Nearly four years in; I guess the second thoughts are only natural, but feeling so strongly otherwise after as long without any prior suggestion is a little strange.
I've admitted it to myself for a while now, which isn't the most normal progression of things, but usually things get awkward first; interestingly, they haven't. Maybe that's a change in me over the years, or maybe it's just that I haven't let it show to her just yet.
I'm not one to cheat, but with the right (or wrong) circumstances today, I don't think I could have guaranteed not doing so. The perfect storm of leaving, in more ways than one, the enforced distance... and the hair down, the safety, the idea of longer connection - I can't help but feel like it could be right in the future and I'm missing something by not seeking it out. The grey, the back, the... tongue? All of it together just tipping me further over the edge, and through no fault of hers - it's all in my head and it's eating away at me (and my sleep).
Maybe the forced distance will eradicate (fix?) it all, but maybe my inspiration to bring her home next year will mess it all up again?
I would break my work rules over this, and something neither Olivia nor Lena probably would have reached. Arguably, the proximity may have exacerbated it all (and it probably did), but as a fairly hard rule in the first place, it is hard to ignore that I have openly admitted it.
Maybe down the line, if things don't otherwise pan out, maybe it might work out in a way we wouldn't expect. I can't say I necessarily want it to like that just yet, but maybe it has a bit more potential than I am giving it credit for.
The knee-jerk reaction is along the lines of "his movies make money". But the thing is, I'd argue that most of those movies would have made money regardless.
Let's have a look at his movies to date:
- Dawn of the Dead
- Legend of Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole
- Sucker Punch
- Man of Steel
- 300: Rise of an Empire
- Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
- Suicide Squad
Of these, I would say that really only Dawn of the Dead and 300 could be classed as average to good movies (based on aggregates), and 300 is shaky at best in that category.
Having not seen the owl movie, I can't personally comment on it, but it has been described as having a "dark tone and dazzling visuals" but "let down by a story that never lives up to its full potential". And that's really it, isn't it? Looking through Snyder's movies, you could slap those labels onto just about any one of them and they would be entirely accurate.
Now, let's break his movies (on the whole) down a little.
The one thing to Snyder's credit is that he does create good visuals, if a little overdone and with a bit too much beat-you-over-the-head symbolism at times. However, the usual idea with having good visuals is to create the desired aesthetic for the movie in question, which he arguably does not do well. He has great individual visuals, but they are often not cohesive.
Since this is UG, let's bring in a music production analogy here. One of what I would regard as a golden rule of producing and mixing an album or EP is that the aesthetic should be cohesive across its entirety. Even if an individual song may sound slightly better as a standalone if mixed differently, many would argue that it would serve the overall album better to retain a degree of homogeneity between songs to serve the aesthetic of the album.
It would not surprise me if Snyder's production process involved coming up with a series of cool visuals, and then trying to write the story around how to transition from one visual to the next. This may be all well and good to some, but I don't think I am in the minority in saying that this would probably result in an extremely disjointed and choppy product without some incredible storytelling - and this brings me to my next point.
Zack Snyder is a good storyboarder, but he is anything but a good storyteller. Visuals are a component of storyboarding, but without the correct pacing between visuals, a movie will not come across as a good story, no matter the calibre material you are working with. Pacing is incredibly important in storytelling and it is perhaps the thing that Snyder is up there in contention for "worst at pacing" in all of big movie history.
None of Snyder's movies this decade have felt well-paced, and they all try to arrive at a point without the adequate prefacing and development of ideas. Primarily, I am looking at Sucker Punch and Man of Steel. Both of these movies have excellent visuals, but they all also fall victim to messy, and ultimately, poor, pacing and storytelling.
Both Sucker Punch and Man of Steel tackle (or at least attempt to) issues of inner conflict at some point in their stories. However, in both cases, the viewer is really only made to be acutely aware of this in the last 15 minutes or so of the movie. In particular, the opening and closing lines from Sweet Pea in Sucker Punch:
--- Opening: "Everyone has an Angel. A Guardian who watches over us. We can't know what form they'll take. One day, old man. Next day, little girl. But don't let appearances fool you, they can be as fierce as any dragon. Yet they're not here to fight our battles, but to whisper from our heart. Reminding that it's us. It's every one of us who holds power over the world we create"
--- Closing: "And finally this question, the mystery of whose story it will be. Of who draws the curtain. Who is it that chooses out steps in the dance? Who drives us mad? Lashes us with whips and crowns us with victory when we survive the impossible? Who is it, that does all of these things? Who honors those we love for the very life we live? Who sends monsters to kill us, and at the same time sings that we will never die? Who teaches us what's real and how to laugh at lies? Who decides why we live and what we'll do to defend? Who chains us? And who holds the key that can set us free... It's you. You have all the weapons you need. Now fight!"
The opening was good - it foreshadowed what was to come, essentially as any movie should in some way or another. The problem was the ending - it tried to tack on a message about choice and self-determination over adversity that makes some vague sense if you read the monologues back to back like this, but it certainly did not in the continuity of the movie. We spent an hour or two looking at young, scantily clad women in action sequences with a very, very loose adjoining storyline about how Sweet Pea needed to collect a few things to reach a stage where an escape was possible. But then we get told "oh she already actually had all the stuff she needed" and were presented to it as if it was a profound idea at the last minute.
Man of Steel falls into a similar trap in the scene where Clark kills Zod. At no point leading up to this do we see Clark's hesitation to harm or kill Zod, not that he'd really had the chance anyway. However, suddenly he becomes conflicted about not wanting to do harm (despite the carnage he had just created over the last however long of the movie) to anyone. As viewers, unless we were already greatly familiar with Superman, we would have had zero knowledge of the idea that Clark wanted to not kill anything at all and just lock away what needed locking up. Man of Steel gives us none of that, and we just see gigantic action sequences with Superman fighting his opponents with a complete disregard for his surroundings, doing whatever it took to stop them. Then suddenly, we are sprung with the idea that he doesn't want to hurt/kill anyone despite all the evidence to the contrary. On top of that, he exhibits self-doubt and remorse, and a shabby message about the preservation of life or something... that we get none of until it happens. This made no sense in the continuity of the movie and is a big part of why it was received so poorly.
There are two ways of looking at these:
1. The messages needed to be more overtly brought in at an earlier stage of the movie to properly serve its desired aesthetic in relating to self-determination
--- This is a symptom of poor storytelling in the face of what is meant to be good storytelling material
2. The messages should have been scrapped entirely because it presented the movie as something it very clearly was not up until that point
--- This is an inability to view a movie in its entirety, and arguably that he never looked at the movie with fresh eyes in order to understand its continuity and flow
These are common problems here. Snyder's movies often feel like they are trying to be something that they are not and feel like they are squandering what could have been good material.
A movie like Avatar, for example, is another that has great visuals. By no means is it a good movie from a story standpoint, but there is no stage in the movie where the viewer is made to feel confused about what they are meant to be watching. It is a movie of aliens, colours and explosions and does not deviate from that path. A movie like the Expendables (and 2) is similar in that it is a movie of guns, gratuitous violence and action hero cameos. It never tries to be something that it is not and never pretends that it will be a good story, but it is cohesive in its own space.
Nolan's Batman works with its subversive dark and brooding nature, the Lord of the Rings really makes itself feel arduous and large, the Pirates of the Carribean uses its Disney flair and remains (mostly) lighthearted, even the Star Wars prequels demonstrate cohesion and a trueness to themselves (I have purposefully only cited blockbuster movies since that is what Snyder's repertoire is essentially exclusive to).
These movies all vary in the calibre of their source material, but they never try to do something that they are not. Their endings satisfy the expectations and boundaries of their preceding stories. The main exception to this type of thing is in movies with twist endings such as the Sixth Sense, the Usual Suspects, Primal Fear or Fight Club. However, these movies all sit within their boundaries and provide endings that are consistent. Also, questionably bar Watchmen (very, very questionably), none of Snyder's movies are meant to have twists anyway.
In contrast, Dawn of the Dead never tried to be something it wasn't and that is a big part of why it has been more well received.
Many die-hard Snyder fans say that people just misunderstand the depth that movies like Sucker Punch/(insert other Snyder movie) present. Let's step back and look at the work of Tommy Wiseau. For those of you who don't know who Tommy Wiseau is, he made a movie called "The Room" which has been panned as (just about) the worst movie of all time, and has a cult following because of how bad it is.
Much of the problem that The Room had was that it simply made random statements through out the movie and assumed the viewer would understand how those statements permeate through the movie, both in terms of plot and feel. The storytelling in the movie did absolutely nothing to sell these ideas to the viewer and make them understand. This is exactly the same thing that Snyder does - he makes a statement and expects the viewer to be moved by the statement without actually trying to sell it to them. Character and plot depth do not come simply from just having a few lines in dialogue - the people with input into the production of the movie must really sell those ideas to the viewer so that there is some part of them invested in the movie.
Now, I don't mean to insult these viewers, but let's swap Wiseau into Snyder's position. Even with the worst director of all time, I would think that many Snyder movies could have done equivalently at the Box Office and critically as what they have. 300 - maybe. Sucker Punch - probably. Watchmen, Man of Steel, BvS, Suicide Squad - absolutely yes. Dawn of the Dead - sure, probably not.
Now let's do something similar with the other movies I listed above: Avatar - maybe. The Expendables - probably. Star Wars prequels - maybe. Nolan's Batman, the Sixth Sense, the Usual Suspects, Primal Fear, Fight Club - absolutely not. Pirates - they wouldn't have made the second or third ones because it would have died after the first (they only decided to make them after the first did so well).
Masses of people would have seen some of Snyder's movies irrespective of his input or how good/bad they were. I realise that much of the Box Office results are speculation, but I think many would be hard pressed to disagree. But given all of this, to me, I really wonder why he still gets work. In my eyes, he does not bring anything to the table that other directors who are significantly better in other areas than him do. James Cameron and Michael Bay are two names who spring to mind who, whilst they have slightly different direction visually, are on par with Snyder - but very importantly have far better storytelling and cohesion in their movies than Snyder does. Yes, I just said that Michael Bay is a better storyteller in terms of flow and pacing than Zack Snyder. Don't get me wrong, Michael Bay is far from great, but at least he has the Rock, Armageddon, and to a lesser extent the first Transformers movie (note: I am just saying that it was paced correctly, not that the movie was good) as evidence to the contrary, as compared to, really only Dawn of the Dead.
tl;dr Zack Snyder is very replaceable and does not offer anything particularly significant over others in his line of work. Without him, the movies that he has been involved in would garner largely the same response from a monetary standpoint because the people who like and are excited by his movies will see them irrespective of his input.
Novak Djokovic is a great, even brilliant, tennis player, but he is not the greatest of all time (GOAT). However, his diehard fans have tried to push the idea that he is the GOAT in recent years. While there is a potential argument here, primarily using the "weak era" argument whereby Roger Federer was playing against a lower calibre of opponent in his grand slam finals, their arguments ultimately fall flat for three reasons:
1. Djokovic has, so far, never won the Roland Garros crown, as those in contention for the GOAT label have. Until this happens, he is not a candidate, and this is something that so many Djokovic fans ignore. The players in contention are Rod Laver, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Despite Pete Sampras' dominance of his generation, his inability to win on the clay of Roland Garros was primarily what prevented him from being able to eclipse Rod Laver as the GOAT at the time. Having won all 4 grand slams is a prerequisite for being in the running for the title of GOAT. However, this is especially relevant as Djokovic is now on the eve of what could be his insertion into the equation on his fourth consecutive attempt. That said, even if he does, there is arguably still headway that he needs to make in order to outdo the feats of those who have gone before him
2. People so quickly forget the level of tennis that many of Federer's opponents were playing at in their runs to the finals. Notably, Marcos Baghdatis (one who many cite as one of his lower level opponents), who made a run to the 2006 Australian Open final, came through many good opponents to be there. He was playing at a level far beyond what his ranking would suggest, as many commentators stated, really rendering the "average ranking of grand slam finals opponents" argument used to "show" Djokovic had more difficult opponents in his wins essentially moot. This is heavily tied to the next point
3. Racquet (string) technology and ball weight, and their relation to the overall game
Go Youtube the 2005 US Open final between Federer and Agassi. You will very quickly realise how different the climate of the game was barely over 10 years ago to as it is now. The primary difference is the speed of the rallies.Many tennis coaches now teach the idea of higher net clearance and greater levels of topspin, where this was of lesser emphasis in the past. The core reason for this meta-shift has been the advent and widespread use of polyester strings allowing for increased spin generation. Higher net clearance makes players less likely to lose points on account of hitting the net. Since the ball now goes up more than it used to, it physically takes longer to reach the other side of the court. Additionally, the weight of the tennis ball has also increased during recent times. This further contributes to the slowing of tennis overall. This meta-shift is highlighted in the 2012 Australian Open 4th round match between Djokovic and Lleyton Hewitt - perhaps the best defensive players of their generations.
In terms of world rankings, player rankings are far less labile than they used to be. While that can be put down to players being more consistent now, there is definitely more to it than that. The mid 2000s, and prior, more greatly rewarded the pure offensive player. Looking back through the history books, until Djokovic, the dominant players of any given generation were always primarily offensive players. Djokovic is really the first player to become completely dominant off the back of a game that is based upon a solid defence.
I posit that the lability of player rankings prior to the current generation was to do with net clearance. It takes strong mental focus to keep hitting lower balls as hard as what the top players of the ATP require because players are working with far lower margins for error. Multiply this across a whole match and it becomes quite mentally taxing. Multiply this across a whole year... You see where I am going with this. It was more difficult to maintain that level of focus (and thus a high level of tennis) in the past, and that is why there were far more ups and downs for any individual player.
Higher net clearance reduces the level to which a player needs to worry and lessens the burden of focus on players to some degree. I am not saying that Djokovic does not possess great mental fortitude (he does), but the fact that it was of greater importance in the past, comparatively, meant that players were somewhat more susceptible to how they were feeling on any given day, and made it more difficult to maintain a high level across a the span of a year. Since higher net clearance was also less of an option in the past, many players had no alternative and thus were forced into playing the offensive game that went hand-in-hand with the game of lower net clearance. This can be observed in the women's game, where the same meta-shift has not properly made its way in a widespread fashion, and players are very much still plagued by the issues that the men's game faced over 10 years ago. Now, with the ability to wholly use higher net clearance, the better players in today's game are ones with strong defense, or at least the capability to do so. This has also, fortunately or unfortunately, somewhat homogenised tennis across all different surfaces.
Ultimately, players of the past who made showings late in grand slams were often the players who had displayed the greatest mental fortitude in being able to attack effectively and relentlessly over that span of two weeks, rather than the most consistent players that we see more of today with the likes of Djokovic and Andy Murray. What this means is that the idea of Djokovic having had stronger (read: higher ranked) opponents is less to do with the calibre of players he faced, but rather the unpredictability and fickle nature of who would display the greatest mental fortitude for the span of the two weeks of a grand slam. The consistent players of past generations were rarely able to gain any real traction, and this came down to technology not favouring them as it does now.
Now, what does this all have to do with Djokovic being unloved? Many anti-Djokovic fans will tend to bring up the ideas that he is "arrogant" and a "buffoon" etc. While those qualities are generally negative, he is arguably not significantly different to players of other generations in this regard. Yet, Djokovic does not receive the same praise and adoration as those who have gone before him.
One idea that is not often talked about in depth is the idea of being associated as a "fan of x player". It is a very subversive idea, but one that I believe is very pervasive, affecting nearly all those who have considered being associated as a Djokovic fan and subsequently chosen not to. For people who are unaware, being a Djokovic fan often comes with the connotation of being a belligerent individual who can't see reason despite the facts being put in front of them. This stems from the fact that many Djokovic fans continue to claim that he is the GOAT in spite of all the evidence and analysis to the contrary (i.e. all of the above), never provide any substantiated evidence of their own, and take the stance of "nananana who's number 1 now I'm not listening to you" when presented with actual evidence.
This stereotype is an unfortunate one as it brings a polarising negativity towards Djokovic, and one that is heavily unwarranted. Why his diehard fans are the way they are is up for debate, but one thing remains about them - they respond with nothing but belligerence when talking about their man. This is perhaps the biggest reason that Djokovic will likely never win the same level of love and praise that his contemporaries, Federer and Nadal, have.
Over 7 months on from the start of what more or less seems like a happy, though long distance, relationship... it finally happens. A legitimate challenge that I'm gradually losing the battle with.
This is nothing new in the history of long distance relationships. Naturally, distance creates some sort of drift from each other (even though we are in contact most of the day, every day) and the possibility of someone coming into the picture to throw everything off balance is always looming.
But maybe this was a long time coming? There were some warning signs, but they were also often due to misunderstandings, so who knows really. The biggest things to bug me, though, are her unreasonable health worries, and the lack of health literacy. Maybe I am "doomed" to being with someone in the health profession?
KKKKK you surprise me. "Go for it"? Really?
I suppose I also have to acknowledge that it may just be one-sided, and/or that she is likely on the rebound, if anything is there. In any case, I suppose the friendship won't be the most short-lived thing ever assuming she does move closer. That's probably more than I could say for a lot of the other friendships. It's not that I don't want to retain them, it's more that not much would change if they weren't sustained.
It looks like that for the meantime, I'll just have to avoid openly acknowledging anything and hoping it'll pass. Normally that's a recipe for disaster but, I only have a week and a half to tough it out for. That's something at least.
Seriously, fuck distance. Fuck uni. Fuck immediacy. And a bunch of other things too.
All of the shit and distance and... frustration aside, things are so amazing. And we both know it in and amongst all of the confusion. I feel like this could be something really, really magical and I want and hope for it to be will all my heart. But how much do we let social stigma and preconception guide what we do?
Ok, so I think I can somewhat more mindfully accept how I feel. Somehow, I was able to mentally protect myself, but I can honestly say that I feel like we would be so amazing together if our locations were even remotely close. I find it hard to imagine you feel differently as well.
You've bent your sleep schedule around me a little, you always want to talk (and it's been what. Two whole weeks of ridiculous amounts of it?)... I've never been terribly sure of much, but I feel like this is one of those things that is too strange to dispute?
My head just wants to explode at the helplessness I feel at being so far apart. The past few days have been utterly amazing and I really have you to thank for that. But in the end, is this doomed to failure based on circumstance? I want to make it work so badly, but to have such an immense barrier is just so... I don't have the word.
So I guess I was waiting for the right mentality to be in to write this. Unfortunately, there isn't one.
Basically, I can't admit how I feel at this point, because everything will do a topsy turvy if I do... just like it always has. I'm not sure if this is what I should be feeling; I don't know if someone in my position should be feeling like I am. I do, however, get a funny feeling you may be having the same ruminations. Who knows though.
But what we're doing, what is that? It's so connected and yet so superficial. 3-4 hours of what effectively seems to be small talk every day for what's now been.. a week? That's a little strange, don't you think?
And through all this, I don't really, really know if you're real. Sure, Andrew Daddo did say that they key to writing a believable character is to have all the minute details and nuances to them, but I suppose it'd be a little paranoid to think that you aren't real. Who knows. That said, I think I've seen enough paranoid schizophrenics now to be able to say what's logical paranoia and what isn't.
So where do I go from here? I wish I could just tell you exactly what I'm thinking, but I'm too afraid of the potential adverse consequences. Maybe I haven't known you long enough, but there is just this sense I get about you that I don't need to be looking further, you know? I guess I can only hope you feel the same, but it might all be pie in the sky. We'll see.
So, over the last few months, I started doing a lot of reading and watching of videos surrounding sex positivity, intersectional feminism and a bunch of other things relating to modern day young people liberalism. I guess I was, more or less, trying to broaden my horizons. I think a lot of it stemmed from my disagreement with preconceptions that are held by many (e.g. female bearing a lot of skin = slut, no self-respect. All that sort of thing).
Maybe all of this stuff would have been things I would have been exposed to with a different upbringing. Now that I'm a little more autonomous, I'm inevitably catching up, but I'm doing it too quickly to properly be able to acclimatise. I always felt behind the curve, so a lot of the growing up that I've had to do over the past couple of years has been overly accelerated, but I've now reached a tipping point where I've gone past where I was meant to be. Now that I have, I'm hitting a bit of a crisis. I've hit the maturity points without having the experience behind it and I'm really starting to feel it.
Anyway, a lot of the preconception stuff was then related to concepts and societal constructs within dating. To get a rough idea, I'm talking videos along the lines of those put out by Youtubers like Hannah Witton, Laci Green, Hayley Quinn... them folk. There was an inevitable broaching of online dating, so your Tinders, OkCupids etc etc. Hannah Witton posted specifically about her experience on OkCupid. Overall, it was positive, but she said it was important not to view it as a desperation thing, but to view it as broadening scope to people who you would not otherwise meet. So, somewhat persuaded by this, I decided, "hey, why not".
The experience overall is ultimately about what you put into it. Unless you're there for casual sex and nothing else, it seems to pay to be earnest. In any case, recurring themes that were coming up, included a whole lot of this sex positivity and open mindedness, how you feel about people talking about exes or spending time with them... whole bunches of things.
Basically, looking through and thinking about it in the theoretical sense, I ended up being quite liberal about everything, at least in my head.
Broadly speaking, most of the girls on the site are in one of three groups (for me, that is):
- Apparently sociable, somewhat well rounded, often sex positive (whether this is theoretical for many is questionable)
- Largely religious and/or limited in experience of the world. Almost like their mindset was the norm two generations ago. That isn't to say they aren't interesting or good people though
- Overtly obnoxious people who I will typically read a bit of and decide that there's no way I could get along with them. A few exceptions
These are obviously overgeneralisd, but you get the point. Anyway, the first group intrigued me the most and they were typically the sorts of people I ended up being a bit more active towards. I learned a decent amount getting acclimatised to their views on things like whether I would be bugged by, e.g. them going to dinner with exes and whatnot.
And now, here is where my problem is. I found someone on there and we've really hit it off (they didn't fall within my search settings but showed up on searches anyway and are thus significantly further away from where I am than I'd like, but that's for another time. I'm sure I'll write about it at some point). We've traded numbers, we've spend more than an hour/two/three per day messaging back and forth over the last week or so, messaging each other seems to now be the first thing we do when waking up or last thing before falling asleep etc. I'd be lying to say I didn't feel something, but it's largely confusion.
This experience with her so far has brought up question marks as far as my convictions go. They are as follows:
- I've held the opinion for a while now that you can't fall in love with someone you haven't met in person. It wasn't always the case, but it was a conclusion that I'd arrived at based on experience. I still hold that belief, but I do question it quite a bit more now.
- I always thought that because I'm friends with exes, that I should feel comfortable with a potential significant other talking about, and spending time with exes. I know that this has been a very short period of time and that it is likely nothing, but it HAS bugged me. It's logically inconsistent and it's a double standard, I know. But I can't help that I feel like that - this probably bugs me more
- Not verbatim, but close enough: "Is it necessary to maintain daily contact with your significant other (via text, email etc)?" Now, my answer is, "yes, unless otherwise specified". There has been no break in this, but really do wonder things in relation to this vs what the current experience seems to be. I suppose I'm overthinking as usual, but what does she view this as. This leads me onto another issues
- Open lines of communication. This is all good and well for established relationships, but what about budding/pending ones? It's half the problem and it's all well and good to follow the goals of the Witton/Green/Quinn constructs, but when something budding like this feels like it really does matter, you can't afford to stuff it up. The argument here is that if by breaking the lines open and being completely upfront doesn't work, then it wasn't really supposed to be - my counter to that is what if it's more grey than that; it's often more complicated than just a yes/no. There's always the buts and the provisos and you need to hit all of those at the right times, or things don't work out.
And I have no idea where I was going with this anymore. I'm assuming that at some point, I'm going to address age again
I feel like I'm just going through the motions right now, hoping for an answer to just fall on my lap. I know everyone says that you have to go out and explore to find your calling, but I wouldn't have a clue where to begin.
Should I just be content with doing something I'm good at? I was once told the hardest thing about medicine is getting in; that once you're in, it's smooth sailing. I think that assumes it is what you want to do in the first place and I don't know that it really is.
The issue I have is that I don't know what I want, making it a little hard for it to pursue. Hil, you were right.
But I'm always being reminded of how hard it will be to get back to where I am if I happen to take that initial leap of faith.
The only barrier to me becoming a great doctor at the moment is myself (assuming this piece of shit medical school starts getting its act together. At this point, I only value it for the piece of paper that I'll get at the end of this whole thing). I can get through this academic cakewalk with my eyes closed and my hands and legs tied. The issue is whether that's what I really want.
Fed up of this arbitrary bullshit and the whole "I have authority and tenure, and therefore, you are wrong because I said so" mentality.
Is this high school, where it is permissible to bend facts to make them easier to understand by making arbitrary distinctions, or is this university, where no concept should be dumbed down or considered too hard, and where hard facts should be law?
Which of the following groups of disease are excreta (sanitation) related infectious diseases?
A. Cholera, Poliomyelitis, Hepatitis A
B. Diarrhoea, Roundworm, Hookworm
Supposedly it can only be B, because a specific lecture slide that labelled cholera, polio and hep A as water-borne and diarrhoea, roundworm and hookworm as excreta related. I'm not saying that B is wrong, but neither is A.
Now, tell me. In what way are cholera, polio and hep A not excreta related? Do you mean to tell me that if we implemented proper excreta disposal, that we would see no improvement (let alone a very significant one, as would be the case in real life) in rates of these three things?
The question did not ask for which disease group involved direct contact with excreta, nor did it exclude excreta related diseases that were primarily water-borne. It only asked for an excreta RELATED disease group. The answer that's listed as correct is not wrong, but neither is mine.
This is a fucking medical school. Come on.
"It is only fair on everyone if we use these resources as the correct answer". Sure, that's understandable. But that only holds if all the other answers are actually wrong.