Sensei.
(According to wikipedia.org, an honorary term that means teacher used by me as a greeting.)
It is now 7:53 PM EST for me. I was lying on my bed for over 2 hours trying to think of a music video to offer you, and so, out of quiet desperation, this is how I selected it. Even though I don’t know for sure, I imagined a woman in a dating situation in a restaurant, and she is avoiding to tell that man certain struggles that she is experiencing in her life, because if she does, that man would get the wrong idea about her. And so, from that, I imagined that woman avoiding revealing such struggles to men before they even meet her, because if she does, their imaginations would get the wrong idea about her. And so, from that imagined situation, I considered a music video that would represent those struggles that such a woman would not reveal to men, because if she does, they would get the wrong idea about her. I only considered one music video for such a situation, and the music video is completely out of context. I am able to do this because I can allow certain considerations to have many disappointments. And so, the music video I considered, and it’s a very short consideration, is from song ‘Pon de Replay’ by Barbadian singer Rihanna. According to wikipedia.org, inJuly 30, 2005, the song peaked at number two on the Billboard Hot 100. I got the video from cable tv, channel ‘MTV Classic’, tv show ‘Lunch Break’ on 3/1/2018, yesterday. I watched it partially for the 1st time a few days ago, but that copy from the cable tv was too close to the end of that tv show episode, so I deleted it and replaced it with the ‘Lunch Break’ copy. You can watch music video ‘Pon de Replay’ for free by searching for phrase ‘rihanna pon de replay’ in web site www.youtube.com. It should be the 1st selection offered, with over 93 million views.
The reason I am offering you music video ‘Pon de Replay’ is because this idea I am going to type in is an emphasis idea, and it is my opinion that ‘Pon de Replay’ involved obvious body emphasis in the form of dancing to music. It may not be the best music video for body emphasis in that context, and I don’t know whether it is or it isn’t, but I watched the entire music video for the 1st time today, and I think it’s good enough to recommend. I like the premise, that Rihanna encouraged the DJ to incrementally turn the music up.
[I want to continue typing tomorrow. I think that one of the hardest parts to make this idea is to find a suitable music video for it. So, when I start typing the idea tomorrow, I don’t have to use possibly a few hours in order to type in a recommended music video. Hopefully, I may finish the entire idea tomorrow. So, if you are there tomorrow, so to speak, I’ll see you then.
3/3/2018
Lara Croft!
(said as a greeting. Action movie ‘Tomb Raider’ starring Alicia Vikander as Lara Croft, according to imdb.com, is in theaters March 16.)
It is 9:29 AM EST for me now. Before I give you the sales pitch for these ideas, to let you have a choice if you want to continue learning it, I want to recommend to you another ‘body emphasis’ illustration, to help improve the effectiveness of the advice for you, if you choose to learn it. The illustration, available from Amazon.com for about 2 dollars Standard Definition, is in episode 1.3 ‘Bidden Calamity’ from Japanese animated tv series ‘Noragami(2014)’. The purpose of the illustration is to show you how different aspects of body emphasis may interact together. Of course, you refurbish the illustration in relation to advice and the inapproprieities removed. For example, there are examples of humility, pointing at someone, people yelling at each other, surprise, shock, and other examples, and some of these examples are simultaneously(at the same time) interacting with each other, and all of this is happening in only a few minutes, in a Japanese animated context. The illustration, according to Amazon Video, starts 8 minutes and 45 seconds into the episode, and ends 14 minutes and 4 seconds into the episode. I recommend seeing the illustration at least twice.
OK, here’s the sales pitch. I’ll introduce to you to the explanation of 2 illustrations, to help you decide if you want to continue learning from this list. I copied the 1st illustration from Wishlist #1115.
The 1st illustration is from episode 9.24 ‘Lost Our Lisa’ from animated tv show ‘The Simpsons(1998)’. The episode is available for purchase for about 2 dollars Standard Definition from Amazon.com, and according to Amazon Video, the illustration starts 12 minutes and 38 seconds into the episode. Here is a quote:
Lisa:-‘Oh. I didn’t know Springfield had a Russian district. (Lisa approaches a man playing chess.) Excuse me. Can you tell me how to get to the museum?’
Man playing chess:-(I’m assuming the man is seemingly talking back in another language, even though the question given to the man was in English) ‘My pleasure. It’s six blocks that way. (Lisa runs away.) Hey, she went the wrong way.’
Of course, one obvious interpretation of that illustration is that Lisa misunderstood what that man said, since the episode translates to us what the man actually said to Lisa. However, the translation, refurbished for advice of course, I am trying to offer you is what Lisa believed that man was doing. Lisa believed that she was being contemplationally attacked by that man, which is why she yelled and ran away from him.
The purpose of this advice is to help you discern and more tenably allocate emphasis use. For example, not to fix Lisa’s situation, but to use it to discern emphasis use, from the vantage point of how Lisa perceives the situation, the man yelling at her, that emphasis introduced, did not come from Lisa, but from that man. When she ran away, I think she was a little hysterical(uncontrollably emotional) because she wasn’t prepared to experience such an emphasis, and she may have felt, even though it was obvious to her that it was not true, she still may have felt that such an unprepared emphasis was also partly coming from her. It is my intent that, as you learn from this list, you will be more aware what your chosen emphasis is, and you will be more able to choose what emphasis to give more credence to, whether such emphasis was experienced, and emphasis you want to give credence to, even though such emphasis was not experienced.
The 2nd illustration is in movie ‘Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice(2016)’. The movie is available for rental streaming for about 3 dollars standard definition. The illustration is near the end of Lex Luthor’s(Jesse Eisenberg) speech to his guests. According to Amazon Video, the illustration starts 41 minutes and 12 seconds into the movie. Here is a quote:
Lex Luthor:-‘Books are knowledge, and knowledge is power, and I am…(Laughs) No. Uh, um…No. What am I? I…What was I saying? No…The bittersweet pain among men is having knowledge with no power, because…because that is ‘paradoxical’! And, um…(Laughs) Thank you for coming. (clears throat) (scattered applause) Please drink. Drink.
Notice that, during and after Lex Luthor’s speech, the guests were experiencing an unavoidable emphasis response to a speech that the host was giving. Now, that’s saying something because the unavoidable emphasis responses from the guests are responses that they are all trying not to experience, and not to show to other people. After Lex Luthor’s speech, the guests gave a ‘scattered applause’, since they were all trying to recover their normal sense of composure. One guest, a woman, even shook her head after Luthor’s speech. I recommend that you look at the guest’s responses both during and after Luthor’s end speech, so that you can see that the guests experienced unavoidable emphasis responses.
Now, the point of the 2nd illustration is to show you, refurbished for advice, that an instigator may also improperly impose upon you unavoidable emphasis responses. What I am going to try to do with this advice is to allow you to more tenably experience and allocate such emphasis responses.
I recently thought of adding a 3rd illustration. This illustration can be purchased from Amazon.com for about 2 dollars, and is from episode 1.5 ‘Stoppable: Requiem for an Airdate’ from lawyer drama ‘The Good Fight(2017)’. The illustration is from lawyer Elsbeth Tascioni(Carrie Preston), how she sometimes interacts with other people in a context that they are less prepared for in order to get certain information from them. You can watch more of that illustration, if you want to. I am just quoting the gist of it. The illustration starts, according to Amazon Video, 42 minutes into the episode, Miss Tascioni is talking to Mike Kresteva(Matthew Perry). Here is a quote:
Mike:-‘I could have you disbarred for doing something like that. You come to my home…’
Elsbeth:-‘I was invited into your home.’
Mike:-‘Go through my desk, shake down my wife for information.’
Elsbeth:-‘I would never shake down Diedre. She’s too lovely.’
Mike:-‘Yea, well, let’s see what a disbarment committee says.’
Elsbeth:-‘Yeah, let’s see what they say. What was your quote? Um…”When you go after me professionally, I go after you personally.”
Mike:-‘I never said that.’
Elsbeth:-‘Yes, you did. At the diner.’
Mike:-‘That’s a lie.’
Elsbeth:-(displays a smartphone recording) ‘You go after me professionally, I’ll go after you personally.’
Mike:-‘It’s an illegal recording.’
Elsbeth:-‘Yes, unless it’s used to contradict a lie.’
Of course, the 3rd illustration is not to be taken literally. After all, there’s only so much you can do with 3 illustrations. However, refurbished for advice, the 3rd ‘Miss Tascioni’ example illustrates how a person is not prepared for what Miss Tascioni causes that person to experience as emphasis. The illustration is about unprepared emphasis experience, not about blame. If you can, try to not directly give credence to the blame emphasis, just the unprepared reaction Mike Kresteva experiences from the emphasis imposed upon by Miss Tascioni.
So, in my opinion, this is the best active idea I have invented. I hope the sales pitch has allowed you to choose to learn about discerning more emphasis experienced by instigation. After this paragraph, I will begin introducing to you the idea, if you choose to continue.
To help you learn what I will type in, I am going to recommend using an idea I invented a few days ago on 3/1/2018. Basically, the idea is based on the effectiveness of the ‘Not agree to address’ idea I offered you in Wishlist #1081 on 3/18/2017. Here is a quote:
‘Now, keep in mind that Kevin is testing the shield. What I may not have specifically said before was that the use of the shield represents the structural integrity of how effective your use of idea ‘Not agree to address’ would be. So, if you have seen the recent movies depicting Captain America by celebrity Chris Evans, the shield is also used to protect Captain America from being physically hit by his enemies. So, I did not think of this before, but later I imagined kids, mostly boys, imagining a person that they are familiar with in school having an uncomfortable look on his or her face. Let’s say that person is on the right side of the screen. When you move the screen a little to the left, you see Kevin from the ‘Ghostbusters’ movie smiling and holding Captain America’s shield. What happened was that the person with the uncomfortable face punched Captain America’s shield. According to the internet, the shield is made of vibranium, and that person of course did not damage the shield’s structural integrity indicated by the uncomfortable face that person is showing. And then when you look to the left, you can see Kevin smiling, showing to the kid that the ‘Not agree to address’ idea works.
Of course, I have also used that conceptualization myself. I have imagined a few people from where I work having a mildly grimacing(an distorted facial expression, as of wry humour, disgust,etc.) face at the right of the screen, like the image was shown on tv, and then I would move the available image to the left[3/10/2018: I would look to the left, and use the available image there.], and I would see Kevin smiling as he was holding the shield. For example, I would use such an illustration to help me ‘not agree to address’ certain notions or ideas. The individuals having the grimacing face would represent someone I would think of somehow related to encouraging me to address an idea or notion I do not choose to address, and that idea would allow me to better not address such notions or ideas.’
I believe that, after you chose to learn ‘Not agree to address’, you experienced a certain clarity that lasted months afterward, and I am guessing that, out of some sort of courtesy, certain instigators allowed you to experience that clarity. (I have no idea how some? of the instigators knew that you learned some sort of idea, since I don’t believe I am an instigator). So, it’s been about a year now since I introduced to you that idea, and I think that the instigators have moved to another strategy to cause you to address things that you did not agree to address. According to my discovery a few days ago, an instigator may improperly impose upon you a certain adverse sense of effectiveness. When you would react to such an effectiveness, you would automatically? interact with it’s associated sense of effectiveness, and that interaction would include addressing something that you originally did not agree to address.
Not effective. Not my use of effectiveness:
The solution I have invented is to simply? identify such an adverse sense of effectiveness and choose to not use such an effectiveness. For example, when I was in the supermarket yesterday, I was waiting in line to order about a 1 1/4 pound of salmon to cook in the oven today. I think the lady who works there said ‘Who’s next?’, and someone ordered before me and said to me that, in so many words, that she wasn’t going to order much. (There was a question as to where the line to order fish really began). I tried to respectfully concede, and around that moment, I remembered the idea I invented 3/1, combined with the idea I invented in the laundromat earlier that day. I called it ‘Starve not effective. Not my use of effectiveness.’ That means I experienced a sense of depriving, a sense of lacking, identified by the word ‘starve’, and that feeling was creating an inclination of evaluation that was not effective to me in a preferred context. Therefore, for clarification, I chose to not use that sense of effectiveness. Put that all together, and it is called ‘Starve not effective. Not my use of effectiveness.’ As I introduce you to new meanings, you simply change the 1st word of that phrase, and then use that phrase, where applicable. For example, instead of ‘starve’, you can use ‘late’, like you are attending a meeting, but you are late for it. The phrase would then look like ‘Late not effective. Not my use of effectiveness.’ There are 5 meanings I plan to explain to you individually: 1)’Defeat’, 2)’Take out’, 3)’Over acknowledge’, 4)’Contentious attention’, and 5)’Remind’. As I explain each of these ideas, that is when you will learn how to interact with this ‘Emphasis’ idea.
Defeat:
Have you ever heard of the phrase ‘Walk away from a fight’?(I’m not going to use a search engine to check it.) Here’s an illustration that relates to it. In movie ‘Back to the Future Part II(1989)’, Marty McFly(Michael J. Fox) is provoked into a fight with Griff(Thomas F. Wilson) when Griff called Marty ‘chicken’. You can rent the movie streaming for about 3 dollars from Amazon.com, and according to Amazon Video, the illustration starts 18 minutes and 11 seconds into the movie, Griff is talking to Marty. Here is a quote:
Griff:-‘What’s wrong, McFly? Chicken?’
There is no question, patient who gives up gallbladder to surgery has to keep healthy cheapest levitra diet and relaxation therapies to ensure the better and faster results. Before the problem get aggravated, it is very wise to icks.org order viagra sample take resort to herbal treatment to manage premature ejaculation immediately. Nevertheless, this is a natural item and may levitra from canadian pharmacy carry time to produce outcomes. Bhimu Patil, the director of the lab that conducted the studies, says that regular watermelon consumption is that it can lower viagra pills your blood pressure to a healthy level. McFly:-‘What did you call me, Griff?’
Griff:-‘Chicken, McFly!’
McFly:-‘Nobody calls me…chicken.’
I discovered an instigation several weeks ago where, as you would use your sense approach within your normal use of routine, an instigator may contemplationally put something in that approach that may cause you to feel a sense of retreating(to withdraw, retire, or draw back). I believe that, if you believe that you are ‘in the right’, that you have done nothing wrong, that you would try to dismiss such a feeling. And, in the context of a possible instigation that I imagined, ‘that’ is what an instigator wants you to do, dismiss that feeling of retreat as you use your routine approach, and you are ‘in the right’. By trying to dismiss that feeling, it prolongs it’s perplexing, adverse identity in your mind. So, as a solution, what I recommend, and of course I recommend you think this through if you choose to do it, in an acceptable context of course, I recommend that you allow yourself to feel that sense of defeat, but you decide what involvement and purpose to give that sense of defeat. For example, I recommend using the idea ‘Not effective. Not my use of effectiveness.’ and call it ‘Defeat not effective. Not my use of effectiveness.’, which means ‘That sense of defeat that I am sensing is giving me an adverse impression of not being effective within my current use of technique. Therefore, it is not a sense of effectiveness that I am using.’ Even though you sense it, you don’t have to use it. You can use some other sense of effectiveness instead.
Take out:
This is the 1st active idea that uses the discerning of emphasis. Let’s use the ‘Back to the Future II’ example again. Here is a quote:
Griff:-‘What’s wrong, McFly? Chicken?’
McFly:-‘What did you call me, Griff?’
Griff:-‘Chicken, McFly!’
McFly:-‘Nobody calls me…chicken.’
Now, let’s say someone improperly imposes upon you an insult that you are not obligated to respond to, and you are not obligated to discuss that insult with that other person. To address that insult, idea ‘Take out’ means that, since the emphasis of such an insult did not come from you, (that you did not agree to ‘take it out’), then you do not have to contemplationally dismiss such an instigation(you don’t have to ‘take it out’). You may say that ‘I don’t have to ‘take it out’ since I did not ‘take it out’. For example, in this context, let’s say someone called you ‘chicken’. Since such an insult did not come from you, you don’t have to dismiss it. You already know who you are.
Let’s try another example. Suppose, as you are waiting for the bus in a bus terminal where many people walk back and forth, someone insults you, but in a context that you are not obligated to respond. You can contemplationally say to yourself that such a person is encouraging you to contemplationally ‘take it out’. Using this idea, you don’t have to ‘take it out’, since you already know that the emphasis of such an insult did not come from you, and you are not obligated to discuss such an insult with the person that insulted you. Before this idea, let’s say for the adults, in the past, if some stranger while you are waiting in some sort of public transportation situation imposed a minor, casual insult upon you, you may have contemplationally clarified to yourself that the insult of course is not true, or you may have tried to relax, experiencing some sort of minor drain, allowing yourself to recuperate. Now, with idea ‘Take out’, you don’t have to make an effort to ‘take it out’, because the emphasis didn’t even come from you, and you are not obligated to discuss such an insult with the instigator. In my opinion, I think it’s a great idea that allows you to sense the value of being able to discern emphasis.
Over acknowledge:
To start with the illustration, it is in episode 1.5 ’12 Hours’ from action crime tv show ‘Transporter: The Series(2012)’. The episode is available from Amazon.com for about 2 dollars Standard Definition, and according to Amazon Video, the illustration starts 46 minutes and 38 seconds into the episode, near the end of the episode. In that illustration, Giles(Josh Blacker) compliments Frank Martin(Chris Vance) who is pretending to be Dieter(Charly Hubner) so that the actual Dieter who is pretending to just be a mechanic that works for Dieter would respond. Of course, the illustration is refurbished for the advice with the inapproprieities removed. Here is the quote:
Giles: (talking to Frank Martin who is pretending to be Dieter)-‘You’re not such a bad person after all, Dieter.’
Dieter:-‘Thanks.’
Giles:- (When the actual Dieter said ‘Thanks’, Giles turns around and looks at the actual Dieter).
The point of this illustration is to give you an idea of what ‘over acknowledge’ means. Giles wanted the actual Dieter to experience what I call an ‘over acknowledgement’. When the actual Dieter said ‘Thanks’, Giles turned around and looked back at him, to cause the actual Dieter to experience an over acknowledgement, since before saying ‘Thanks’, he was telling Giles repeatedly that he was not Dieter.
Now, that ‘Transporter’ illustration was the closest I can find to the definition of ‘Over acknowledge’ I want to introduce to you. The definition of ‘Over acknowledge’ is when an instigator is presenting an instigation identity from him/herself, like the instigator was trying to ‘draw a foul’, but the real target is that the over acknowledgement from such an instigation identity in reality is coming from you. Let’s say, for example, for the teenage males and men, that a lady that you find attractive is presenting to you a perplexing identity that creates an over acknowledgement. You may contemplationally attribute(to consider as made by the one indicated) the over acknowledgement to come from that attractive lady, but in reality the over acknowledgement is coming from you! I call it an ‘over acknowledgement’ because the acknowledgement itself may also be befuddling(to confuse, as with glib statements or arguments). Just by trying to contemplationally make such an acknowledgment can be contemplationally difficult.
For the adults, just think of a minor instigation or inadvertency you experienced in the past, let’s say even in high school, when another person would present to you an ‘over acknowledgement’. Notice that the person is trying to emphasize to you that such an ‘over acknowledgement’ is coming from that person. Now, with this advice, consider the evaluation that such an ‘over acknowledgement’ of emphasis was actually from you, and that the instigator and/or inadvertency wanted you to believe the ‘over acknowledgement’ was from his/her efforts to draw a foul. I believe you should feel better evaluating past instigations that succeeded into making you believe that such ‘over acknowledgements’ came from them, since you can now interpret such ‘over acknowledgements’ as actually coming from you. To clarify, one way to suspect that an ‘over acknowledgement’ is being improperly imposed upon you is that it bothers you to think about it. Another way to identify that an ‘over acknowledgement’ is being improperly imposed upon you is when an instigator from your school(kids and teenagers) or job who you already have a lot of past experience with is still trying to impose an ‘over acknowledgement’ upon you, but in a different context, like that person is trying to be creative. It still could be an ‘over acknowledgement’ that is from you, even though that instigator is trying to ‘draw a foul’ and put all of that blame upon him/herself. Of course, you are sensing that ‘over acknowledgement’ in a generalistic context, not in a specific context that probably has a false blame associated with it. I recommend you contemplationally use phrase ‘Over acknowledge’ to identify such indiscretions.
Contentious attention:
I invented this idea from the lawyer movie ‘Roman J. Israel, Esq.(2017)’, starring Denzel Washington as Roman J. Israel, Esq. One obvious reason why I invented this idea so quickly after mostly ‘fast forwarding’ through this movie is because there is another ‘contentious attention’ movie that I am aware of. That movie is ‘As Good as It Gets(1997)’ starring Jack Nicholson as Melvin Udall. The problem is that, before the ‘Roman J. Israel, Esq.’ movie, movie ‘As Good as It Gets’ was the only movie I was aware of that addresses ‘contentious attention’! Movie ‘Roman J. Israel, Esq.’ represents to me a refreshing change of pace.
According to www.dictionary.com, ‘contentious’ means-‘tending to argument or strife; quarrelsome’. The definition of ‘contentious attention’ I am recommending to you is ‘an instigator who improperly imposes an interaction with contentious attention’. I watched the Blu-ray/DVD mail order rental of that ‘Roman’ movie on Saturday, 2/24 of last month, placed in in the mailbox the next day, and the Blu-ray/DVD service, according to it’s web site, received it on 2/27/2018. I fast forward through most of it, and just recently I purchased the streaming version from Amazon.com for about 10 dollars, instead of renting it for about 5 dollars. I might watch it later, the conversations between character George Pierce(Colin Farrell) and Roman Esq.(Denzel Washington). Plus, it may also be useful to reference that movie again without paying for it’s rental again. All that for just an extra 5 dollars. Anyway, there are 2 illustrations in the movie that emphasize Roman Esq. causing people to interact with contentious attention. There may be more, but those are the 2 scenes I am using for this advice. The 1st illustration, according to Amazon Video, starts 34 minutes and 17 seconds into the movie. Roman Esq. is talking to Jessie Salinas(Tony Plana). I know that, in the movie, Roman Esq. believed he was provoked by Salinas. The point is to show you that Roman has the ability to cause other people to interact with contentious attention. Here is the quote:
Roman Esq.:-‘Turn on the light, they run like roaches.’
Jessie Salinas:-‘You work here?’
Roman Esq.:-‘Yes, sir, I do.’
Salinas:-(introducing himself to Roman) ‘Jessie Salinas. Supervising attorney.’
Roman:-(introducing himself to Salinas) ‘Roman J. Israel. I’m the new guy.’
Salinas:-‘Did you just compare us to roaches?’
Roman:-‘There’s no tiptoeing into this.’
lawyer 1:-‘We’re just blowing off steam—‘
Roman:-‘You’re tourists.’
Salinas:-‘I’ll see you around, Israel.’
George Pierce: (As Roman was leaving the building) ‘Roman. Roman.’ (Roman turns around) ‘Jesus. I heard about you today in the kitchen. Salinas is our number two. And not only that, were you schooling Sanchez in a crowded elevator?’
Roman:-‘That man doesn’t understand character evidence.’
The 2nd illustration starts 48 minutes and 28 seconds into the movie, when Officer Will Wallace(Franco Vega) and Officer Leslie Hunt(Lauren Ellen Thompson) confront Roman. Roman is with Maya Alston(Carmen Ejogo). Basically, Roman caused the cops to interact with contentious attention.
I believe that certain instigations may cause you to interact with contentious attention, and that knowing about contentious attention could be useful to you.
Remind:
Now, this is an idea I invented this past Thursday, 3/1/2018, while I was at work. In this particular instigation, an instigator may improperly cause you to interact with a reminder(to cause to remember) that the minor instigation improperly imposed upon you is from that person in a very obvious sense, so obvious that the instigator does not have to be told that he/she is doing it. However, the instigation improperly imposes upon the victim an encouragement to inform the instigator about such an instigation. In other words, when you experience such an instigation, the instigation is obvious in such a way that the instigator is assumed to know that he/she is doing it, but there is also an associated encouragement to tell that instigator about such an instigation. I call such an instigation ‘Remind’. I believe it’s purpose is to wind you up, to cause you to ‘take it out’, to cause you to address it.
With the new ideas you may have chosen to use in this list, the instigation identified by idea ‘Remind’ may now be more manageable for you to experience. For example, you can use idea ‘Not effective. Not my use of effectiveness.’ and call it ‘Remind not effective. Not my use of effectiveness.’ to allow yourself to more objectively manage such an experience.
[I am going to proofread and close this idea probably this coming Friday or next Saturday, more likely next Saturday. I believe I have addressed how instigators may be exploiting your ability to associate enough so that you have something to work with. That means I can now continue with the original plan and introduce to you 2 basic concepts. So, if you are there Friday or next Saturday, then I’ll see you then.
3/10/2018
TV-14 violence and viewer discretion for Japanese animated tv show ‘Noragami’. TV-14 viewer discretion for animated tv show ‘The Simpsons’. PG-13 violence and viewer discretion for action movie ‘Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice’. Viewer discretion for lawyer tv show ‘The Good Fight’. Rated PG viewer discretion for sci-fi movie ‘Back to the Future Part II’. TV-14 violence and viewer discretion for action tv series ‘Transporter: The Series’. Rated PG-13 violence and viewer discretion for lawyer movie ‘Roman J. Israel, Esq.’. Use only refurbished for advice references recommended. Throw away rest of tv show, series, and movie. [Use mental bookmarks ‘Not effective. Not my use of effectiveness.’, ‘Starve’, ‘Late’, ‘Defeat approach’, ‘Defeat’, ‘Take out’, ‘Over acknowledge’, ‘Contentious attention’, and ‘Remind’ for reference, allocation, and prevention when needed.