My father was once driving with a friend when his friend, Dave, said, "Hey, look at that black Datsun."
My father immediately - and for no particular reason - lied, "All Datsuns are black. That's how they save money."
Years later, Dave wrote him a postcard with one sentence: I saw a red Datsun!
(yes, I'm aware of the Ford quote)
Not OP, but I think I could answer.
Traditionally, mail is uncountable. One can count letters and packages, but not mail. Thus "I received three mails" is currently grammatically incorrect, while "I received three pieces of mail" or "I received three letters" or "I received three packages" would all currently be grammatically correct.
It seems logical that email should follow the same rules of grammar. Thus "I received three emails" should be incorrect, while "I received three pieces of email" or "I received three messages" would all be grammatically correct.
But English grammar is not consistent. Email is a new word and the folks that use it have decided that it is countable.
I don't mind this, but it seems OP does.
I've been reading it. The folks here are most definitely in the minority.
And that's fine. I don't know why it would bother anybody.
You are strange for not loving the film. It is generally loved so, yeah, not loving it makes you strange.
There's nothing wrong with that. Some folks don't love chocolate. Or puppies. Or sunsets. Or whatever seems to be loved by most folks.
Not everything is a sequel, reboot or remake.
Every week, original films are released. Most lack money for advertising and are commercial failures. If we wish to see more films like them made, we need to see them - preferably with people who wouldn't otherwise have, and spread the news about them in person or Lemmy or whatever you wish.
Or you could just wait. The movie industry has gone through this many times.
I walk a lot. Head down to the river and whistle for the crows that know me to come down so I can give them some peanuts. Talk with friends and family.
To be fair, though, I do pretty much the same thing when I don't need to cope.
I'll cheat the question a bit.
I'd like all critics to have standards and to hew to them. I don't mind if each critic operates by different standards, so long as all critics can articulate their standards and are consistent in their application.
Most movie critics, for example, are offering their reactions to movies. They may review a movie. But nearly all of them are utterly inconsistent (hypocritical?) in their work. They explain their bad review of a film because of X and then praise another film despite it being just as much X as the film they loathed. If they address this conflict at all, it is with a great deal of handwavium - "This film makes it work."
If critics had standards, it would be possible to really compare the things they critique. Without those standards, each thing gets its own bespoke write up. Very entertaining, but useless when we want to know which is better or worse.
I shouldn't have to. Any God worthy of the title would provide clear and irrefutable proof of its own existence.
Hopefully, the mixture is 1% anger to 99% admiration. And that they are inspired to demand more for their labor as well.
Honestly, I'm okay with parking lots if we can do away with street parking.
Yes.
With this sort of insight, it's obvious that management doesn't deserve the money it earns.
What they are not saying is that in the long term UPS profits will rise. Their workers will be secure in their jobs. They will be excited about helping UPS succeed. They will innovate. Shareholders should be celebrating, but they are just as dim as UPS management and only understand success as making more money every quarter even if that means ruining labor and hollowing out the company.
Beliefs are, essentially, opinions that people hold to very tightly without any evidence to support them.
Folks believe in gods, aliens, ghosts, trickle-down economics, eugenics, and all sorts of interesting things. They believe that crime rates are rising in exactly the same way.
While it is possible for someone to have a change in their beliefs, that change does not come easy. Certainly it does not come by presenting them with data that contradicts. Our best chance to change mistaken beliefs is in a dramatic and shocking event. The nature of a suitably dramatic and shocking event to shift a belief in the rise of crime eludes me completely.
Which gives us only plan B in two parts:
It occurs to me that we could speed this up by killing all the older folks, but that would obviously have an impact on crime statistics.