WAR ROOM LOUNGE V42: Some People are Finer than Others

We have lots of fine people on all sides. Who are the finest people? (choose 4)


  • Total voters
    31
Status
Not open for further replies.
You never tell a career student he didnt need to sell his soul to the university, brother. That was your mistake.
Well in my defense I did say that there was something to be gained through the experience.
No for real, I want to know because that is how I see it and if I am wrong then I want to be corrected. To be clear I am talking about the undergrad level mostly, I'm sure past that things can be different.
 
I agree with these guys. Also, Salma Hayek is close to GOAT status imo.
Speaking of her she is another woman with a strong jawline that I find beautiful.
Salma-Hayek-Gray-Hair.jpg


If someone disagreed and thought she was overrated I would assume that its her jawline that turns them.off.
 
Aspect of a fan theory that's worth maybe talking about. Arya's brown eyes (Freys imo), blues eyes (clearly night king) and the yet to be green eyes....

Both Emilia Clarke and Lena Hedey have green eyes. And the show isn't using purple contacts for the targaryens like they initially tried.

Honestly, I have no reason to believe (or care) about fulfillment of that prophecy since so many others have been completely disregarded like Azor Ahai. And for that one to come to fruition in that way would cancel out the Cersei prophecy about being struck down by a more beautiful woman, unless Dany ousts her and then Arya kills Dany.
 
No for real, I want to know because that is how I see it and if I am wrong then I want to be corrected. To be clear I am talking about the undergrad level mostly, I'm sure past that things can be different.
The process of being trained to interpret the past is fundamentally collaborative. It's a never ending exchange of interpretations. It's functionally impossible to replicate effectively outside of an education. I think people have an enormous misunderstanding of what historians actually do. It's not a matter of just sitting down and memorizing material; you're being taught how to expand that material. Furthermore (as I mentioned to someone else here) i'm a public historian. This means that my work is made for and with non-academic audiences. It is not typically possible to do what I do in any self-taught capacity, or at least not well. I've been brought late game into oral history projects that lacked anyone with specific training and.... they are a shit show.
 
The process of being trained to interpret the past is fundamentally collaborative. It's a never ending exchange of interpretations. It's functionally impossible to replicate effectively outside of an education. I think people have an enormous misunderstanding of what historians actually do. It's not a matter of just sitting down and memorizing material; you're being taught how to expand that material. Furthermore (as I mentioned to someone else here) i'm a public historian. This means that my work is made for and with non-academic audiences. It is not typically possible to do what I do in any self-taught capacity, or at least not well. I've been brought late game into oral history projects that lacked anyone with specific training and.... they are a shit show.
I don't see how most of that is impossible outside of an education. Certainly difficult because one would need a decent chunk of time, money, and discipline to do it but impossible? I know historians aren't just memorizing history but I don't see how that contradicts what I said. Aren't there books on historiography? Aren't there historical journals I could pay for access to that would presumably display the never ending exchange of different interpretations? Do I need a history degree to access historical archives or attend history conferences? And something like H-Net has a ton of resources that would be useful for amateur students of the humanities and social sciences for instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top