Pavilion Digest: May 2009

A plethora of perplexing pavilion posts. The Pavilion Annex thread, the Pavilion Discussion thread, and monthly digests of all messages from the Pavilion.

Moderator: Moderator

DTS
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:04 am

nothing like...

Postby DTS » Sun May 03, 2009 12:45 pm

Name: DTS
Source: unca20090603.htm
nothing like screwing up a good piece of whimsy with a fat-finger typo...make that "Show a little respect..."
(Sigh)
There are days when I can screw-up my own wet dreams (what? You older guys out there aren't still havin' em?)
-DTS

MichaelRapoport
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:13 pm

Postby MichaelRapoport » Sun May 03, 2009 1:41 pm

Name: Michael Rapoport
Source: unca20090603.htm
Semi: My bet is that the purchaser of your Spongebob pillow covers has young children. I have two (kids, that is, not pillow covers depicting a cartoon talking sponge), and I can tell you that they would both kvell at the idea of nestling their little heads atop Spongebob at night.

Re: Star Trek: My older son, age 9, is eager to see the movie - the thing is, he's never seen any of the TV series or the previous movies; he's been enticed entirely by the promotion for this movie. So this is going to be an interesting test case of how Abrams' revamp appeals to someone who's coming to Star Trek absolutely cold. (Unlike his dad, who grew up on a diet of five-nights-a-week Trek reruns in the 70s.)

James P. Levy

To Frank Church

Postby James P. Levy » Sun May 03, 2009 1:43 pm

Name: James P. Levy
Source: unca20090603.htm
Dear Mr. Church,

No, I don't agree that the United States could or should have avoided participating in World War II. I simply argue in my second book that it couldn't and shouldn't have started any earlier than it did, for a host of reasons I try to elucidate. I also freely admit that the argument is only partially empirical, and is based on both the strategic reality of the time and a certain understanding of Just War theory that is far from universally held. A philosopher friend of mine read the last chapter and wanted to know why I made so many nods to the other side of the debate. "Because I could be wrong" was my answer, and although I believe I am right, such complex questions as arose in the later 1930s never have clear, simple answers. But the US staying out was, in my opinion, not a strategically viable or morally defensible option.

Alan Coil
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:21 pm
Location: Southeast Michigan

Postby Alan Coil » Sun May 03, 2009 4:52 pm

Name: Alan Coil
Source: unca20090603.htm
OKAY.

As I am one who will see the Star Trek movie,

and

as others here have decided to post spoilers IN ADVANCE of the film's opening,

I hereby banish myself from this site until after I've seen the movie.

Thanks for the forced vacation from the site.

User avatar
Cindy
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 10:05 pm

Postby Cindy » Sun May 03, 2009 7:36 pm

Name: Cindy
Source: unca20090603.htm
Oh Chuck,
Your dad--I'm so sorry.

He must be a great man-- he raised a son who is kind and honorable and decent. I've seen you hereabouts for years-- always the high road, always the first to offer sympathy or consolation. I feel empty and unable to say anything of merit.

I have great affection for you and my thoughts and prayers are with you, your dad and your step mom.

Love,
Cindy


Josh Olson
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:59 pm

Postby Josh Olson » Sun May 03, 2009 9:38 pm

Name: Josh Olson
Source: unca20090603.htm
Keith,

In that this is harlanellison.com, and there were copious discussions here several months ago about whether or not the time travel in the new Trek movie was done via the Guardians of Forever or some other device, I think mentioning that element of the film is about on par with giving away the fact that the original crew of the original Enterprise are being played by new actors.

Yeah... SPOILER! SHATNER AIN'T IN THIS ONE!



Buck-O

AMERICA S.O.S.

Postby Buck-O » Sun May 03, 2009 10:41 pm

Name: Buck-O
Source: unca20090603.htm
I have a flag of the U.S. pointed upside down on stick, stuck in a suction cup holder on the front window of my truck. The meaning is obvious...displaying the flag upside down means our country is in trouble. Mark my words...this country is just beginning to see the makings of trouble for it...and if we, the citizens of America don't act soon...the trouble will destroy us as a nation.

User avatar
remarck
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Arlington, VA
Contact:

TT

Postby remarck » Mon May 04, 2009 2:32 am

Name: Keith Cramer
Source: unca20090603.htm
Josh,

As I wrote to Mark, who e-mailed me about it and said substantially what you said, if that's the worse thing that happened to me today, I'm golden.

But I did re-iterate that I was disappointed in hearing about it. I do, in retrospect, recall this item being discussed on the Pav a last year, but I had no idea up until yesterday(and perhaps this is my brain telling me I'm getting old) that the said story device was utilized in the movie. Maybe last year I figured that the script wasn't set in stone, or that reportage of the story device was somehow exagerrated or mis-reported, but for whatever reason, I did not know. And now it's spoiled for me.

Again, on par in importance with the settling of a dust mote on my breakfast cereal...but there you have it. Spoiled.

-Keith

DTS
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:04 am

Buck Owens is Alive (and other revelations)!

Postby DTS » Mon May 04, 2009 4:44 am

Name: DTS
Source: unca20090603.htm
BUCK: Shit, I thought you were dead! Obviously you've been hiding out in the dimly lit aisles of Walmart with Elvis. I only LOVE your renditions of "Act Naturally" and "Tiger By the Tail". (Also dug your duet with Dwight on "Streets of Bakersfield"). Listen, pard, America (or, as country folks like to say, Amurrica) has been in trouble for a loooooooooong fuckin time! The downhill slide into national insanity started back in the 1950s, with things like the McCarthy hearings and the introduction of the monetary equivalent of Christian bumperstickers on all of our money. It continued with the Nixon years and really picked up steam when Ronnie Raygun oozed into office, ushering in triple deficits and legitimacy of Far-Right Religious and/or political organizations, not to mention the likes of Mort Downey and Rush Limbaugh. Ol' Dubya was just the sickly sweet (poison) icing on the cake. Sky high murder rates, high-fructose corn syrup in just about everything edible, ever-declining literacy rates and a well-armed, willfully ignorant populace that digs reality TV. Wake up and smell the Honeybuns, chum: the USA has been fucked for over half a century. (Where the hell have you been living?)

FRANK: WHen I asked if you were listening (while extolling the virtues of Pinks latest album), I was referring to my once in a blue-moon praise of a (I can barely get myself to type these two words together) rap song.

Cheers,
DTS


Robert Ross

Postby Robert Ross » Mon May 04, 2009 5:36 am

Name: Robert Ross
Source: unca20090603.htm
My thoughts are with you, Chuck.



User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Mon May 04, 2009 6:41 am

Name: Frank Church
Source: unca20090603.htm
Dorman, hold on to your wigs:

http://www.imeem.com/people/QbQqgdV/mus ... s-of-wild/

---------------

The American State Department also downgraded Hitler to a moderate in the 1930s, saying he was a wall between extremes of the left and right. We started our climb onto a lumbering imperial project.

We should have aided Germany after World War One, so that fascism couldn't breed. But, you already know that.

Good to see a man of letters in here. Seeing how much I adore the intellectual elite...hehe.

Much props.

-----------

Obama takin on offshore tax havens. He is back in my smiley corner.



User avatar
Barney Dannelke
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Allentown, PA.
Contact:

Postby Barney Dannelke » Mon May 04, 2009 6:44 am

Name: Barney Dannelke
Source: unca20090603.htm
I am with Keith on this. Especially the Kirk remark. IF it's true that Shatner does not have a cameo AND Josh knows this because he has seen a print then it is a PURE DICK MOVE on his part.

Sincerely - Barney Dannelke

Josh Olson
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:59 pm

Postby Josh Olson » Mon May 04, 2009 7:41 am

Name: Josh Olson
Source: unca20090603.htm
I'm getting sucked into this geek rabbit hole....

Barney, Shatner was all over the news a few months back spreading crap about Abrams and the new movie specifically because they hadn't invited him to be in the film. Again, it was discussed here, as our host always has some choice words about Shatner.

I do appreciate that writing "The scene where Kirk dies in Spock's arms comes completely out of left field" would be a terrible thing to post, as it would undeniably constitute a spoiler. However, catching hell for mentioning who's NOT in a film is just bizarre.

But as long as I'm in the doghouse, fuck it. I'm gonna ruin the movie for all of you. What follows is a list of many other people that do not appear in the new Trek movie:

The Gamesters of Triskelion
Harry Mudd
The wandering space hippies from that shitty episode about wandering space hippies
The whales from Star Trek IV
Jean Luc Picard's wine-making older brother
Harlan Ellison
The ghost of Gene Roddenberry
Lurch
Cousin It
Ray Charles
The Ferenghi
Tasha Yar
Arnold Schwarzenneger
Gary Coleman
Mary Carey
The Guardians of Forever
Khan
The man who shot Liberty Valance
The Order of the Leaping Beryllians

and, most importantly,

YO MAMA!




User avatar
John E Williams
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:34 am

Postby John E Williams » Mon May 04, 2009 7:49 am

Name: JohnEWilliams
Source: unca20090603.htm
In Keith's defense, I understand what he's saying. The spoilage may not be that big a deal, but it will cost Keith a dollop of pleasure he might've gotten from the film otherwise. Which also isn't a great big deal, as Keith has said, but I do understand. In 1982 I was a teenager standing online with my dad to see WRATH OF KHAN, wondering anxiously whether the rumors about Spock's death were true, when a tow-headed little tyke came walking out of the previous showing of the film, happily babbling to his parents about how Spock wasn't REALLY dead even though we saw him die because of yadda yadda yadda. Needless to say, the poor kid had no idea what he'd done (his chagrined parents did), but a collective groan arose from our side of the exits, and I never did get to watch the film not knowing Spock's finale fate. Again, a very small thing, but I still remember it.

Regardless, I found Josh's reply to Keith a bit snarky. Perhaps Josh can be equally reminded that this is indeed harlanellison.com and that many of us here share a sense of wonder with our host (and with Josh) when it comes to the telling of stories, whether it's great literature or guilty pleasure sci-fi junk. Meaning, we like to have our little surprises. I for one don't recall past discussions here about time travel in the new Star Trek movie -- doesn't mean they didn't happen, but there have been something like eleventy thousand conversations on this site since then, so bully for Josh for remembering but why should the rest of us, exactly?

This close to the release of the Trek film I don't think it's that big a deal to keep mum about the details. If for no other reason, do it for fun, which is the whole point in the first place.

User avatar
John E Williams
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:34 am

Postby John E Williams » Mon May 04, 2009 7:50 am

Name: JohnEWilliams
Source: unca20090603.htm
Make that "Spock's FINAL fate", not "FINALE fate". Geez, wha' the hell.


Return to “The Art Deco Dining Pavilion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests