Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THERE IS AN Internet legend on the go that we only get months with five weekends every 823 years.
And that, in China, they are seen as money-making opportunities and Feng Shui power times.
If true, that would make this month of August pretty rare.
But, we’re afraid, it is an easy myth to debunk.
Just look at this calendar from March last year.
Five weekends. Count them.
The pattern? If a 31-day month starts on a Friday, there will be five weekends. And that happens quite a bit.
The next one will be in May of 2015, according to TimeAndDate.com.
And Internet mythbuster David Emery has also written a warning about the multiple chain letters which get sent across the wires when a five-weekend month approaches.
A sample:
This is the only time you see this phenomenon in your life.August, 2014, will have 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays and 5 Sundays. This happens only once every 823 years. The Chinese call it ‘Silver Pockets full. “So: send this message to your friends and in four days the money will surprise you. Based on Chinese Feng Shui. Whoever does not transmit the message …. may find themselves clueless …. This is not fun at all ….
So, although we won’t be making an extra money (in fact, we’ll have to make our pay cheque stretch over four weekends), we will have five glorious summer weekends to enjoy.
AND, this one is an extra-long one. Enjoy!
What will you be doing for them? Let us know in the comments section.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The world has gone utterly mental……..
@John Fergus: No it hasn’t. The world has simply become more aware of what the reality actually is. The only difference between now and the past is that, these days, people are far more willing to stand up for themselves and who they are, rather than live in fear of being ridiculed, abused or worse from people like yourself.
@Brian Ó Dálaigh: Your presumptive final few words about John Fergus does nothing but portray you as a bigot. Some introspection might be appropriate,
@Brian Ó Dálaigh: what an insane response. It’s people like you that give deem themselves the speakers for everyone else and attack people who disagree with them. You’re the true monster.
@David Hennigan:
No matter what do you say about him he’s right.
Whatever way people want to be identified is completely up to them, not up to you. Talking about something that no one ever mentioned when I was young is brilliant.
Try it. Try giving people a break. You’ll see its easy.
@Anton Dec: What does that have to do with my comment? He responded to the comment ‘The world has gone utterly mental……..’ by implying the person who wrote it was the type to ‘ridicule, abuse or worse’ trans people. People like him try to hide their true character between statements of tolerance and acceptance while being the most intolerence bigots to anyone that has a different opinion. Again, that toxic attitude is monstrous.
Any if you’re going to respond to me, can you actually reply with something relevant.
@Anton Dec: “Whatever way people want to be identified is completely up to them, not up to you.” Completely false. People can identify themselves as they please. They cannot however compel others to do the same.
@David Hennigan:
I don’t know. Sure. Anyone who writes the word “monster” without the word “munch” after it is worth replying to.
So here is my reply:
May 14th 1779
@Flip off:
No one is compelling you to do anything. It’s 2018. If you don’t want to call someone by the name they choose for themselves then that’s up to you. If you don’t want to let people be the thing they want to be, the thing that makes them happy then great. Good for you. Hope you prosper back there in the 1950s
@John Carey: no we can’t all agree. Because you can’t understand, comprehend or empathise with what a trans person goes through you have to label it as a mental illness, I disagree with this toxic attitude unreservedly.
@John Carey:
70 likes? Wow! Disappointing and predictable.
Lest we ever believe that we aren’t still one step away from uninformed intolerance in Ireland. Still bubbling away there. Seething ignorance and fear.
Long way to go still.
@Anton Dec: but that’s simply not true. People can identify themselves any way they want. That does not mean that you have identify them that way too or more importantly that their self identify trumps yours. It alsondoes not give them the right to legitimise their self identity by depriving others of their own choices. It reminds me of the law that was passed in Canada some years back that meant you had to address someone by the gender term they chose for them self in case you offended them. (There were upwards of 30 terms on the recognised list). This law in essence was telling you what you had to say as opposed to most laws which tell you what you cant say. Thats a slippery road in my opinion. It’s getting beyond absurd now. Actors by their very definition play characters. We are now being told that actors who dont iidentify themselves as transfer gender should not play a transfer gender role because it’s insulting to trans gender people or that people who identify themselves as transfer gender should have first say on the roles?? What next? Should Gay actors be allowed play straight roles? Its called acting!!!!! Please, it’s total rubbish. I am a huge believer in people having the freedom of speech, expression and thought to conduct their lives in any way the see fit (within the bounds of the law) but what’s happening now in western culture is not this.
@Flip off: exactly.
@Anton Dec: how is removing my right to interpret someone’s relationship with gender not letting them be what they want to be?
@Gerard Smith:
A lot of trolls on this. Obvious shït-stirrers.
You apparently aren’t which is refreshing!
However the fact that you currently cannot understand how basically messed up you are is not.
You have a right to deny someone the right to express themselves in whatever way they want. That’s your right. When they are hurting no one or breaking any laws and you aren’t either, then that’s fine.
Why would you want to do that? If someone identifies as a woman when you see them clearly as a man, why would you feel the need to decide to identify them as male?
Are you that insecure about your own sexuality that you need to impose your issues in someone else?
@Anton Dec: Lots of points in there. Well I think firstly that’s it’s gender identity and not sexuality. Secondly, I don’t think anyone who wishes to discuss gender identity in a meaningful manner can have their views legitimately labelled as messed up. The topic is far too subjective and culturally new for any definitive authority on it. Thirdly, I generally subscribe to the “live and let live” approach to life. As such, from a personal viewpoint I don’t have any problem with how a person defines themselves from a gender viewpoint. What I do have a problem with is how that person demands that society views them or more importantly their group. Western societal cultures are based around the rights of the individual not the group. So as an individual someone’s gender is not at all important to me and most likely would not enter a conversation because I would not feel how anyone defines themselves would be outside of the bounds of cultural possibility and therefore not something that would single them out.. In this instance there appears to have been no individual that was specifically treated poorly as a result of their gender identity. Indeed, it would appear that a number of people (purporting to speak for trans gender people in general) decided that as a group they should have more of a right of expression on this subject than the individual. Indeed more of a right to a specific job. That is not expression in a manner that causes no harm and it is also disregarding another person’s rights. You are free to judge anyone how you see fit on this topic. But you are only judging them relative to your own social opinion on the subject. The real arbitrer is the right of self expression. How can anyone cause insult to someone by exercising their right to freedom of thought when that person is in fact free to express their identity in any way they see fit that is legal? Does someone’s self identity need forcible justification by insisting what everyone else can say or do or how nthebrest should act? That will never work in society because it’s not realistic or socially equitable.
There was me thinking acting, at its core. was being someone else.
Can only women sing songs written for women and men sing songs written for men?
How about other forms of artistic expression? I’m not much of a fan of films anymore, but I recognise it as a genuine artistic medium in the right hands.I’m not particularly fond of the stereotypical Hollywood take on Ireland, so I simply scoff and laugh when I hear ridiculous Irish accents on display.
Nor do I like the John B Keane & Twink stage Irish shite I was subjected to growing up. But I could recognise it was performance and fiction. Same with Panti. Can only a drag queen play a drag queen?
What about art? Should women only paint other women, and men other men?
Seems to me Johannson should have told them to take a hike.
@niall: Exactly. We need more artistic expression in film. More whites playing blacks, women playing men, adults playing kids. Not worrying about offending people.
More heartfelt classics like Tiptoes, from a time before everything was censored!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukRdEVthmWMa
@niall:
Wow you’re learned.
Seriously that’s a whole lot of wañk for one post.
@Duncan Mckenna:
Dear Lord.
@Anton Dec: so your response to reasoned points and genuine discussion is “wank” and “dear lord”. That makes your argument sound very much like “I’m right and you’re wrong and there’s no debate to be had on it”. Western culture has had enough of this type of dictat on discussion of social development in terms of religious debate. Put your points across in a rational well thought out manner if you can and stop degenerating down to terms like “wank”. I would be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on the subject!
@Gerard Smith:
Hard to talk to people who give biblical levels of stupïdity a bad name.
I know that it’s fashionable to believe that everybody has an opinion and has the right to express it. I am in the tiny minority that believes that uninformed and bigoted stupïdity shouldn’t have a public forum.
I know it makes me appear intolerant. That’s because I am. To me stupïdity is not a virtue.
When someone is talking absolute shït I tend to let them know rather than engage in debate.
@Anton Dec: My sarcasm was a maybe a bit too thick there.
@Anton Dec: All opinion no matter how distasteful or morally repugnant you it has a forum. A critical part of how our society has operated for 2000 years. In fact, if you’re convinced that your viewpoint is the socially correct and sensible one then surely those opinions on here that you consider uninformed and bigoted should only serve to further your argument and help inform people. No?
Similar logic would suggest that a trans actor/actress (or whatever they want to be called) should not take roles of cisgender people.
Also, it’s interesting that this film is basically dead in the water now. Scarlett Johansson has serious star power and would have led many people to go view this film. Very few people will really care if some unknown trans actor/actress/whatever play the role therefore most funders will withdraw….
@Low Energy Jeb: She’s not a great actress but I still bet the whoever gets the role won’t be half as convincing
Ha the trans community and their leftie allies who cry all the time about tolerance are outed once again as totally intolerant. By this logic an Irish actor can’t play an American or an able-bodied actors can’t play a disabled character. Actors need to find a backbone and stand up to this or every casting decision will now be subject to Twitter approval
@Pat Mustard:
Actually it’s completely different from Irish people playing Americans. You can pretend it isn’t but it is. Hugely different.
The fact that I even have to write that statement defeats the purpose. You should know that.
@Pat Mustard: you also have to ask how many transgender actors are there? Are they any good? Can they get a movie financed and made like Johansen can? I suspect not. Irony is the outcome of this is that less movies get made about trans characters but then they would probably love that as it can let them complain that movie industry is transphobic because it dosent make any trans movies.
@Anton Dec: explain how it’s different. Acting is about pretending to be someone else. What’s the difference here?
@Pat Mustard: and the theatre luvvies here insisting that women should be cast in half of all stage roles regardless of the character’s gender..
@Bearded Grump: Hammer, nail, coffin…trans people are not pretending who they are so the main character in this film should have been played by a male, not a woman.
@Niall O’Neill: Of course trans people aren’t pretending but it’s a film! It’s not real. The actors are acting, they are pretending to be something they are not. I don’t understand the issue here. Is a gay man not allowed to play a straight man in a film or vice versa? This is just bizarre.
@Niall O’Neill: so you would ban a trans actor from playing a straight character? How about we judge people on their character and ability regardless of gender or sexuality? This is what the left say they want (and I agree) but then when a white person or a straight person does something they don’t like (as in this story) suddenly gender / race / sexuality are totally criteria they are happy to judge people on. Total hypocrisy
@Bearded Grump:
You stated that as a fact. It isn’t.
@Anton Dec: Stated what as a fact? Quote the “fact” I was incorrect about please.
@Bearded Grump:
“Acting is pretending to be someone else”.
That’s a statement of fact. I’m an actor. It isn’t.
“the art or occupation of performing fictional roles in plays, films, or television”.
There you go. That’s a perfunctory google dictionary.
Pretending to be someone else is fraud as far as I know. Are you implying that I’m a fraud. I say you sir/madam/miss/ms/pigmyjellyfish/barry are the fraud.
Fun.
@Anton Dec: Glad you’re not an English teacher. You should be a comedian though, cause that post is seriously funny. Look up fictional in that dictionary of yours.
@Anton Dec: oh my gaaaawd.. ur an actor. That’s probably why ur so good at assuming the victim role. Snow flake gently melts
@Bearded Grump:
It’s the internet. The one I use when I need to sieve through factual statements and separate them from opinion.
@Dara McLoughlin:
Actors of course all assume the victim role. That’s what we do.
Thanks for the cliché. I’m an inanimate causality between cold and warmish weather.
Why bother to post anything. Bang in snowflake and you’ve won. Well played!
Facts are tough to argue with if you create your own.
@Anton Dec: Now you are just making circular arguments.
@Ron O’Keefe:
You really would have to explain that. I have no idea what you mean by circular arguments.
The fact of the matter is that more people would probably watch the movie if Scarlett was in it rather than some unknown actor. It would have reached a far greater audience and therefore got the message of transgender and the struggle involved etc out there. Now it might not even get made
@Caroline Reid: a more accurate comment than my own – well said
@Whingy McWhingy: I think they should have been delighted that such a big star was playing the part. It’s such a shame
@Caroline Reid: You don’t get it. Trans men are men so the role should be played by a male, not a woman pretending to be a man
@Niall O’Neill: it’s called acting Niall. Look it up in the dictionary
@Caroline Reid: exactly Caroline. A big star like this playing a trans character would have done a lot more for their just cause of being treated just like anyone else. Seems they prefer to play the victim though so movie doesn’t get made and next trans movie looks at this sham and also doesn’t get funding either. Fast forward a few years and they will be moaning that society is still so transphobic because no trans movies are made! The irony.
@Niall O’Neill: Hilary Swank did a fantastic job in Boys Don’t Cry and even won an Oscar
The censor will be watching this thread like a Hawk . Should be interesting .
@Ken Hayden: already at work.
@Veronica: aww Veronica are you disappointed they deleted the transparently transphobic comment you left within three minutes of the article being published.
So a film higlighting transgender, may not go ahead?
Wbat about in the avengers/Blank Panther the English guy playing an american, shouldnt an american actor be in the movies instead.
This is getting ridiculous, where do you draw the line??
Well done to the transgender community you have stopped an actress from doing a job, so much for tolerance and acceptance and this is scarlett johanson like a really well loved and seen as a sweetheart. The community should have been proud to have her represent your community.
@Lisa Byrne: She probably would have done a good job in the role, and that would likely have directly benefits trans. Isn’t it odd though, how trans people have now supplanted women in the victimhood hierarchy? Not only that, but Hollywood, which is about as left as you can get in the US is along with the left generally, beginning to eat itself.
That’s not good for anyone The moderate left need to re-emerge. Papers like the NYT, Guardian, Washingtonpost, even the Irish Times are increasingly going further left as revenues decrease and they need hits and advertisers. This is not at all good.
They’re all on a downward financial trajectory, despite temporary relief this year for the Guardain and NYT. They’re increasingly desperate and destroying their own brands in the process.
That’s fertile ground for the right to seize the moral high ground, and it has begun. Time to stop the identity politics It’s poisonous. Thankfully a new wave of public intellectual is emerging on the right and left – Sam Harris, Dawkins. Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and many more have realised the future is not traditional media. It’s online content.
@Lisa Byrne:
Really?
So to the trans-community it’s like a movie about civil rights where the lead black character is played by a white actor. Even mention Black Panther.
A little Netflix suggestion for you would be Tropic Thunder. Watch Robert Downey Jr’s portrayal of a black action hero. The whole concept is ridiculous yet they make huge arguments within the script to validate his acting ability.
This debate is basically moronic
@Anton Dec: In tropical thunder, robert downing Jnr played a caricature, stereotype of a black action hero. I think Scarlett would have done a really good job of playing the part
@Lisa Byrne:
It’s Tropic and Robert.
No he didn’t. He played a Caucasian Australian method actor who was playing the role of a black sergeant in Vietnam.
When will it all end …….. Hollywood liberal caves in to other lefty liberals
@Robert Preston: this isn’t a left v right thing. I’m vet liberal and think this is stupid. She has a name has massive value and would have brought eyes to the issue. Now the film might be adequate but won’t have the success it would have had
My local panto is in trouble this year so.
Also calling scarlett a cisgender is putting a label and a gender on someone who might not see themselves as cisgender, you do not know the striffe and struggle of that person and their gender, see how utterly ridiculous this all is,
@Lisa Byrne: but she is cisgender. She has never identified as anything other than a cis female. If she did, people would follow her wish and use the appropriate pro nouns. Your argument is pointless, obtuse and deliberately misleading. Whataboutery mixed with stupidity.
@Mack: According to Kinsey, many people move up and down the scale throughout their lives. Straight people can turn gay, gay people can turn straight, bisexuals turn heterosexual. Heterosexuals can turn bisexual. The vast majority of kids who identify as trans, at least 80%, later go on to identify as their birth gender.
Am I to use different pronouns for people who pass through such stages? No. Sexually is fluid. Get over it.
@niall: It’s not sexuality, its gender. Learn the difference
@niall: gender is a social term not a sexual one.
People whining about an actress playing a role in a film which involves somebody born female who identified as a man.
If there was a scene in the film which portrayed his early life as a girl will there be outrage when the role is not filled by a transgender child actor???
Some of these lunatics honestly need their heads examined because they have become as intolerant as the bigots they have spent years fighting against.
I wonder what the Abbey Theatre will say about this , the role should be played by an Asian man .
@Womp Womp: I think at this stage Johansson would give you the rights to the film .
What a complete contradiction. The trans activist lot demanding trans roles exclusively for trans people and the trans actor complaining that he/she only gets casted in trans roles. Scarlett should have just got on with her role instead of being bullied by the activists.
Funny she never withdrew from advertising SodaStream, a company located in the disputed lands of the West Bank but I suppose certain outcries ring louder than others……….
@Sean Higgins: SodaStream closed all West Bank facilities. The last workforce were laid off in 2016. With its closure, 1,000s of Palestinians were made unemployed. Conversely, new facilities were opened inside Israel proper with 1,000s of new jobs for Israelis created. BDS worked a charm there, eh? Increased Palestinian unemployment and decreased Israeli unemployment.
@Brian Ó Dálaigh: “1,000s of Palestinians were made unemployed”? More like 470 seeing as how the Israelis wouldn’t allow them to work permits out of spite.
@Johnny Magorey: Did you get all your “likes” from Macedonia! BS comment putting down people so you can massage your ego.
On the other hand she shouldn’t of left, as an actor should be able to play any part required depending on their ability. She is an excellent actor.
You won’t be able to take a p standing up soon without offending someone.
You’d wonder will the movie ever get made and if it does, without a notable star will it make a bean?
Not quite sure what the problem is – isn’t acting all about assuming a role that’s different to the actor’s real life? Isn’t that what the challenge of being a great actor is? What next? Only bona fide traffickers to play drug traffickers? Real cops to play Police Officers? Real pedophiles to play that role etc etc. People need to get a grip! Far too much time in some people’s hands.
Less people will watch the movie now because she would have been a massive draw due to her superstardom, but no she’s just a nasty white straight woman or something..
Maybe Irish actors should have put up a fuss when Tom Cruise was cast as an Irish immigrant in Far and Away. It would have saved us all from having to listen to that brutal Irish accent for 2 hours.
Forced casting or gender reverse remakes all suffer from the same thing….they come from a shoehorn perspective which always stifles creativity.
A movie with a tale to tell will get a bigger audience with a known star than if, say, Jenner is cast.
If the best option is trans. .great. If not…don’t sweat it. We have suffered bog awful Oirish accents from non Irish actors.
Baywatch 2 with an all trans cast would be a blockbuster alright.
It’s called acting for a reason.
Pathetic
This is horse shyte, I know these issues are complex but it’s acting and that IS simple, pretend to be something you’re not. If this is to be the way it goes trans can only play trans? gay can only play gay? Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
have your say