I'll pout about it the next time I'm taking a far more convenient trip to the airport, just to make you happy

Yep, I made this same trip last month for work, and it was a super easy go. Big success on that line imo.

You need software for it, of which I'm sure plenty free programs exist. More importantly though you need to make sure your sister's drive can actually burn a CD. Not all CD-ROM drives have the ability to write on black discs

I mean this isn't really a plot. I guess it could be a good inciting incident but you'd need to probably give us more of the story before we can give any solid feedback regarding it's quality.

Great hike. Kicked my ass. Even my Navy buds from San Diego were winded at the end.

Might want to try 24 if 16 and 32 aren't working.

Sure but you can also look at modern day practice of stopping and restarting the heart to bring people back and see they don't become monsters.

So I would argue it's not the revival of the dead that's in question but the method. And while Frankenstein's methods were certainly unorthodox, theres no reason to assume they would inherently lead to an evil outcome. He didn't use voodoo or teeth to make skeletons or do witchcraft or demon summoning, he was doing a medical procedure.

We transfer organs all the time and have even done penis and face replacements. So using foreign organs to restore someone's health isn't inherently evil, and using electricity to restore function to a body isn't inherently evil, therefore I'd argue Frankenstein could have reasonably assumed his experiment would have similar, non evil outcomes, and not result in a monster.

Right, this gets into the fiction of the world. Are zombies real in this world, or just fiction? Would make a substantive difference in this line of argument

I guess it depends on the fictional history of the trial, but I would argue that all successful resuscitations before and after this one resulted in a normal living human.

This one resulted in a horrible monster. How could he have predicted it would be a horrible monster? Science doesn't really recognize "souls" as real, so Dr Frankenstein - a scientist - would have had no reason to think a body made it disparate parts versus an intact corpse would act any differently upon revival.

(Obviously I'm not asking this for real merely just playing the part of a defense attorney here)

If you want to go hail Mary, I would actually argue that in order for criminal negligence to be applicable a reasonable person in the same situation would had to have perceived that your reincarnated monster would be super strong and aggressive.

Because there is zero precedent for such an event, there is no way to know what a "reasonable person" would typically perceive, and thus the standards of criminal negligence can't be applied.

I really dig this, you did great. It reminds me of my days riding the trolley home from work in San Diego.

Not everyone is looking to fill out their friend roster. Sometimes people are looking for something more, and that's ok. No one owes their friendship to anyone else. Just like she can turn down his romantic advances he has every right to withhold his companionship.

Is there any evidence he had a "strong reaction" ?

I mean op can clarify, but wanting to keep your distance from someone who just turned you down isn't weird, especially if you're a dude and you don't want to come off as a weirdo. She didn't say he freaked out on her, just that he kept his distance, which makes sense considering he was probably embarrassed.

I mean I don't disagree with that, but I think people can also just completely whiff "getting" a story/character.

I think there's a difference between seeing a really fascinating setting and thinking "man I'd love to explore that" then like, looking at Henry Hill from Goodfellas or Tony from the Sopranos or Walter White and thinking "those guys are BADASS I want to be like them"

The former I think is a pretty natural reaction to the unknown and the mysterious, the latter is just not really understanding the characters as they're presented.

Some people are always going to look at a cautionary tale and respond "wow, that looks like a good time!"

Smooth Jazz, ideally with a little bit of funk mixed in. You'd probably like the original "just the two of us." My dad used to listen to a lot of that music. I remember the rippingtons, Dave Koz, Rick Braun, and I know there's a bunch of other bands and artists in that genre I'm forgetting.

It's not all going to scratch that itch, and someone who is more of a music nerd than me may know a hyper specific name for it, but if you can find smooth Jazz with a little bit of 70s fender Rhodes and funk accenting it I think you'd probably find a lot you like.

Unions exist to help secure better wages and conditions for workers. Corporations exist to make the most profit possible. Their goals are often, but not inherently, opposed. A worker looking for better pay or better benefits and a capital owner looking to expand their profits will likely have different views on unions.

This is the plot of like 90% of Cohen brothers movies. Protagonist gets an idea, it goes very wrong, hilarity/tragedy ensues.

I think you might be thinking a little too literal about the movie. The scene where they're fighting I think is pretty clearly meant to be a visual representation of struggling with someone to get them to see and acknowledge uncomfortable truths, particularly those that will spur them to action.

I'm a reporter in real life and that's basically what doing my job feels like - most people just want to keep their heads down and get paid, not realizing that shit is gonna get worse if they don't pay attention and do something, so you're constantly trying to shovel information out there and hope it'll break through people's guards.

That's at least how I see the scene - someone who sees a problem desperately trying to convince someone else there's a problem.

Kermit voice "I let her have her way..."

CBAT by Hudson mohawk