the Liv-ex Fine Wine 100 index, wine proved a better investment in recent years than traditional equity markets, such as the Dow Jones or gold. Recent sales through local auction houses have proven the market has softened compared to previous years, making this a great time to purchase well-cellared wines in the secondary market to boost your investment portfolio.

New Zealand offers some tremendous wines worthy of a seat at any international table. With interest tapering, we are now seeing some of the more popular brands such as Stonyridge Larose and Te Mata Coleraine being secured at values ~20% less than paid in 2021. Lesser-known contemporary New Zealand Bordeaux blends, such as Te Motu and Newton Forrest, offer consistently great value for their tremendous quality.

This investment value is not just limited to local wines. We’ve noticed similar trends for international wines – from premier cru to village classes, savvy buyers are collecting wines that will do them proud in years to come.

To help our buyers, we note the cellaring conditions of the wine prior to being consigned to auction, and quality wines from consistent temperature-controlled storage always pique the interest of discerning buyers.  Cellaring conditions are one of the key things to look at when buying wines on the secondary market.  Look out for wines that have been consistently stored in temperature-controlled conditions on release from the vineyard.

Critic scores are another indicator that can help guide your investment purchases. Scores greater than 95 points (of 100) or 18 points (of 20) are worthy of your attention. Of course, scores of 100 (or 20) are reserved for the finest of wines for their time – keep an eye out for them and be sure to read the tasting notes to understand when the wine will be in its prime.  Our upcoming auction is littered with 100-point wines – offering a wonderful investment opportunity for the shrewd buyer.

Of course, depending on when and how these wines were purchased by our vendors, the results still offer a generous return. As with all investments, it can take time to realise the increase in value.  Your investment equation can be summed up in three hows…. How you buy, how you store and how long you hold for.

The Wine Auction Room hold regular monthly auctions in a variety of formats.  Live/online, virtual/online and fixed-time online only.  We publish our catalogue with plenty of time for you to complete your research and cast your bids. Of course, our team are always on hand to provide you with detailed advice.  Simply call us and we can talk through your investment aspirations.

[radcru-awesome]

Our Family Picture 2021

Awesome ! 100 plus likes on our Digital Practice page , thanks to all the support ! Our Construction (EDC) Every Day Carry When we Build , its like an Adventure, and in every adventure we always gear up , so here is a list of our every day carry on site construction Tribute to Indiana Jones all time classic adventure which my kids and I enjoyed. Nothing beats Harrison Ford and Hat. Enjoy , Learn and Build For Youtube Viewers https://youtu.be/iFiWtYlbR7E Click the link to view the video

[wh4thefnk]

https://www.tumblr.com/profoundpersoncollective/731286093733986304/of-course-alabama-and-hollywoods-biggest-pervert

I’m so glad someone posted the screenshots for this because I know I regularly bring up how he really did follow that 21 year fitness influencer with a double PhD in butt workouts and the male gaze (I am not shaming her, this is just the reality of her content - her account is still up btw) but it hits different seeing it. In September 2021, mind you, when he had likely already been entertaining his future wife for a while. And okay maybe he didn’t know how old she was (she still looks young imo) but it’s still so dumb to be doing these shenanigans on your professional work account at the big age of 40. Such lame loser sloppy vibes, I’m sorry to the Mr Baptista fans. 🥴

Gosh. And he knows how to use fake social media (Cru Jones) but there he was using his official instagram as Tinder allegedly… of course these ladies wouldn’t bother to look twice at a Cru Jones… but a Chris Evans? Mmm… maybe that was the whole point.

[snakebitebmx]

Head over to the site to read Lee Sultemeier's recap from Helltrack Fest that went down this past weekend in Texas

www.snakebitebmx.com/getting-loose-with-lee-helltrack-festival/

[themoviefort]

Episode 6: RAD with Hollywood Mike Miranda

It’s Hollywood Mike Miranda... up in the fort with Hollywood Mike Miranda! 

Listen to The Movie Fort podcast on your favorite platform:  Spotify: HERE  SoundCloud: HERE iTunes: HERE

Sticher: HERE

TuneIn: HERE

The Movie Fort is back and I’m still pinching myself that this episode happened because BMX legend Hollywood Mike Miranda came up to the fort for a screening of the 1986 film RAD. 

Out of all the classic movies to come out of the 1980s, arguably no film has the cult following that RAD continues to have to this day, no matter what millennial pop culture writers claim. Yes, it was a box office bomb but found a thriving second life in video stores as millions of BMX obsessed kids around the country made it one of the top VHS rentals for several years running. (Back in the day, video rentals were charted like The Weekly Top 40 and RAD perpetually hovered near the top.) However, as VHS tapes gave way to DVDs and video stores were rendered extinct by streaming, RAD became a collector’s item that spawned a thriving bootleg market. Due various rights issues, it was never officially available on DVD until this year when a limited edition  4K restoration was released. (It immediately sold out and discs are going for $100+ on eBay.) 

But, in even better news, RAD is now available for digital rental or purchase on most streaming services. Click here to rent or buy on Amazon and watch along with us. 

Finding a copy of RAD on the shelf at your local video store was an ‘80s kid’s version of the winning the lottery because it was always rented out. 

The Two Greatest Showdowns of the ‘80s: Daniel LaRusso vs Johnny Lawrence and Cru Jones vs Bart Taylor.  While RAD remains a picture perfect time capsule when it comes to everything that was so ‘80s about the ‘80s, what makes it unique in the realm of sports movies is that outside of Cru, played by Bill Allen, and his rivals on Team Mongoose, 1984 Olympic Gold Medalist Bart Conner and twin brothers Chad and Carey Hayes, the rest of the Helltrack field is filled out by the top BMX racers of the era playing themselves.  And Hollywood Mike Miranda was one of them. 

The Two Most Iconic Mustache Duos of the ‘80s: Thomas Magnum and his red Ferrari and Hollywood Mike Miranda and his pink Hutch. 

I’ve been fortunate to be friends with Hollywood for several years and the fact that he came over to our house to watch RAD still makes my brain short circuit as I write this. We’d been talking about doing a screening for months and it was such a memorable night that I want build a time machine to go back to 1986 and tell my younger self what we’re up to in 2020.  Before we fired up RAD, Hollywood and I watched the Dodgers beat the Angels. Along the way, we crushed a pizza and drank a few RAD themed amber ales from Alosta Brewing Company, a local brewery. And when those ran out, we may have drank a Modelo or two. 

The description on the can is a chef’s kiss of perfection and the koozie is one that RAD fans will appreciate.  When it came to the main event of watching RAD, Hollywood spun some fantastic tales about making film and what it was like to be in a movie directed by Hal Needham (you might know him as the director of Smokey and the Bandit and a slew of other classics).  

We also talked about being at ground zero for the creation of BMX when he was a kid growing up in California’s Inland Empire and the thrill of becoming friends with his childhood hero Evel Knievel. (Yes, that Evel Knievel. As if there’s another one.) 

And Hollywood’s story about Shaq and Bart Conner? It really happened. 

[claudia1829things]

"STAR TREK DISCOVERY" Season Two Musings

Below is an article that I had written about Season Two of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”.  Parts of the article is an amalgamation of previous posts about the series’ second season:

"STAR TREK DISCOVERY" SEASON TWO MUSINGS There have been plenty of articles on the Internet that many television shows with successful first seasons usually decline in quality with its second season. This is known as the "second season curse". I do not There have been plenty of cases when the quality of a television series has improved with each succeeding season. However, I do believe there are some shows that adhere to this theory. When it comes to Season Two of the CBS All Access series, "STAR TREK DISCOVERY", some believe it had . Most Trek fans either believe that Season One of "DISCOVERY" was a disaster. Many were put off by Michael Burnham, who is portrayed by an African-American actress, as the series' lead. Many had complained about the series' serialized format. And there were numerous complaints about the season's ambiguous portrayal of its main characters and the Federation. Despite these complaints, "STAR TREK DISCOVERY" managed to become a big hit and attract many fans. Unfortunately, the show runners had listened to these disenchanted fans who considered themselves "veteran" Trekkers and made certain changes to the series for its second season. I usually have no problems with a series making some kind of changes. It is necessary for a series to develop. However, some of the changes or additions to Season Two of "DISCOVERY" . . . bothered me. Season Two began with the episode called (2.01) "Brother", when Captain Christopher Pike of the U.S.S. Enterprise, took emergency command of the U.S.S. Discovery after his ship was damaged during the crew’s investigation of seven mysterious red signals. The last signal led Pike and the Discovery crew to an asteroid made of non-baryonic matter, where they discovered the U.S.S. Hiawatha, damaged during the Federation-Klingon War of last season. How did the Hiawatha crew’s rescue play a role in the season’s overall arc? Were the events of "Brother" more about rescuing Commander Reno and adding a new character to the series? If so, this was a piss-poor and vague way to do it. Reno could have easily been transferred to Discovery as its new chief engineer without this convoluted set-up to bring her aboard the ship. Also, she had played a very limited role in the second season’s narrative. By mid-season, I found myself wondering why she had not returned to Starfleet Headquarters on Earth, following her rescue. I did not learn until after the finale had aired that she had been officially assigned to Discovery. Huh? And there was the matter of a primitive Human colony on a planet called Terralysium. The Red Angel had led the Discovery to the colony and prevented its inhabitants from being destroyed by an extinction-level radiation shower. How did this play a role in Season Two's overall arc? Burnham and the Discovery crew eventually discovered that the signals came from a time travel sentient being called "the Red Angel". And the Red Angel turned out to be Michael's presumed dead mother, Dr. Gabrielle Burnham. Since viewers learned that Dr. Burnham's overall goal was to make the Federation aware of dangerous artificial intelligence called "Control", why did she go out of her way to bring attention to the Hiawatha crew and Terralysium's inhabitants? As it turned out, Dr. Burnham was not involved in those situations. Michael was. Michael had ended up using the Red Angel suit in the season's finale, (2.14) "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part II". And she was the one who had sent the seven signals, including the two that led Starfleet to both the Hiawath and Terralysium. Really? Was that show runners' way of explaining why the Red Angel led the Discovery crew to situations that had no major impact upon Season Two's narrative? Frankly, I found this rather a waste of time. Perhaps Michael wanted to save Commander Reno and allow Terralysium to survive when Discovery arrived in the future. But honestly, the show runners and their writers could have handled this with tighter writing. Or perhaps the above scenarios were inevitable, since the show runners had planned to send the U.S.S. Discovery over nine hundred years into the future. Imagine, a serialized television show's format or setting undergoing an extensive change in the middle of its run - during its third season. The series went from being about a Starfleet science vessel during the 2250s to one that is exploring the future. Why? Alex Kurtzman claimed that he had wanted to take the series into a new setting so that the writers would not have to work hard to connect the series' narrative with the 1966-1969 series, "STAR TREK". Especially since the latter series is set a decade after "DISCOVERY" and so many fans have been crying plot holes upon discovering that Michael Burnham was the adoptive daughter of Spock's parents, Sarek and Amanda Grayson. Pop culture fans can be incredibly stupid sometimes. And so are the television show runners who listen to them. Taking the U.S.S. Discovery some 900 years into the future struck me as one of the most unnecessary moves the show runners could have made. I also find the whole idea ridiculous. "STAR TREK DISCOVERY" began in 2256 - a decade earlier than "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" and aboard another Starfleet ship . . . with a different crew. There would have been NO NEED for the series to make a concerted effort to connect with the 1966-69 series, despite Michael Burnham being the adopted sister of Spock. At best, Spock, Sarek and Amanda can make the occasional appearance on the show. If "DISCOVERY" ever lasts as long as those shows between 1987 and 2001 - "STAR TREK: NEXT GENERATION", "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE" and "STAR TREK VOYAGER" - the series' setting would have ended in 2263 or 2264 - at least two to three years before the beginning of "THE ORIIGNAL SERIES"setting. Did any of the show runners ever considered this? By changing the premise, "DISCOVERY" will only end up being some kind of time travel version of "VOYAGER". And that does not strike me as particularly original. There is another problem with the new direction that the series had undertaken in the Season Two finale - namely the former Most Imperial Majesty, Mother of the Fatherland, Overlord of Vulcan, Dominus of Qo'noS, Regina Andor, Philippa Georgiou Augustus Iaponius Centarius of the Mirror Universe. As everyone knows, mirror Philippa eventually impersonated the deceased Captain Georgiou prime as a retired Starfleet officer and later became a Section 31 operative. Midway during the airing of Season Two, it was announced that Michelle Yeoh, who portrayed Georgiou, would headline a new Trek series in the near future about Section 31. Why is this a problem? Georgiou was one of the Starfleet personnel aboard Discovery when it followed Michael in the Red Angel suit . . . into the future. If Discovery being 900 years in the future is the series' new premise, how will Georgiou return to the 2250s in order to continue her story with Section 31? Someone had suggested that she will command Section 31 in the 32nd century? Really? Why on earth would anyone in Earth's future allow a woman from the 23rd century assume command of an organization like Section 31? There were aspects of Season Two that I liked. I found Starfleet's conflict with the A.I. entity known as Control rather interesting . . . and frightening. Many Trek fans had complained that "Control" should have been portrayed as the origin story for the Borg. What they had forgotten that around this period Trek history the Borg had existed for quite some time and had wiped out the El-Aurian home world. Using "Control" as the Borg's origin story was out of the question. I also enjoyed how the writers used the spore drive's mycelial plane to bring Dr. Hugh Culber back from the dead and how this resurrection had affected his relationship with Lieutenant Paul Stamets. I especially enjoyed Michael's reunion with her missing mother, Gabrielle Burnham. In fact, I could honestly say that I had truly enjoyed the episodes of mid-Season Two - from (2.05) "Saints of Imperfection" to (2.11) "Perpetual Infinity". However, I did not like the finale, (2.13-2.14) "Such Sweet Sorrow". Many had complained that the two-part episode seemed over saturated with action. Or that the finale seemed more "STAR WARS"than "STAR TREK". The action in "Such Sweet Sorrow" did not bother me. I certainly had no problems with Georgiou's brutal fight against the Control-possessed Captain Leland. Along with Discovery's eventual journey into the future, I had some problem's with the episode's writing. One of those problems involved Ash Tyler, the former Klingon whose body and consciousness had been transformed into a Starfleet officer who had died during the Federation-Klingon War. Instead of joining the rest of the Discovery crew for their journey into the future, he remained behind to contact Empress L'Rell (his or Voq's former paramour) to help Starfleet's conflict against Control. This would be nothing, but Ash had openly contacted L'Rell and was later by her side aboard a Klingon starship during the battle. Apparently, Alex Kurtzman and the episode's screenwriter that Georgiou and Section 31 had went through a good deal of trouble to end Ash's brief role as L'Rell's aide on the Klingon home world in order to save her reign as the new Empress . . . by faking his death. Worse, Starfleet put Ash in command of Section 31, despite his limited experience with the agency and his unsuitability as a spy. Despite the fact that Georgiou had managed to destroy Control and prevent it from acquiring the massive data from the Sphere that the crew had discovered in (2.04) "An Obol for Charon", Michael and the Discovery crew traveled into the future anyway. Following Discovery's disappearance into the future, Captain Pike (back in command of the Enterprise) and Ash informed Starfleet that Discovery had been destroyed during the battle against Control. Why? Why did the writers feel that was necessary? I feel as if a great deal of unnecessary writing decisions had been made in this episode to justify the Discovery's journey into the future. For me, the biggest frustrations of Season Two proved to be the presence of Spock and Captain Christopher Pike. Especially the latter. But I will start with Spock first. Initially, I had no problem with Spock's role in the season's narrative. But once the crew had identified Gabrielle Burnham as the Red Angel and Admiral Katrina Cromwell had returned to Starfleet Headquarters, why did Spock remain aboard the Discovery? Why did he not return to Headquarters with the Admiral and rejoin the Enterprise crew? However, Spock's continuing presence aboard the Discovery struck me as minor problem in compare to the presence of his commanding officer, Captain Pike. I have been a fan of Anson Mount since he starred in the AMC series, "HELL ON WHEELS". But I wish to God that he had never been cast as Christopher Pike in "STAR TREK DISCOVERY". More importantly, I wish that the show runners had never utilized the character in the first place. I believe Christopher Pike was the worst aspect about Season Two of "STAR TREK DISCOVERY". His presence on the show struck me as irrelevant. Useless. Why did the show runners have him serve as Discovery's commander throughout the entire season? Why was he even needed? Saru could have easily remained in command of Discovery after the crew was given the Red Angel mission. This was the officer who had led the ship out of the Mirror Universe. And he had also stood behind the crew's refusal to obey Starfleet's order to help Georgiou to decimate the Klingon home world in the Season One finale, (1.15) "Will You Take My Hand?". With the Enterprise temporarily out of commission, Pike could have appeared in "Brother" to hand over the Red Angel mission to the Discovery crew and to inform Spock's disappearance to both Michael and Sarek before guiding his damaged ship back to Starfleet Headquarters. Then he and the Enterprise could have returned for the final battle against Control in "Such Sweet Sorrow". But no. Certain fans had raised a fuss over an African-American actress serving as the lead of a Star Trek series and cried tears over "DISCOVERY" not being "traditional Trek". And the series' show runners made the mistake of listening to them, despite the fact that "DISCOVERY" was a hit. And with Pike, they had provided these narrow-minded fans with an ideal leading male character to swoon over. But why did the show runners felt it was necessary to appease these fans with the addition of Pike for Season Two? Pike was not needed. Even worse, they did not have to paint Captain Pike as this ridiculously ideal Starfleet officer. Because frankly, he came off as a bore. And bland. There were moments when the series was willing to portray Pike's idealism and inflexibility as flaws, especially in his conflict with Ash Tyler. However, by (2.09) "Project Daedalus", it seemed quite obvious that the show runners were determined to paint Pike as "the perfect or near perfect" Starfleet officer. This became obvious in his conflict with Ash. Even when Pike was seen to be in the wrong in both (2.07) "Light and Shadows" and (2.08) "If Memory Serves", Pike was painted in a more sympathetic light than Ash. If only the show runners had ditched this useless conflict and focused more attention on the fallout between Ash and Hugh from Season One, I would have been more impressed. In "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" episode, (1.11-1.12) "The Menagerie", Trek fans had first learned about Pike's future as a paraplegic, due to an accident. Somehow, the writers managed to twist Pike's future as some kind of "heroic sacrifice" in which he had to give up the idea of accepting Klingon time crystals to defeat Control or taking them and facing a future as a paraplegic. There was no need to include what I believe proved to be a contrived and unnecessary plot twist. I loved Season One of "DISCOVERY". Despite some moments of clunky writing, I thought it had provided something new and exciting to the Star Trek franchise. I became an instant fan. There were aspects of Season Two that I liked - Starfleet's conflict with Control, Dr. Hugh Culber's resurrection and Michael Burnham's reunion with her mother, Gabrielle Burnham. However, there were aspects of Season Two that I disliked. Too many. And that included the season finale, (2.14) "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part II", along with Discovery’s unnecessary trip into the future. Also, I saw no reason for the over utilization of characters like Spock and Captain Christopher Pike. I saw their presence during the season as a heavy-handed attempt with the "nostalgic factor" to win over certain Trek fans still mired in the past. It must have worked to a certain degree. Many have declared Season Two to be superior to Season One. Do I agree with this assessment? Obviously . . . no. In my opinion, I feel that the Trek fandom's desire for nostalgia - especially in the form of Christopher Pike and Spock - has made Season Two overrated in my opinion . . . and a victim of the "second season curse". And most importantly, I saw no need for Christopher Pike to serve as the temporary commander of the U.S.S. Discovery. I found this decision by the show runners to be completely unnecessary.

[nancydrewwouldnever]

(If you were around for the "hacker", the "hacker" reported that he and Minka were already exchanging a lot of messages in FB at that time, so I think that's where his mind was, lol.) // can you say more about it?

Oh, lord, I really opened myself up for this one, didn't I. Well, okay, but get prepared for a long-ass read.

First, the "hacker" was never really a "hacker," but just how she/they got popularly termed in the fandom. The "hacker" was in actuality more a "leaker."

Back on June 28, 2012 (once again - while he was in Prague filming Snowpiercer, such an eventful time in this fandom), the fandom was sent a link to a photobucket (I think it was photobucket, or some file upload site) account filled with screenshots from a Facebook account. As it turns out, that FB account, under the name "Cru Jones," was Chris' private FB account. The "hacker" had methodically combed through the account screenshooting images and messages, and then dumped them onto the fandom. Later, the "hacker" set up a blog with this stuff.

So, all those early Chris partying photos? The "hacker."

All those Chris in India photos? The "hacker".

Those personal photos of Chris and Tara together? The "hacker".

If you've ever seen a screencap of a Chris message on FB? The "hacker".

But what was really bizarre is that the "dump" didn't stop at that date. More than two months later the "hacker" almost live published out photos from Tara's wedding, as she/they was apparently still in on the FBs of people in the circle. So, yeah, every photo you've ever seen of Tara's wedding? The "hacker." (Oh boy, and did the "hacker" ever hate Tara. The spite seethed out of any comment she wrote about Tara.)

This whack-job weird early pap photo of Chris and Minka together?:

Yep, "hacker." (As well as all the tea of when he took Minka to MA and introduced her to the fam.)

This "hacker" was no "hacker." This person was someone on the inside of the friends' group who literally broke bad and decided to cut ties in a dramatic way. There was lots of speculation. A burned ex-gf? A FWB who went psycho? Someone who just felt slighted?

Eventually, the friends and family did get the "hacker" out of their FB pages.

And who knows what fake name Chris is using on a FB now.

Honestly, I'd love to know where the "hacker" is these days, and what she/they think of things.