Jim:
No problem, I've built quite a little library on the subject of schizophrenia. Glad to be of service.
As for my brother; sadly, he's not with us any more. He committed suicide fourteen years ago. Yep, still flashes of pain, anger and regret when the subject comes up, but time and efforts of myself and Mel have gotten the emotional wounds down to scar tissue. These days the main emotion I display towards my brother is a sense of missing him.
If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Now, I'm off to play with the kids. Great way to kick off the blues.
Bag-O-Scott
Cindy,
I think you're believing that Shakespeare took himself a lot more seriously than he very well might have. I didn't cringe, mosrly because I know how much of a revision process good theater goes through. It's a cute joke, and it worked perfectly in the context of a charming movie.
What, you think ol' Will wasn't a young kid like we've all been at some point?
Regards,
Joseph
Little Washu,
Not unlike the fit of rage that William Shakespeare would exhibit if he caught a showing of Shakespeare In Love.
Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's daugther-- am I the only one who cringed? I didn't think it was funny at all. I thought it was insulting and I'm not even a rabid Shakespeare fanatic.
Cindy
CINDY: You've certainly got a point there. if Jesus was to drop by nowadays and take a long visit to the library, imagine the expression on his face when he'd come out after he found out how busy everyone's been 'interpreting' his teachings.
There must be nothing worse in the world than discovering that some dorks seized your name after you kicked the bucket and began a jihad. I wonder if Harlan's work will begin a jihad a century from now...
...and by then we could start wearing 'HARLAN'S BACK AND IS HE PISSED' t-shirts.
Little Washu
Dear Chuck,
Thank you for your kind words.
I didn't know how my post would be recieved here, so many have suffered so much at the hands of those who would shout " I am a Christian" in one breath and " I am better than all of YOU" in the next.
I am sorry for the things you have suffered at the hands of those who crouch beneath the banner of Christ and do harm to others in his name.
Theirs is behaviour beneath contempt.
What you said about me was lovely and I echo the sentiment. I would be honored to keep company with you, Chuck.
Any time.
Cindy
Dear Chuck,
Thank you for your kind words.
I didn't know how my post would be recieved here, so many have suffered so much at the hands of those who would shout " I am a Christian" in one breath and " I am better than all of YOU" in the next.
I am sorry for the things you have suffered at the hands of those who crouch beneath the banner of Christ and do harm to others in his name.
Theirs is behaviour beneath contempt.
What you said about me was lovely and I echo the sentiment. I would be honored to keep company with you, Chuck.
Any time.
Cindy
Rick, if I haven't said it before, let me say it now: You do good work here, sir. Harlan is lucky to have you for his point man in cyberspace.
SCOTT: Thank you for the suggestions. The Sheehan book comes highly recommended by Torrey, too, so I will hunt that one down will all due haste. My edition of SURVIVING SCHIZOPHRENIA is the fourth, and I agree with you--I'm only thirty pages in, but it seems to be a reasoned, balanced, COMPASSIONATE book that deserves every accolade thrown at it. (By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with his choice of the three best movies ever made on schizophrenia: THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY; CLEAN, SHAVEN; and ANGEL BABY.)
Was your brother ever successfully treated for his illness?
HEATHER: Nah, I never had religion shoved down my throat as a child. My mother was Jewish, my father Protestant, and neither seemed very interested in inculcating me with any form of religious doctrine (I don't think I went to Temple or Church more than half-a-dozen times growing up).
Now, that doesn't mean I was ignorant of matters of faith, necessarily; I was always aware of my Jewish roots, and very proud of them. But formal religious observance, except for select holidays, was a rarity in my home. Though I can understand your point that atheism is just a reaction to religious indoctrination, that just isn't the case with me. (And I'm really more of an agnostic than anything else, though I DO agree with the atheists that organized religion needs to be taken down a few pegs.)
"I'll make you a bet. Every one of you who has spread more than two lines of thought on this forum on the matter of the 'lack of a god'...was once having religion (or the views of a someone--ie. a parent or authority figure who said, "you must do as we TELL you!") shoved down his/her throat. Am I right?"
Nope. My parents (Mom considers herself agnostic, not sure about Dad but I believe he considers himself non-practicing Catholic) aren't very religious people. They had me make my First Communion and we even went to church a few times back then. I didn't make my Confirmation, though as I left Catechism looong before then. I considered myself agnostic until around sixteen, seventeen, when I "saw the light," or lack thereof. I didn't say I was atheist, though, until nineteen or twenty. No Carrietta White situation here.
Bill
Brian, Pollit did mention teflon. Hehe.
Most of what you described Brian could have easily been developed without space travel. Technology in America is slow mainly because of the Pentagon systems control in the area. And frankly, I can do without the taste treat from Romulus 3--TANG.
Satellite technology was given mostly free to corporate interest, to privatize space. I see a mostly private space program in the future--if we want it or not.
The religious right has monopolized the use of satellites in spreading the gospel. They own all these radio stations also, because they believe in the false biblical mandate. No fairness doctrine for these rubes. This is the side of the globalization arguement that is never talked about. Religion plays into a lot of the lobbying on this subject.
Heather said:
"I'll make you a bet. Every one of you who has spread more than two lines of thought on this forum on the matter of the 'lack of a god'...was once having religion (or the views of a someone--ie. a parent or authority figure who said, "you must do as we TELL you!") shoved down his/her throat. Am I right?"
In my case Heather, you're wrong.
I had a father and mother who delighted in cruelty and manifested it on my brothers and sisters with abandon.
I had a society filled with people who professed to employ the judeo-christian ethos, the principles of justice being fair, the sense that compassion should be part of the day to day existence, who turned their back on a child's pleas for help. The people who stated "suffer the children who come onto me" in their church on Sunday and on other days when abuse became present, spun on their heels and said; "it's not my concern".
I stood in the chaos of watching, one by one, my siblings die; some by their own hand, others by misadventure.
For me there can be no god, except one perhaps who delights in the torture of his creations, savoring the arbitrary misery he doles out to them as one would savor a meal.
Funny, but my experience has one of the reasons I like the story "Paingod", but the ending seems a copout.
Many don't get a deliverance for the evil that religion, in the hands of the cruel, the crazed, even worse; the indifferent, can come to represent.
Bag-O-Scott
Oh, God.
Where do I sit on the subject of faith and religion? I have a hard time finding a comfortable place on this subject. I'd like to believe that there is a diety, a life after death, I just don't want it to be the cosmic Hannibal Lecter that the Frankenchristers wish to ram down everybody's throat.
Cindy seems to be the kind of Christian I'd rather keep company with, someone who seems more truly Christian, rather than the people who turn that faith into something ugly. I think that ugliness comes from the Frankenchrister's main, true motivation: power. They are fascists who use the faith to promote their extreme, radical nationalist, anti-democratic agenda. And I mean fascists in the political sense, people who exalt the state (their state) above the individual, closet statists who want a central authority, an autocracy, headed by their Maximum Leader. To paraphrase Tim M. Berra, author of *Evolution and the Myth of Creation*, "(They) have deified their interpretation of a book, and they expect all to worship at their altar".
Even so, I would be quite happy to ingnore them, exept for the fact that they will not be IGNORED. Here in the good old state of Colorado, you may recall the issue that came up in the 1992 election, known as Amendment Two. That was the so-called "no special rights" amendment, saying that the city governments could not pass a law extending special protections for particular groups. One group in particular. Gay people. I'll have to admit, the campaign waged on behalf of Amendment Two was very well thought out. Very sophisticated. It should have been. The group promoting this amendment, Colorado for Family Values, had a lot of out-of-state help.
The more visible part of the campaign was the bland No Special Rights. Leaders of CFV claimed they wanted no special rights for anyone. Nothing personal.
Ah, but there was the dark, slimy underside of the campaign. Testimony to the state legislature on how dangerous gay people were, what a menace to society. They described the filthy habits they had, warned of the recruitment of children. Then there were the videos they showed at churches all over Colorado. I saw those videos long after the campaign. The same slanders, only brought to life on the screen. The grinning, chuckling testimony by a former psychiatrist about the filthy, destructive lifestyle of homosexuals, how they were recruited through child abuse, how they were child molesters. The more vicious he got, the more he grinned. Then there was the poison pen letters, the mailings sent by former Senator Bill Armstrong, making charges against all gay people, based on cases that were distorted, spun, and leavened with outright lies.
The amendment won by a narrow margin. It felt like a kick in the stomach. Sure, I took it personally. I'm gay. I had a personal stake in this. I'll never forget the photo in th paper the next day, a friend of mine hugging a woman he campaigned with, crying. The amendment won mainly in the countryside, the location of the most ugly part of the campaign. Metropolitan areas had the most votes against. I still shake when I remember this. We had no idea what we were up against. We were as unprepared for this as Helen Gahagan Douglas was for Nixon's campaign.
Of course, the Supremes ruled the amendment unconstitutional, mainly due to the intent of the law. Each of the supporters of the amendment, including the mephitic Judge Scalia were right wing Frankenchristers.
Maybe I believe in some ultimate intelligence. Maybe I don't. But I will not believe in the same slouching, foul entity as the religious right, including Attorney General Ashcroft, and Interior Secretary Gail Norton, who defended Amendment Two here in Colorado.
This is personal for me.
As for them, it is simply animal agression: one monkey humping another monkey to show 'em who's boss. This is not what was intended for this or most other faiths.
They're lousy Christians, but they'd make fine Satanists.
I intend to be ready next time they try another amendment.
Chuck
No blame here, Brian.
I'm afraid my wording must have been off.
I blame no religion or group. Mine is simple conjecture on perceived Bible spin.
Surely you cannot dispute that there is a list to the Bible. Things slanted in a way to help promote configuring behaviour.
If I had worded my communique effectively you would have gleaned that I love the Catholic church and subscribe to many of her edicts.
The "throwing of blame" was not my intent. Neither was the notion that the Catholic religion was original in it's take on the proper fearfulness of God.
If I gave you the wrong impression, I beg your pardon.
Cindy
Gotta take issue with Cindy's blaming the fear-of-Gahd on the Catholic Church. No doubt, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has encouraged its share of fear in the past. But notice that the final books of the Bible detail Paul's building of the Church-- most of the Bible, including the wrathful-and-vengeful aspects of the Almighty, were composed long before even Jesus drew breath.
So, if you want to throw the blame for "fear of god" on any particular religion, you might consider lobbing it at those nomadic tribes that wrote most of the stuff while they were wiping out the Amalekites. That's where the Catholics got it, after all.
Personally, I figure that the idea of _fearing_ gods exists in just about every culture that believes in them in the first place. So no one group, tribe, or sect can really be
Gotta take issue with Cindy's blaming the fear-of-Gahd on the Catholic Church. No doubt, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has encouraged its share of fear in the past. But notice that the final books of the Bible detail Paul's building of the Church-- most of the Bible, including the wrathful-and-vengeful aspects of the Almighty, were composed long before even Jesus drew breath.
So, if you want to throw the blame for "fear of god" on any particular religion, you might consider lobbing it at those nomadic tribes that wrote most of the stuff while they were wiping out the Amalekites. That's where the Catholics got it, after all.
Personally, I figure that the idea of _fearing_ gods exists in just about every culture that believes in them in the first place. So no one group, tribe, or sect can really be blamed.
Humbly added to the debate...
Religion is simply mythology - a story or play that is used to define the most conservative morality of any culture at any given time without the need to apply logic or law. Like talking clouds, dinosaurs, or other Disney constructs it is given form in some human authority figure to relate that morality to the masses.
The power of this mythology is held by those who feel they are closer to or have the ear of or enjoy special access to these culture constructs and can use influence those who NEED reassurance that this life isn't an empty shitcan of pain and woe.
FAITH and the CHURCH are two different and often incompatible institutions. I have learned that I can love "God" and be comfortable spiritually without the need of a church to tell me what is good and what is evil. If there IS a true, ultimate God, nobody on the planet's got a clean shot on what It is all about. Not a clue. I prefer the think there are just beings - spirits if you will - that exist at a sufficiently advanced level that our science cannot understand them and may influence us as we influence a bee hive or an ant colony.
I believe more that spirits of the dead, the spirits of those come and gone before us, live on in some way within the biosphere. I can look to the spirits of the past for guidance instead of some sheltered, inexperienced and shallow guy in a robe. Not that the priesthood or the church serves no purpose. Just my 2 cents.
The CHRISTIAN wades into the Lion's den.
> Is it any more laughable to consider creationist theory as reality than it is to determine cold hard fact from what we can perceive with our finite senses?
>Could not a being that had the power and inclination to create all that we see in six days also be capable of making things appear to be or seem any way he chooses?
>I don't think speculation is something that should be railed against no matter what belief one chooses to espouse.
>I am Lutheran, I believe in Christ. I cannot be dissuaded from my religion because I choose not to be.
>I don't feel threatened by the theory of evolution; fact or fiction it doesn't change a thing for me. My religion is not based on how long it took to create the earth. I see no valid reason to get bent out of shape because something from the Bible doesn't line up with science.
I believe that the Bible as we know it is a translation with a fear-factor spin by men of the Catholic faith ( I teeter on the brink of Catholicism myself) who felt the need to put the "fear of God" into the masses. In my opinion, admonitions of " Hell to Pay" were included to whip the people into shape and insure their obedience.
>My best friend Becky, aka Becky-the-Damned, fell off the Christianity wagon about a dozen years ago.
>
>She absolutely adores arguing with Christians because there are so many holes in our framework. She loves to go to Christian chat rooms where she can blindside those who have their religion on their sleeves. The more pious and devout the victim the angrier they become when she asks them questions on scripture (which she knows well enough to be the nightmare of most ministers) which have no way out.
>Nevertheless Becky and I continue a friendship that has grown only stronger since it began 33 years ago when we were in grade school. I lose no points for my Christianity and she loses nothing because she no longer subscribes.
We are all different--he made us that way for a reason. I would imagine that the reason had something to do with entertainment.
I'm Christian. Do I think God loves y'all any less because you aren't? No. Do I think I won't see y'all on the other side because you don't believe what I believe? Nope.
My religion is personal.. that's all. I don't have to inflict it on anyone else to make it real.
Cindy
To Chris L. We probably have a LOT more in common than previously understood.
Now to reply to Heather. Actually, I never had religion shoved down my throat very much. My parents were only conventionally religious. They weren't anywhere near fanatical, and when I stopped going to church, they never really objected very much.
But you ask why some of us feel the need to assert our lack of belief. It's pretty simple; we live in a world where religion _does_ get shoved down our throats, and it's nice to be able to assert our independence on this issue.
As for other people having beliefs, and this being the root of my discontent with religion... well, it's not that they have beliefs. It's that they have shallow, unquestioned, simple, and frequently _wrong_ beliefs. And history and current events demonstrate that such beliefs, when married with religion, have a tremendous capacity for torment and ruin. Heck, if I was denouncing the Nazis, would you tell me that I did so because I ressent their having an ethos I lacked?
To Zanadu, re human factors in science. Nearly 100% agreement from me on this point; all too often, science is subject to the things which have little to do with the scientific viability of an issue, and more to do with tradition, personal agendas, and financial interests. There's a fascinating body of work on the sociology of science.
Heather - I was answering this question, WHICH BY THE WAY YOU ASKED:
"Every one of you who has spread more than two lines of thought on this forum on the matter of the 'lack of a god'...was once having religion (or the views of a someone--ie. a parent or authority figure who said, "you must do as we TELL you!") shoved down his/her throat. Am I right?"
See, this is why I don't involve myself in debate here often. I answer as directly as I know how and I'm the bad guy. I call the above a sweeping generalization (which, by the way, it is), and I'm distancing myself to rationalize an attack.
I didn't get personal with you because you seem, and have always seemed, like a nice person. And since I consider the suppositions you made in your post to be patronizing, my emotional response would not have been kind. I didn't think you deserved that. I will, however, in light of your efforts on the behalf of KICK, Harlan, and this board, leave the offer open for a real, personal, direct response, guaranteed completely non-distancing.
But if you ask for it, remember that you asked for it. I don't have a rheostat when it comes to this stuff; just an on and off switch.
Heather,
One does not have to be one of the faithful to be interested in matters of religion. I am pretty sure that IsaacAsimov was an atheist but his Annotated Guide to the Bible is a wonderful reference work. I am an atheist but the first books you will see when you enter my house are several different versions of the Bible.
Atheist or theist, religion impacts your life on a daily basis. I am endlessly fascinated by the subject and try to learn all I can about different religions and religious criticism. My interest started with a love of mythology (especially Norse) and has continued to include... well, all other mythology. I know some people get upset when you use phrases like "Judeo-Christian mythology" but, sorry, that's how I view it.
I also don't agree with your assertion that atheists don't believe in anything and that, because of that, they take out their frustrations on those who do believe.
I believe in all sorts of things. Modern atomic theory. Quantum mechanics. I believe that baseball is the greatest game on earth. I believe the human race is, when you boil it down, inherently good and generally inclined to greatness though there are many inertial forces dragging us down from the lofty heights we can achieve. I believe in the power of art and music to inspire. I believe in the power of one man or woman to change the course of history. I believe Stanley Kubrick is the greatest director who ever lived.
I believe all sorts of things. Most of all, I believe that the attempt to learn the truth, as best we can, is a noble pursuit.
I believe that we should be humble enough to realize we will never understand everything but arrogant enough to try anyway.
I also believe I need at least six hours of sleep before I take a two and a half hour drive to North Jersey tomorrow so I bid you all a good night.
As mentioned, in said god(less) post, if you don't feel it's applicable to YOU, you need not argue the point (nor reduce said observations to an implied 'what an odd idea; let us not speak on the matter' sweeping generalization.)
I've 'often' observed that 'some' people who 'react' (how so? not sure) to other's observations, have tasted a tad of truth in said points of thought.
How many bodies do I need to find, to show proof, hmm?
Heather, a tad tired of the "self"-distancing (i.e., oh, isn't that a safe topic for conversation--meaning it's not real, it's not really personal; I can win this argument; that's what matters) that goes on in 'intellectual' argument.
Rick said:
>Furthermore, it is not true that "whacked out" ideas are part of the scientific process, or that opposing viewpoints should be encouraged. The only time an opposing or unusual idea should ever even be considered is when it presents testable tenets. A theoretical physicist may consider a thousand ideas about how the universe operates, from the very reasonable to the completely off-the-wall, but until one of those ideas makes it into the form of a claim that can be tested it is not a theory and not part of the process.
I read this and recalled flipping through a book, in the library, on how creative people get their ideas. I cannot relate to you who the specific person was, but there once was this scientist, I think it was a woman, who was looking for a solution to a scientific problem.
She was at a conference, one weekend, out and about wandering in a field. An idea came to her. She couldn't say why; she couldn't say how; she just knew it was the answer.
She told her associates about this idea and spent years trying to prove it--there were no measurably means to DO so, at the time.
She finally did, and proved herself right.
I believe that thinking. I don't think an idea, that can't be proved, is always wrong.
Sometimes our perceptive or measuring devices are just not advanced enough. Which gives one pause about men in the moon, gods in the church, and why peanut butter on bread falls face down, when dropped on the linoleum.
Heather
No, you're not right. I was raised in a very open-minded fashion concerning belief in God. While I don't generally have a problem with any religion as long as it's not used as a basis for dragging homosexuals behind pickup trucks, I've certainly argued the subject from the non-belief standpoint more than my share.
A blind faith eventually winds up leaving bloody corpses its wake. I therefore believe it should be combated, as should sweeping generalizations about the psychological nature of people's choice of debate topics.
The more vocal of you 'atheists' (for this reply, meaning someone who doesn't _believe_... in something'), I'll make you a bet. Every one of you who has spread more than two lines of thought on this forum on the matter of the 'lack of a god'...
was once having religion (or the views of a someone--ie. a parent or authority figure who said, "you must do as we TELL you!") shoved down his/her throat. Am I right?
Why do you waste so much brain energy disputing this? If you ARE so devout in your sense of non-religion, get ON with it. DO something else. BE creative. Why spend your life in a half-light arguing the point with someone who obviously still has _need_ of this god, I ASK you.
Let me also attempt a correlation: The ones on this board who spend so much time trouncing on another's need to believe in a 'god' (if this applies to you, take note; if it doesn't, don't worry about it, hmm?) well, maybe, just.. maybe.. it has a little more to do with the fact that the other someone HAS a belief...
...in SOMEthing--even if it's a silly ole god of some nature.
You have no belief, not even in your OWN self (it would appear--of COURSE I'm drawing conclusions; isn't that what you did to Frank's statement?), so you find it succoring to trounce on those who DO believe.
I ask you, is this a coincidence or what?
I grew up sans religion. It never came up. Neither of my parents, for whatever reason, felt the need to send us to Sunday school. When we were young, they gave us the option. And we all pretty much gave religion a pass. Can't say completely why--probably something to do with the sun. Probably something to do with a baseball. Probably something to do with being a kid on a Sunday afternoon.
I've met atheists--the vocal ones, I mean; not the ones who just get on with their day--who generally grew up in some religion. They had religion, more or less, in their view, shoved down their throats. I met this one guy when I was twenty. He was particularly engrossed with bringing it up as a topic of discussion. I cannot see the point. If it ain't your favorite flavor--think of chocolate bars--so be it. If you hated having that religion forced on you as a kid, so be it; have done with it; get ON with your life, use your powers for creative growth. The bad religious experience sucked ENOUGH out of your life, why prolong the agony?
(Unless, you're still WONDERING.........)
.....
That's tantamount to harping on that first bad relationship--on and on and on. Thing is, sometimes, that first 'relationship' (and the continual harping and recreating of the history of it) colors our approach to the next one; and the next one; and the next. The evil of the past relationship (be it god or first girlfriend/boyfriend/puppy dog) is the only thing that wins, really. It _got_ to you IN the bad relationship; and it's STILL feeding off you--as you compare every following relationship (with the "other", the god, the deity, the circumstance.)
Why waste time? You'll be dead soon enough. And you can ask him/her/it/them when you arrive in "Heaven."
I believe there IS something to mankind's need for meaning; and the need often seems to manifest in that "need for the _other_"...be it god, or girlfriend or big dog or small newborn child or wife of twenty five years.
We'd all like to think, "we mattered".. sometime, somewhere, to someone, or something, some deity.
And that deity can be god, or goy or... one's self.
Heather
Interesting sidebar: I wrote this piece in Notepad. I originally wrote "God" with a capital. Something someone once wrote--oh, guess..please--made me do a search to change the word to "god."
I was amused, when I got to the end of my search and even Notepad agreed with you when it (he? she?) said, "Cannot find "God." I just clicked "Okay." And got on with my day. A hint, perhaps? *grin*
I had to remove some updates here on the
KICK lawsuit with AOL to avoid interfering with the suit and
the decisions to be made concerning it. While it's not my usual practice, the Ellisons asked me to do so and I respect their reasons for making the request.
I'm sure we'll have an official update soon. For now,
I will onlyconcur with the people who said now is the time to help out, both to dig deep and to spread the word.
KICK Internet Donations
have raised $1,812.00 for the Ellisons so far and I have another $275.00 in pending donations. If you guys want to drum up some support or make that donation you've been putting off this weekend I will cut a check to them on Monday for whatever the balance winds up at.
Here I go agreeing with Brian (a definite sign of the coming apocalypse)... I second the question to Bill G. - an anthology of what?
I continue to resist the binary nature of Chris L.'s assertions. I guess I'm not comfortable with any statement that claims to be the absolute truth - especially a scientific statement. Chris says it is or it isn't. I say maybe, or maybe it's neither, or maybe it's some combination of both. I am saying I don't know - and I'm pretty sure YOU don't know either - but ain't life grand anyway.
Onward:
Rick was on target regarding the non-overlapping nature of science and religion, at least from my POV - no further comments there.
But Rick wrote: "a scientific theory is based on a central hypothesis - a statement of opinion about how the universe operates, yes. But this statement must be testable."
Explaining all the previously observed data is sufficient to pass the "testable" hurdle. Really. It takes nothing more than being able to explain what we've already seen to be considered a working theory.
"Additionally, most such hypotheses generate a number of other assertions which are also testable."
It is here where the rubber meets the road, scientifically speaking. This is what I said earlier: "to gain widespread, general acceptance, a theory not only has to agree with observed data, it should predict heretofore unobserved phenomena successfully, and exclusively."
But it doesn't have to have widespread, general acceptance to remain a working theory. It needs only to remain viable - not disproved by new data. Frequently, theories are championed only by small groups of scientists - and it isn't until they demonstrate some spectacular or unique data that their theory grabs the interest of their peers. Re: Cold Fusion
Once you have sufficient interest in your theory and supporting data, many clever minds bend to the task of exploring the it. THIS is the power of the scientific method. A theory is suddenly placed through the wringer, assaults from every imaginable direction and careful consideration of the logic and extensions of that logic. THIS is the crucible from which our description of reality emerges.
But all of that doesn't mean that ANY of the theories are correct - only that they remain viable. There are noted cases where "opposing" theories turn out to be seperate parts of a different, hybrid theory; the quantum nature of light - both particle-like and wave-like behaviours. "The Big Bang", and "The Steady State" theories of the Universe combine into "The Inflationary" model. And so on.
Then there are some theories for which there is no proof for many years after conception - due to an inability to perform a validating experiment, or the validation is an event that is extraordinarily rare. Further refinements and new extensions are proposed, EVEN THOUGH THE ORIGINAL THEORY REMAINS UNPROVEN. This IS science. Re: Superstring Theory, Black Holes, Proton Decay...
I don't disagree with the fundamentals of Chris', or Brian's or Rick's statements - But I do believe that human passion - and belief in an as-yet-unproven theories are an important part of the drive of science. It is passion, and sometimes madness, that pushes the boundries.
Bill/Lynn ~ Maybe I'm crazy, but have either of you considered some sort of e-book format? I'm not sure how popular this would be, but production costs would be practically nil.
On the other hand, there are several, "we'll print it for you" type, traditional paper, publishing houses as well.
Food for thought.
-Andrew
To Bill G. re anthology. I don't mean to come down on you, but anthology of _what_, exactly?
(I just wish this case would get more coverage. The fact that so many writers' organizations are NOT helping Harlan out is pretty ugly, so some press attention might have some serious benefit.)
To Frank Church. I love this. You present Pollitt's rather sweeping dismissal of NASA, but when she compiles a detailed and factually-based indictment of the free ride religions get in our society, you accuse her of lacking balance or nuance. Exactly what _is_ your criteria for "balanced" and "nuanced?"
For that matter, what of the good things the space program has done? If you're going to fault Pollitt for not mentioning the nice things from religion, than you really ought to fault yourself for not mentioning things like microcomputers, global climate mapping, study of the environment, satellite technology, and TANG when you're complaining about NASA.
Meant to post my e-mail in the last message.
Four today...I must be crazy!
Scott--I agree completely with you. I also know that sooner or later I'll crack, pulling my hair out, screaming, "There is no Santa!" Or I'll really crack and just believe in Santa. I can dig Santa more than god. Santa will give stuff. (Greedy? I dunno. But I like to get, what can I say?).
Lynn--I would love to be able to come up with some sort of antho (I was even thinking a Webderland BB Antho, there has got to be enough of us here to pull off something), but, like you, mine would be a sad little thing done completely on my PC...no Kinkos or anything else for me. Besides, the kind of antho that would really help the cause would need names whom I'm sure would want at least a little something. If writing is your bread-n-butter, you won't want to give it up. Though, I'm sure Harlan has friends who owe a favor or two...
Shaking head. I don't know....
Bill
Bill G.~ Count me in, both in donating labor & content. I can't be an organizer, tho'. If I was, it'd be a little spiral bound Kinko's reject of a publication, and I think someone here could do better.
L.
Bill:
First man, sorry, I forgot. You were supposed to get space with Jim, but posted, then kicked myself.
As to Christmas; we don't get rid of the holiday, we just have amended it to our wishes. Any who feel differently and act accordingly, more power to them. My mother and father-in-law cringed a little at first, but as soon as they got used to it came to like the idea. My mother-in-law thought it horrid, until Danny said that "the gifts from Gramma meant more knowing they came from Gramma, not from a made-up man". Not bad, if you don't mind the opinion.
For me, I can't carry the baggage of culture if I feel it's false or working to an alterior motive, much like the commercialisation of the holidays or its use to propagate the belief in some mythical deity. If there's to be celebration, I'd rather do it for a reason I can believe in. For me, considering my past, I can't see any better reason than family.
Of course, it's still burning holes in the plastic, if you get my meaning.
Now, to create the perfect non-materialistic society...
Culture is my engine, Ethics my track, says social engineer Bag-O-Scott, aka Anthropological Casey Jones
Brian, did You read the piece she did on the space program?
Katha Pollitt is right about her charges but has no balanced or nuanced review. She never mentions the good things people of faith do: The civil rights movement was mostly religious; Unitarians and other religions that supported the anti-war movement against Vietnam; Radical Catholics who help third world people ravaged by America's crimes--and on and on.
But the molestation cases have to be dealt with. But remember, this is not about religion, it is about conservative, backward church teachings, that need to be changed. Coarse, because of 9/11 we are really afraid to challenge this power structure. We used religion to help us cope with the terror attack, and now religion is about as untouchable as Police or Firemen.
It's now considered "unpatriotic" to be an atheist--I dissagree, but these are the facts. I see only more fundamentalist in our future, sadly. Hope I'm wrong.
First to the important:
Jim Davis: Yes, my brother had the disease. If you've got the fourth edition of Dr. Torrey's work, "Surviving Schizophrenia", you got the best one, or, in my estimation, the most helpful.
Others I've come across, and found excellent:
"The Eden Express" by Mark Vonnegut
"The Broken Brain: The Biological Revolution in Psychiatry" by Nancy C. Andreasen
"Is There No Place On Earth For Me?" by Susan Sheehan
"Living and Working With Schizophrenia" by M.V. Seeman
"Schizophrenia: Straight Talk for Families and Friends" by Maryellen Walsh
For websites:
www.schizophrenia.com -> first rate! You can get help and support, and discuss the disease with many who have experience as both sufferers and families.
www.nami.com -> fine informational site of the National Association of the Mentally Ill.
www.schizophrenia.mentalhelp.net -> another fine and interactive site which is quite good as a resource
www.mgl.ca/~chovil -> Ian Chovil is a gentleman suffering with the illness who has decided to build a webiste detailing his struggles with the disease, and what effects it has on his day to day existence. Quite informative.
Hope that helps. If you have any further questions you think I can help with, let me know.
Best, Scott
Gosh, Frank, considering that I've never dissed Pollitt on anything, I'm truly amazed that you think there's some odd inconsisttency in my recommending one of her essays.
As far as knowing "as little or as much about God as any of us" goes, well, could you possibly think of any reason why she _should_? Or shouldn't?
I love Katha Pollitt, but she knows as little or as much about God as any of us.
Remember, Katha also wrote the diss of the space program that all of you loved so well. So, it seems, all of a sudden Katha is smart again--sheesh, don't that beat all.
CHRIS L: Imagine how I felt the first time I drove through downtown--people on the street were wearing these crisp, white, vaguely-military uniforms, and all I could think was, "Huh. I had no idea that Clearwater housed a Naval base." Poor clueless me...
I'm going to make a rare exception and dive into the debate on religion and science.
The problem with comparing different religious beliefs and difference scientific theories is that they are not the same animal. Religious beliefs are essentially opinion -- that is, they are matters of faith, based almost purely on one's upbringing and intuition (whether or not one considers that intuition to be divinely inspired). There is no physical evidence to back up the tenets of any major religion and sketchy at best historical support.
Therefore, one can look at other religions and opposing viewpoints and say they can be given fairly equal credence. No one can truly say the belief that God is a three-part diety that sent a son to earth due to his infinite mercy is any more valid than the belief that God is a small shrivelled rutabaga controlling the universe from never-uncovered bottom of a produce pile in a health food store in the Magellanic Clouds.
On the other hand, a scientific theory is based on a central hypothesis - a statement of opinion about how the universe operates, yes. But this statement must be testable. Additionally, most such hypotheses generate a number of other assertions which are also testable. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity indicated we would see light rays bend in the presence of a strong gravity well and how much they would bend by. He had no idea if this was the case when he developed his hypothesis, but scientists were soon able to measure the change in position of stars viewed near the sun during an eclipse to see that this was true, and later to measure the divergence of a laser beam to determine that the degree of bending matched the prediction.
So a scientific theory's strength rests in HOW testable its arguments are and how much they HAVE been tested. The problem I see with the discussion here is it seems to indicate that this strength depends on the scientist's credibility. This is not the case - certainly presence and politics may cause people to hesitate to question an eminent man's opinion, but over time a theory is strong purely because it has withstood repeated tests that not only failed to disprove it but in fact strengthened it with supporting experimental data.
Furthermore, it is not true that "whacked out" ideas are part of the scientific process, or that opposing viewpoints should be encouraged. The only time an opposing or unusual idea should ever even be considered is when it presents testable tenets. A theoretical physicist may consider a thousand ideas about how the universe operates, from the very reasonable to the completely off-the-wall, but until one of those ideas makes it into the form of a claim that can be tested it is not a theory and not part of the process.
The discussion of science as it relates too or opposes religion is an essentially fruitless one. These are two pursuits which carry completely different philosophies and methodologies. God's existence or nonexistence is neither observable nor testable and therefore it has not place in any scientific process. Likewise, no scientific theory can be proven or disproven by belief or faith.
Finally, the portrayal of atheism as a "religion" is at the same time both accurate and misleading. One is not enjoined by scientific process or thinking to assert that God exists or God does not exist. Both statements are untestable. Therefore, to assert that god does NOT exist is by definition a belief. But to fail to assert that he DOES exist is not a belief, and this is the position of many people who are pigeonholed as atheist.
Science and religion do not fight or support one another. Religions have certainly contained testable statements that have been analyzed by scientists. This caused religions to adjust, not never to alter their central beliefs. The Catholic Church did not cease to exist when it was shown the sun did not orbit the earth. Likewise, scientists may be inspired or intrigued by religions beliefs in choosing what hypotheses to create and pursue. This does not mean this pursuit is religious.
One can be a man of science and religion, of one or the other, or of neither. There is no correlation or conflict.
Addendum: I couldn't find the Stephen Jay Gould essay I was looking for but I did find a
similar one from
The Atlanic online.
Make that three times.
Reading Infoman's post has got me really feeling depressed now. Going to scrape something together by the end of next week for KICK. I'd thought about an anthology where ALL proceeds (well, maybe except for production costs) goes to KICK. Which would mean volunteering work, once, for a cause to help ourselves (writers). Whattaya guys think?
Bill
Jim, no word on the trivia contest yet. They announce the winners, I believe, on their Sunday paper the day of the Oscars....of course, if I win, I'll know earlier because they will call me and interview me like they did with last year's winner (73 questions, only one person got them all right last year....I got 71, though I could have debated them to 72 but there was no purpose to it).
This year was 74 questions......waiting.....waiting......
-TODD
Scott,
I don't think my daughter will feel any less loved without Santa. I wouldn't try to get rid of Christmas altogether for her, I'm not gonna lie, I like getting things and like seeing her get things. MY problem being anti-Claus is that my wife, my mother, and everyone else around me INSISTS on talking about Santa. Even worse, they insist that Santa goes to THEIR house, too. Which, as a kid, I could never understand why Santa would make several trips for one kid when he could do just one, and if he did make those trips, then why the hell did he leave shitty stuff at the other places. Before she was born I'd said I didn't want supernatural beings coming to my house on holidays but my wife insisted. I figured, I got the god thing in my corner, I'll give her Santa, etc. I just hate it when my daughter says, "Well, Santa can get it," or asks about the hows and whys. There are so many other things that she could ask about that would be just as much fun for her; she's four years old, everything is interesting at this point. It also doesn't help that I'm not fond of the holidays, anyway. I don't have a large family at all so I see most of them all the time. The holidays are about going and visiting people I don't want to, spending money I don't have, and basically just being miserable.
But, to get back to the Santa thing; I just don't like lying to my daughter and playing along. If I don't, I'll get in trouble. If I do, I feel hypocritical. Kinda makes me wish I drank sometimes.
Wow. Two posts in one day. You can tell I have a cold and my inner censor is off.
Bill
Hey, guys, have a look at thenation.com website. There's a nice piece by Katha Pollitt on God, and Stuart Klawans mentions a well-known fantasy writer's well-known time travel story in his review of _The Time Machine_.
(Note: some information on the KICK lawsuit which shouldn't be disseminated here yet was removed from this message. Please check my follow-up post for details. My apologies - Ed)
It's time to redouble our efforts to help Harlan in his fight. I'm working on some projects that I hope will bring more publicity (on and off the web) to this David & Goliath fight (which, in the shadow of the events of last year's terrorist acts, has seen little or no sunlight of late). I'm also sending some money. And if you folks out there can scrounge up some extra cash or use your talents (especially the writers among you) to get more publications to run a story about this (and try to include the KICK address), I'm sure it would help.
With my nose once more to the grindstone,
Infoman.
Some quick comments, questions, and a joke my Momma used to tell me:
I'm really impressed that not ONCE has anyone here said, "You know, Asimov should've publicly announced he had AIDS." Just thought I'd say that.
Scott/Bag of Meat/Bag-O-Scott/(Why don't you just pick out an indecipherable glyph like Prince while you're at it?): You've mentioned that your brother is schizophrenic, if I'm not mistaken. Can you recommend some good books on the subject? I'm doing a little research, and have just picked up Torrey's SURVIVING SCHIZOPHRENIA. Any help will be mucho appreciated.
I know you guys were talking about really scary movies. Well, to reference the above topic, the most frightening movie I've ever seen is CLEAN, SHAVEN. It's a depiction of the inner life of an untreated schizophrenic, and is so uncompromising in its portrayal of the horrors of mental illness that it borders on the demonic. See it, but be prepared: It's pretty gruesome in parts. (People have supposedly fainted while viewing it.)
LORIN O: "I don't give a Tinker's Damn" is a pretty cool phrase. I think I first encountered it in some novel of the British countryside, by Hardy or Lawrence or one of those guys. It's for those times when "shit" is inappropriate, but you don't want to use "fig" or "care," either of which would get you some pretty strange looks. (Of course, some of us should be used to those...)
FAVORITE MUSICALS: Most people have mentioned my faves (PURPLE RAIN, CABERET, SOUTH PACIFIC, WEST SIDE STORY), though I'm surprised Weil/Brecht's THE THREEPENNY OPERA hasn't rated a mention. I'm also a recent convert to HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH. Does that make me a Hedhead?
LYNN: I'm so sorry for not e-mailing you about the stories. Yes, I have 'em and have read 'em, but things have been too crazy here (literally) for me to write a long critique. I could send you a condensed version, if you want. (There's not much to say about "Everything," which I really like. "Corazon" is a little more problematic for me, and I'm not sure why. But I could TRY to put something in words, I suppose.)
Oh, and here's the joke my momma used to tell me. I think I've posted it before, but it fits the religion thread so well that it deserves another appearance:
Have you heard? They've cancelled Easter.
Why?
They found the body.
Actually, the thought about junking organized religions sounds like a winner to me. Personal, private beliefs in divinity are my bag.
Brian, I do think that random chance is a lot harder to "prove" than the existense of a deity. The fact that the universe just "appeared" doesn't jell with me. Just as a building needs a builder, then a universe needs a planner. I think religion is mostly a dangerous concept, but the need to believe is innate in the human animal. The reason so many humans on the earth believe is because of an inate feeling that something out there is possible. It is a personal feeling, and hard to describe, but it is there. That's all I can say.
Eternal truth doesn't exist: everything that we rationalize is based on reason and sound judgements, not any devine fact. The problem in the world is that so few are educated enough to make these judgements--And in that lack of judgement, people can become easily swayed by false religious fanaticism.
I consider myself to be a Unitarian: I believe in our universal humanity, and all of our major religions basically believe in the same God. It is how this concept of God is used or abused. The abuse gives Brian Siano hives--but Brian has a right to be worried. Religion has given God a bad name.
Most of my hero's are atheists--not because they are atheist--but because rational thought seems to make more sense to non-believers. I can understand their worries, but I do wish they could look at the "good" perveyors of the faith and work with them to bring more rationality into society. The believers will not go away--but dialogue is important. Telling people they are stupid just sours the debate.
**As a person who frequently wakes up in the night terrified that one day I will be silenced, no matter when, no matter how, I've always wanted to know how atheists deal with such a spell.
My grandfather passed away two years ago, and being at his funeral was a grim affair (duh). I would prefer to believe that he found some measure of existence other than oblivion, but that's me and the rest of the human race.**
I would very much like to believe in God and an afterlife. It would be just wonderful to think my parents are together now and that I will see them again. That if I died tomorrow, there would still be a part of me capable of sensing and feeling joy.
I am, however, more interested in learning what is true than in what makes me feel good. Therefore, I have no choice but to rely on the evidence available to me and draw my conclusions from it.
However, I do plan to recant my heresy on my deathbed just in case. Pascal's Wager and all that. He's right - atheism is a lose-lose bet.
**By the way, I live in a town that has a higher-than-average amount of religious lunacy: Clearwater, Florida, which is the International Spiritual Headquarters of a certain unnamed religion founded by a certain unnamed science fiction author who will not be named here**
Holy crap. I never made the connection before.
All these years as a Phillies' fan, Clearwater has always been the place for fun, sun and Phillies' baseball in March. I've always wanted to go down and just watch the Phightins during the delusional phase of the season when they are still contenders.
I never thought of Clearwater as... the other thing.
They don't send their recruits out to work on the ballplayers, do they? If I ever see a clip of John Travolta chatting it up with Scott Rolen, I'm going to get very, very nervous.
Xanadu wrote:
"Yes, the burden of proof rests properly on the shoulders of the "believers". But, given the lack of definition for "God" and the paucity of data surrounding this issue, a bald statement like "God doesn't exist" is every bit as non-scientific as the statement "Yes, He does"."
I think Xanadu's point here is utterly wrong, because it rests on the lack of a definition of god and paucity of data-- two points which argue well against the existence of god.
Here's why. If we're going to ask if god exists, we have to have some operational definition of god in the first place. After all, if we're asking about the existence of dodos, ibexes, and George Bush, we have an idea of what we're looking for. So to even ask if god exists requires a definition.
The fact that we _don't_ have a definition of god rests on two issues. The first is an arcane theological concept: a definition of god would _limit_ god, and since god is assumed to be infinite and all-powerful, a definition of god is either inaccurate or impossible. (The fact that god is partially defined by his infinitness or lack of limits leads to contradictions as well.) This sort of paradox leads to all kinds of speculation, and frankly, no real resolution.
But the second issue is the one that really puts the kibosh on the god issue. It's the fact that a definition of god is subject to verification. If we say god has a certain quality, then we can look for some kind of evidence. For example, if we say god respond to prayer, then we can do a study to see if prayers work. If we say god created the Universe seven thousand years ago, we can evaluate that claim against the evidence that the Earth is several billion years older than that.
Because every definition of god is subject to this verification, the definition of god has _changed_. And it's usually been towards the goal of avoiding those troublesome questions and evidence. When the evidence says that Genesis is not true, then people advance the idea that maybe god has guided the evolutionary process. Or maybe god exists, but "in a way we can't understand or verify." Or... well, you get the idea. The process inevitably leads to a definition of god that's no different than saying he does _not_ exist for all intents and purposes.
We might as well use the Santa analogy. Imagine if we had someone who insisted that Santa existed. And after some long process of demonstrating explanations for the Xmas presents, questioning the existence of Claus, and the rest, this person _persisted_ in believing in Santa-- an incomprehensible, outside-of-reality Santa who guides parents to give presents through some unknowable process. In other words, an undefined and meaningless Santa.
For the record, I'm a recovering Catholic - I don't believe in the biblical "God" - the closest description I have is agnostic. Outside of that - I don't know nothin'.
Chris L.: "The scientific method hinges on the application of Occam's Razor. The aliens-replaced-by-furniture hypothesis cannot be reasonably considered until the nothing-happened hypothesis is rejected because the latter hypothesis is the more parsimonious one."
Actually, Occam's Razor states we must prefer the simpler hypothesis, not that we cannot consider more complex ones – especially if the more complex ones suggest new reasons/methods of gathering data. (A related aside – thank you for "enriching my word power" by using "parsimonious" – I knew and used an incomplete definition of the word 'til now and I had to go to the dictionary to check what you meant... Doesn't happen often, but I'm grateful when it does.)
"Merely stating any whacked-out idea does not grant you equal status."
Certainly not equal – but until it's disproven, it is part of the process. It also depends on who's doing the stating – a credible scientist will be given much more serious consideration by her peers than the guy shouting from the street-corner will.
"With lack of proof, the logical conclusion is that [God] doesn't exist."
It may be the logical one, but it's hardly the only human one. Human history is filled with belief in "gods" – it is a serious, visceral desire. You cannot simply dismiss that kind of passion. And it's passion that's driving this particular train.
"You must prove [God] does exist, not the other way around."
Yes, the burden of proof rests properly on the shoulders of the "believers". But, given the lack of definition for "God" and the paucity of data surrounding this issue, a bald statement like "God doesn't exist" is every bit as non-scientific as the statement "Yes, He does". This ties into Brian's thread: In a "God-drenched" culture, stating "God doesn't exist" is the minority opinion – obviously it will be the most persecuted. It opens you up to the passions of the majority – and many a skeptic has been steamrolled by it.
On atheism:
I'm always kind of in quiet awe of atheists, because they've come to terms with the VERY good possibility that there is nothing out there except our own existences. As a person who frequently wakes up in the night terrified that one day I will be silenced, no matter when, no matter how, I've always wanted to know how atheists deal with such a spell.
My grandfather passed away two years ago, and being at his funeral was a grim affair (duh). I would prefer to believe that he found some measure of existence other than oblivion, but that's me and the rest of the human race.
Harlan's stated before that the CLOSEST kind of alignment he may have is atheism, but he's also stated that there's no real word out there that can describe him. I think that's a pretty good way to put it.
(P.S. I personally think basset hounds are the physical manifestations of divine beings.)
Little Washu
Hey Jim. Did you ever read that story I flung you?
Lemme know.
L.
Thanks a fuckin' lot, Todd. As if all the cases of Webderland PTSD caused by the LAST religious foofaraw weren't enough for you. Thanks, buddy. Expect the rotting gopher anyday, now.
(How did the trivia quiz turn out, by the way?)
Personally, I don't think the existence of God can ever be proved or disproved. Religious faith is something that, by its very nature, doesn't rely on empirical evidence for sustenance. It's intensely personal, and is not concerned with matters of "how," but, rather, "why." Now, I'm not giving religion a free pass by saying that specific points of belief can't be debated on scientific/philosophical grounds--to say, for example, that the Universe is only 5,000 years old, and the fossil record is just a tool of Satan, is just plain NUTTY, and should be exposed for the nonsense it is.
I also think that ORGANIZED religion should be junked. Whatever evolutionary purpose it has served, I think it has become a liability, and has countenanced too much madness in its name to justify its existence anymore. As I'm sure I've said before, when you tell someone that the ultimate source of responsibility lies in the sky, and not in himself, then you're giving out a license to commit almost any act of barbarity. Though I agree that humanity would still be doing some pretty heinous shit without religion, I have a suspicion that the body count wouldn't be quite as high.
But as for personal spirituality...well, I have no problem with it, and can understand why people crave it so much. I've experienced that need myself, so I'd never belittle it in anyone else. (For the record: I am pretty much an atheist at this point in my life, though "agnostic" would probably be a more accurate term. If there IS a God, then I think it's like what Frank Church described: Something that sparked creation, and is completely unconcerned with the results. Aristotle posited a similar belief with his concept of the Unmoved Mover.)
Of course, my relatively benign attitude has to deal with the reality that the culture at large INSISTS on religious belief as the norm, and depicts non-belief as something morally debased. I think I'm pretty ethical in most things, but I don't act out of a desire to ingratiate myself with the Divine, like so many do. So, when someone implies that my code of ethics is basically hollow because it lacks a religious base, I get kinda pissed.
(And do things like avoid my born-again cousins who insist on proselytizing me at every opportunity. To add insult, they're born-again JEWS, which I'm sure would cause their grandparents no small amount of pain, if they were alive. Oy, the tsuris...)
By the way, I live in a town that has a higher-than-average amount of religious lunacy: Clearwater, Florida, which is the International Spiritual Headquarters of a certain unnamed religion founded by a certain unnamed science fiction author who will not be named here (and so shall remain nameless). Am I being, ahem, CLEAR?
(Did he REALLY believe in all that crap, Harlan?)
And it's also the home of this: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/clearwater1998/mary.html
*SIGH* Maybe moving out of D.C. wasn't such a hot idea, after all...
Intolerance came first, religion came second. People who are intolerant (and ain't we all a bit, in the end?) will use whatever is at hand to help their cause.
Jerry Falwell would be an intolerant ass regardless of whether he was a Christian or an atheist. I don't think we can blame religion for people like him, or those that follow him.
King Lurk
He's an aside about the intolerance of religion:
http://canada.com/news/story.asp?id={9A9572B4-2CCD-42CF-A6EA-CFC82D130FA3}
Seems to me that, for some of the religious, the greatest use they put their freedom of religious expression to is the exercise of trying to separate others from their rights of self-expression.
He stikes at midnight; a blaze of logic and reason, spreading fear into the religious fanatic:
He is...BAG-O-SCOTT, ATHEIST GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joseph, mellow, man, mellow. 'Twas a joke (notice the quotes around the word "below"?)
Some of my best friends are Reform.
Some of my best friends are Goyim.
Some of my best friends are Liberals.
My wife is an Italian Spitfire!
Ta ta.
Love, Todd
Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy, now we're whipping rocks at the ole wasp nest of beliefs...
Myself, I am firmly atheist. The notion of some being, in whatever incarnation man seems fit to design for them, wandering about like a landlord, telling us to obey their moral codes and eat our peas is childish nonsense to me. I'm sorry, but I look upon the arbitrary nature of our existence, the sudden explosions of cruelty and brutality that, even now, we can happily visit upon one another and find I cannot accept that some being resides over this chaos and accepts it.
That doesn't even touch the notion that a lot of the chaos is created in some god's name.
As I see it, the issue of the proof or non-proof of a god's existence is largely irrelevant. There is a basic principle that professes that things can be proven not to exist by the fact that people can argue both for or against the existence itself, and never conclusively prove either precis.
I just see the illogic of the stories that are told to us with the literalness of history; the implication being that these myths are to be believed as if they were fact, even as they contradict each other within teachings.
Man creates gods in our image; not to the converse, as christian dogma states. Most often the god becomes the justification and defense for actions borne out of fear and ignorance of the deity's creators; who could never admit to seeing those failings in themselves.
Now to a postive side to atheism;
Bill: I've never told my children about Santa, as they grew up. In my own hardscrabble childhood, I wasn't really made to be aware of such things, my parents preferring to lavish their money on booze and dope, rather than their children. Before my eldest daughter was born, Mel and I discussed it, and we came to the agreement that we wouldn't tell her about Santa, and when the issue came up, we would tell her that the story was a myth, and that he didn't really exist.
It doesn't mean we don't have Christmas; we simply dispensed with the stuff regarding St. Nick and Jesus, and instead emphasize the ideal of family, and love. We give gifts, the tree, the lot. Our kids are told that they get the presents because they are loved and wanted. Mel put it best: "We'd rather tell our babies the truth."
They are no less loved, or enjoyed, Bill, and we don't have to feel like we're somehow a might corrupt. We just decide to focus our celebration on the good fortune of having one another, rather than some abstract and illogical representation society shoves down our throats.
And, with Easter coming up, we can take a day and indulge our little ones , and have a bit of fun ourselves.
I love the Emo Phillips Line: "What does it mean when you gnaw the eyes out of the chocolate rabbit and then scream: "STOP STARING AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!"?
Hmm, the old "has religion been a net boon or bane for the human race" argument. Yeah, we ought to resolve that one by the end of the weekend. :)
I have no idea. All I will add is that it is obviously nonsense to describe religion itself as being either good or bad. That's like calling a hammer evil or a Bowie knife bad. It's just a tool for humans to use in their pursuits.
Has it tended to be used more for evil than for good? Beats me.
Todd,
I respectfully take real umbrance to the characterization of my Judaism as being the "hippies of Judaism." Care to restate that? Just because we Reform have a different philosophy on our observance of traditional Jewish law does not make us hippies, or "below" Conservative, or any such nonsense. Hell, I don't make such statements about the Chasid, just because they observe the separation of genders in temple and we don't. Sure, the Reform have a tradition of jettisoning (sometimes unnecessarily) the traditions of the past, but a lot of that comes from deep consideration (and a lot of it is being rediscovered in recent years). Methinks you might want to reconsider your statement, or at least apologize a bit.
Regards,
Joseph
Yipes, I apologize for the next 48 hours of religious debate.
One little grenade tossed over the wall at Brian's superior attitude, and I've ignited the theology & proof debate which often goes on and on and on....
Or as I call it....the college-boy-trying-to-impress-the-chick debate.
Enjoy, all!
-TODD
Brian wrote: "Therefore, atheists are... well, something that's not terribly good."
Never once did I hear anyone say that. To say that the cultural after-effects of religion are beneficial is *not* to conclude that if you don't have religion, your cultural after-effects are useless. Nothing of the sort. I think our patron here is pure testament to that. Please, don't put words in the mouths of those who disagree with you in an attempt to make yourself look like the persecuted party because that just isn't the case.
I myself have often wondered if religion isn't an evolutionary force of itself, causing communities that unite under its banner to preserve their own genes, whereas seeking to exterminate the competition. In those terms, Christianity has done very well for its followers, evolutionarily speaking. Just a random thought.
Respectfully, and thoroughly enjoying the conversation today,
L.
I'm a little puzzled by one of the threads we've got going here, namely, the recourse to the culture created by religion to defend it in some way. People are saying that, regardless of the existence of God, we seem to need to believe, and that this need has given birth to some truly great and moving works of art. Therefore, atheists are... well, something that's not terribly good.
But consider how much art has been created by religions which are, effectively, dead. Look at the Parthenon, or the Pyramids. We still enjoy these works of art. In fact, classic Roman and Greek motifs were resurrected by the nominally-monotheistic British in the 18th and 19th centuries, and less than a hundred years ago, the Art Deco movement could draw upon the imagery of Zeus or Athena or Achilles without any qualms.
Granted, there really aren't many great works of art that are expressely for the purpose of promoting atheism. It's mainly an argument, so its canon tends to be in prose, i.e., Mark Twain's "Letters from the Earth." Still, there are works of art that are not _religious_, in the sense of promoting a particular faith or even the idea of god. And frankly, who says we need religion to create great art?
**There is data (observed phenomena), and there is theory – there are no "facts". (In the early 20th century, it was a "fact" that the atom was indivisible.)**
No, that was a theory, not a fact.
And if someone came along and said "No, no, the atom is divisible" he couldn't automatically expect everyone to just nod and say "OK, sure, if that's what you want to believe then you're as right as everyone else because everyone is as right as everyone else about everything." He would be required to prove the claim.
Since that has been proven, we now accept current atomic theory. There continue to be revisions to atomic theory but they aren't based on opinions - nobody holds a vote to decide whether electrons orbit the nucleus or whether we have discovered the smallest, indivisible unit of matter. We conduct experiments and observe the results and revise the theory in that manner.
**No. You don't have to. You take the position that is most intuitive to you. But there may be a scientist, every bit as thoughtful and intelligent, who would take the opposite tack. Science accepts this. **
No, science does not accept this. The scientific method hinges on the application of Occam's Razor. The aliens-replaced-by-furniture hypothesis cannot be reaonably considered until the nothing-happened hypothesis is rejected because the latter hypothesis is the more parsimonious one.
**The history of science is filled with counter-intuitive theories that turned out to be right. **
Of course. But they must be proven. Merely stating any whacked-out idea does not grant you equal status.
**The number and quantity of learned minds decrying an idea doesn't invalidate it. Only conflict with observed data does.**
Couldn't agree more.
**Because "God" is not an intuitive position for you, doesn't make it wrong.**
I agree. But merely because God is an intuitive position for someone else doesn't make it right.
It either is or isn't. With lack of proof, the logical conclusion is that he doesn't exist and that is not a position that needs to be proven any more than the idea that telekinesis doesn't exist needs to be proven.
You must prove it does exist, not the other way around.
Now that's just from the empirical point of view. I understand quite well that most people aren't interested in proving their belief in God and that's fine and dandy with me (well, mostly.) I don't mean you HAVE to prove it to believe it - you can believe whatever you want. It's your life and more power to you, brothers and sisters.
But that's not science.
I admit that I share Brian's view on God. I simply cannot believe that intelligent adults continue to believe in such a fairy tale. Yet I am confronted by the clearly observable fact that many intelligent adults, including most of my friends, do believe in God. Clearly, my hypothesis (no intelligent adult could believe in God) is wrong. The data clearly shows it to be so. It still causes me cognitive dissonance, however.
Re: God and Santa
I'm atheist, my wife is a "non-practicing Catholic." I don't like it that she and everyone else in my and her family insist of the Santa/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy thing. The god thing has been up in the air. Everyone knows my feelings and we came to the decision that my daughter can make her own when she wants to. My wife insisted my daughter be baptized. My problem is I feel like a hypocrite for allowing even the Santa thing. I remember what it was like to lose Santa as a kid. It's sadistic and mean. Yet, here I am each Xmas playing along. I don't know. Don't know if this fits into the discussion at all, probably not, but didn't see where the harm would come posting it in case someone else is in the same situation.
Alex, you're right. I had a brain fart (since I'm doing a few things at once today) and for some reason the word "Chasid" was not coming to me.....so I tossed out the Orthodox line figuring that the goyim out there wouldn't know the diff.
Thanks for correcting.
-TODD
Chris L.: Where I say you're wrong is your absolutism on this point.
Chris L. says: "Something is either true or it isn't. Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter. Only the facts matter."
There is data (observed phenomena), and there is theory – there are no "facts". (In the early 20th century, it was a "fact" that the atom was indivisible.)
Re: the theory of furniture arrangement: "I cannot disprove either hypothesis. Would you contend I must therefore accept both as equally valid?"
No. You don't have to. You take the position that is most intuitive to you. But there may be a scientist, every bit as thoughtful and intelligent, who would take the opposite tack. Science accepts this. The history of science is filled with counter-intuitive theories that turned out to be right. The number and quantity of learned minds decrying an idea doesn't invalidate it. Only conflict with observed data does.
Now, to gain widespread, general acceptance, a theory not only has to agree with observed data, it should predict heretofore unobserved phenomena successfully, and exclusively.
But it doesn't have to, just to compete in the realm of ideas.
So, if you say: "Your intuition doesn't matter, my intuition doesn't matter – only correlation with all observed data matters." Then I can jump on the bandwagon with you.
Because "God" is not an intuitive position for you, doesn't make it wrong.
Todd, even most "Orthodox-style rabbis" don't fit that description. You're confusing Orthodoxy with the Chassidim. Most Orthodox are not Chassidim, and they're as unrecognizable as your dad. I speak as the grandson of an Orthodox rabbi. The majority of Orthodox are not Chassid, let alone Lubavitcher crazies. But you've touched on an interesting point: to most gentiles, the Chassidim are the "genuine" or "religious" Jews. Not because they're more righteous or religious, but because they're easily identifiable. Oi, such a message they're sending.
As to Reform being the "hippies of our clan," nah. The Progressive Jews are the hippies. They'll believe most anything.
--Alex
I can respect Siano's basic position that society is "god-drenched," and that professed atheists are generally discriminated against. We need more people willing to stand up and shout the unwanted comments, especially if they can help clear the air of all that woozy crud that usually attends the American take on Christianity.
But as to the argument of whether God exists or not, it seems to me irrelevant, since you can't really prove it either way.
If a God doesn't exist, then it looks like we've needed all along to create one. So in a way he/she/it/them DOES exist, in our literature, our music, our fine art, our places of worship, sometimes in our hearts. Really in the best of what we are, or could be.
King Lurk
Okay, the god thing. Todd was right in suspecting that I had my tongue firmly in cheek: I was irritated with the New Agey drivel _about_ god, so I decided to get all militant on the subject. Also, Frank's invocation of god with evolution really rubbed me the wrong way. Evolution is a scientific endeavor, and as a matter of principle, god has no place in it.
Frank's later comment-- "Brian, if belief in God will get people to keep their violent urges at bay, then I am all for it"-- strikes me as being more than a little elitist. It smacks of the myths Plato would feed the citizens of the Republic, in order to maintain the hierarchies of power he'd envision. I'm not keen on maintaining unsupported myths in order to keep the population under control. (And considering how often god has been invoked to _encourage_ violent behavior, I ask that Frank consider both edges of his particular sword.)
Still, I don't see anything terribly wrong with declaring, simply, that god does not exist. For one thing, it is an intellectually defensible position. For another, it's simple self-defense. We exist in a society that is pretty much God-drenched. We have religious organizations making demands on school curricula and even the agenda for scientific and medical research. We even have prime-time shows pushing religion, like _Touched by an Angel_. I might as well mention the near-impossibility of a publicly-admitted atheist being elected to high office (Hell, the Presidency's multicultural history stretches only as far as one Catholic). Frankly, the _rest_ of the culture's so steeped in monotheism that even uncompromising atheism couldn't possibly serve as a balance.
Here's another question to consider. Let's say someone turned up and announced that god _does_ exist. Sure, maybe _I'd_ argue with him on that point, but I wouldn't say he's a fanatic for that assertion. For that person to be denounced as a fanatic, he'd have to say a lot more-- that maybe god exists, hates gays, and burns single mothers in Hell, or something. So why is saying the opposite-- that god _doesn't_ exist-- seen as such a contrary, fanatic position?
So until someone comes up with a really good argument for the existence of god, I will continue to maintain that he does not exist-- if only to serve as the Loyal Opposition. If y'all really want to debate the existence of god, I'm all for it. Bring it on!
Brian, that "bullshit" on their brain is up to them to settle for themselves. To some, that "bullshit" keeps them alive. If they met you and you made your statement and they said to themselves "Hey, Brian is a smart guy. He's right. Well, I now have nothing to help me cope with life anymore, I think I'll drink that strangely sour Kool-Aid", you would be the biggest mass murderer in the history of mankind.
And as for Santa Clause, I would never allow my kid (if I had one) believe in him....because he/she would be friggin' Jewish and though I may not stick to my heritage, I would certainly make sure my children had the opportunity to make their own decision about whether to take their Judaism seriously. But one thing they wouldn't get trapped in is the Christmas-envy of many Jews.
Not all kids need to go through the cutesy joy of believing in Santa. Let the parents decide.....not the God Brian.
-TODD
Brian~ Sometimes it's dangerous (Jerry Falwell). And sometimes it inspires people to do amazing things (Mother Theresa). I submit to you that if we didn't have religion, my ever vain glorious species would find new and interesting reasons to kill each other that were just as senseless (Chante Mallard). Just as they would go on doing amazing and kind things for complete strangers out of the goodness of their heart (Heather giving someone soup & crackers).
I think I can interweave Harlan's sentiments by saying to you, please don't assume that what works for you should work for everyone. At that point, you become as dogmatic and as dangerous as the people you seek to demonize. At one end of the spectrum there's Stalin & Marx and at the other end, there is the Kingdom of Sa'udi. A reasonable and sane middle ground is somewhere in between.
Respectfully,
L.
To Todd, re God and Santa Claus. There is a very big difference between God and Santa Claus.
As far as children are concerned, there IS a Santa Claus. They usually grow out of it on their own. I'm cool with Santa and the Easter Bunny and Halloween ghosts even Punxatawney Phil.
But the God thing, shit, there are _grown-ups_ who walk around with this bullshit on their brains. That's fuckin' _dangerous_.
The concept of God, or what Paul Tillich called issues of ultimate concern, resonate a little deeper than Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
The provenance on those two fabled creations is well-established. They are acknowledged fictions (by most of us, anyway), and were consciously created for the express pleasure of our children.
God, on the other hand, is not an acknowledged fiction. There have been many deities, thousands, maybe millions, but they all serve to answer those issues that Tillich identified. That they cannot be measured by a microscope or expressed in a formula does not equate their conceivable existence on the same level as the Easter Bunny.
To do so seriously cheapens religion as one of humankind's great accomplishments. Granted, some religions are considerably less lovely than others, but let's not just write off 2 million years of passion and questing as another Grimm's fairy tale.
King Lurk
Li'l Washu: don't prejudice your thoughts with the fact that rabbis are easily recognizable. All rabbi's are not the orthodox-style rabbi that you are referring to (long scruffy beards, black hats, t'fillen peeking out from their beltline, overly-yiddish accent). You would never have recognized my father as a rabbi, and you would not recognize many other rabbis, because there are different sects of judiasm. We are Conservative Jews (and no, that has nothing to do with my coincidental political beliefs). We (that is, my mother now that my father is dead but not my sisters I'm pretty sure) are religious Jews, but we do not walk around with our yamulkes on a daily basis. We are the typical Jew that you would meet in the country who practices seriously but does not devote their entire being to their religion. "Below" us would be Reform Jews, who you would NEVER recognize as they are most likely to eat pork and have female rabbis etc. etc. Reform Jews are the hippies of our clan.
-TODD
Chris, again, you are over-intellectualizing the point I was making. I am commenting on Brian's attitude (if he meant his statement to be as conclusive and no-two-ways-about it final as it sounded). I am not getting into a "disprove God exists by debunking Santa Claus and asking for proof God does exist" argument.
And yes, I would react with derision, a different form of derision mind you, if Brian said there was no Santa Clause to my 5 year old neice. I reacted to his mightier than thou God answer with one bit of irritation, and I would react to his disappointing my neice with another bit of irritation. It's the CIRCUMSTANCES that I critique.
Stop trying to get into a college-boy I am smarter than thou intellectual argument over God existing with me. I'm not interested.....read my note, I don't believe it either. But I believe in other's right to have their faith without having to have some jackass tell them they are stupid.
Besides....define "God" before you refute God. To some, God is internal....it is your faith in yourself and your remembrance of those gone and how they affected your attitudes on life.....internalized God; not necessarily a bearded being who juggles planets at birthday parties.
-TODD
Xanadu,
I admit I don't remember the past discussion to which you are referring but I'm sure I'll say some similar things now.
**Science is willing to consider all proposed theories, and any particular one is only dismissed when it conflicts with observed data. Until then, it's part of the process.**
Right. But there is a world of difference between considering a theory and accepting it as valid. Just as there is a world of difference between keeping an open mind and letting your brain fall out.
By all means, psychic phenomena such as ESP or ghost sightings or psychic predictions should be investigated. We cannot prove they do not exist. Yet they does not mean we must treat any of these ideas as valid until they are proven. Science is not a matter of giving everyone a free pass to concoct whatever half-baked scheme they want to and then whine about not being taken seriously by the "new inquisition" or whatever similar nonsense they come up with.
Something is either true or it isn't. Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter. Only the facts matter.
We may or may not be able to measure all the facts accurately enough to reject certain hypotheses. That doesn't mean we treat all competing hypotheses as equally valid.
I am sure that if we had this discussion before, I probably trotted out this following example but I'll do it again.
If I come home to see my living room is exactly the same as I left it, I can come up with two (or more) hypotheses to explain this observation. One: it's the same because nothing happened and nobody was there. Two: aliens flew down, stole all my belongings and replaced them with exact duplicates so that it looks exactly the same as when I left.
I cannot disprove either hypothesis. Would you contend I must therefore accept both as equally valid?
**Finally, just because science has put a pretty serious hurting on the idea of the biblical God, don't think it's come anywhere near putting the kibosh on the Idea of God.**
I agree. As I said, you can't really disprove the existence of God. That's not something science can do.
That doesn't mean the statement "God exists" needs to be considered equally valid as "God doesn't exist" anymore than "The Tooth Fairy exists" is as valid as "The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist."
**So, I guess I'm saying you're wrong. Science is a process, not a conclusion.**
I agree that science is an ongoing process of discovery and refinment. So I'm not sure what you're saying I'm wrong about in this context.
Chris L. - We've been down this road before, you and I. There's no particular need to travel it again. But my comments now will reference that discussion.
One – there are no PROVEN Laws of Nature. We have fairly good approximations, but they are theory, not fact – they can be modified.
While YOU choose not to believe any theory not empirically proven, that does not make it "the truth". There are almost always competing theories concerning every aspect of the observed world. In many cases, they are conflicting, exclusive, theories. Science is willing to consider all proposed theories, and any particular one is only dismissed when it conflicts with observed data. Until then, it's part of the process.
Frequently, when a theory is found to conflict with new data, the proponents of that theory will go back and rework it rather than trash it, in order to explain the new observations. Once the new proposal no longer conflicts with the observed data, they are back in business. Science doesn't hold a grudge.
Finally, just because science has put a pretty serious hurting on the idea of the biblical God, don't think it's come anywhere near putting the kibosh on the Idea of God.
So, I guess I'm saying you're wrong. Science is a process, not a conclusion.
Actually, scratch that, I've seen a good handful of reverends in airports too. Not to mention a few Buddhist priests. Oh, and I did see one or two scientologists...
Well, Chris L., the problem is that there is as much evidence to prove there is NO God as there is evidence to prove there IS a God. I once heard the pitch for a film that's been stuck in development hell for donkey's years entitled 'The Sky is Falling', about a pair of priests who discover actual physical evidence that God does not exist. This, to be very blunt, is one helluva dopey concept. How can you actually find physical evidence that God does NOT exist?
When it comes to 'God,' I've not yet found my niche in the cosmic rythme of things. Personally I enjoy the idea of reincarnation, Buddhism and the like. I'm very loose about religions most of the time, mainly because WAAAAAAY too many people are willing to gut one another over a 'My God is better than your God' argument...
I want to believe in SOMETHING, just to sleep at night and hope that there's something beyond the shaking of the mortal coil. I guess the fact is 'religion' isn't the right word of what I'm seeking.
So, I guess I'm searching for some form of belief, but not neccessarily in an all-powerful final truth.
On the subject of religions, I'll just pass my thoughts on Christian priests. I actually like priests...they're dedicated to their post and are often at peace within themselves. The reverends I've met in my lifetime have all been GENUINELY nice guys, as opposed to the maniacal thumpers found in Arthur Miller's THE CRUCIBLE and similar folks in real-life. If Max Von Sydow had worn a cape and a suit, THE EXORCIST would have been my favourite all-time superhero movie. "He's a priest! He's a PRIEST!!!"
Rabbis I've actually bumped into far less, but they seem even more easy-going than reverends, despite that they are usually more recognisable than a priest with a white-collar band. For some curious reason I almost always see them in airports. Hm. Odd.
Little Washu
Todd,
Would you react the same way if Brian had said, "There is no Santa Claus" or "There is no Tooth Fairy" or "There is no Easter Bunny?"
Would you think he was being obnoxious for making those statement as if they were factual?
If not, what's the difference between any of those statements and "There is no God?"
Chris, I'm not looking for proof. I never asked for proof, so you don't need to intellectualize my response into such an argument. All I said was that Brian is telling Frank there is no God, period. Fact. No two ways about it. No debate. Nada. He's right, billions of people in the world are wrong.
I don't give a rat's ass about proof in regard to this classic debate.....I only care about a statement made in the manner of Brian standing on the mountain and preaching to the world that he is the know all and be all (gasp, BRIAN IS GOD).
-TODD
Hello, all. Just a brief one, before taking the kids out. We've had a couple of sad days watching an unfortunate tragedy play itself out up here. One of those things that makes me hold the kids a bit tighter.
Rich; When all three of our little ones were born, Scotty was much the same way. He'd pick up and hold the babies more than I did, and he was almost annoying to his friends in showing the pictures he took of them. It set my mind to ease about what kind of parent he would be.
Jay: I'm sorry for forgetting your impending arrival, and marriage. Please accept my and Scotty's belated congratulations.
Mr. Ellison: Now, that was cute. I had a nice little laugh at that comment. Seems you agree with the University of Northern Colorado's "Fighting Whities" intramural team.
Myself, I love their mascot, and would love to get a t-shirt:
http://www.greeleytrib.com/story_photos/032002/0310fightingwhites.jpg
I'm not offended, by the way, I just think it's a nice turn on the nicknames such as the Redskins, or the idiotic Cleveland Indians mascot.
Love to All, Melissa
And I would like to take issue somewhat with Todd's response and thus disagree with Harlan.
Todd chastises Brian for stating there is no God when he can't prove that. That is, I believe, a nonsensical approach to the issue.
I don't have proof that there isn't a Tooth Fairy but I have no problem stating categorically that there isn't one.
It's not valid to ask for proof that something doesn't exist - only for proof that it does exist. The burden of proof lies with the believer, not the skeptic.
I would therefore have to agree with Brian. There is no God. There is no God.
Until you prove otherwise.
Intelligent design, or divine intervention, or whatever they call it these days, is a perfectly valid religious/philosophical position.
Should our public school system ever entertain the refreshing idea of teaching some units in religion or philosophy, in place of modish curricular drudge like "social studies" or "home economics," then certainly that would be the place to discuss it.
But god, keep it out of the science lab. Please.
King Lurk
After plowing through my ancient copy of 'Tales of the Black Widowers,' which I don't think I've looked at since I was 15, I realized all my Asimov fiction is extremely worn-out, $1.25 Fawcett Crest paperbacks. Grand old stuff, like 'Pebble in the Sky,' 'I, Robot,' and my fave 'The Gods Themselves.'
But, in light of the memories he invoked on this forum, I thought I should get something new. So I trucked out last night to Border's and bought The Complete Stories, Vol 1, and what a fine thing it is. You can knock off one of these gems during commercials, and then you don't feel so bad about watching taped episodes of Survivor...br>
King Lurk
Of course you missed me. That goes without saying.
Darryl,
Thankyou for your comments on parenting. And let it be known here and now that I have this uncontrollable urge to cry with joy everytime I look at Mackenzie. I find it amazing that I, the best sperm that apparently made it to the egg in my mother's womb (you're telling me that !!I!! was the best?? Jesus, how bad were the others?), could help create something this beautiful is beyond my capacity to understand or explain. As if it wasn't obvious enough, 99% of the credit for this gift goes to my wife.
Again, thankyou all for your comments.
Now...
I found the grammar debate fascinating. Simply fascinating. Please go on in greater detail. Maybe we can get Kirkpatrick involved and maybe Safire. Or, better yet, how 'bout Easy Reader?
Other than Fosse's work, I don't get into musicals much. Personal preference.
And, I've been outta the loop a bit so don't know if this was discussed, but I state the following fact: "The Time Machine" movie was not good. This is a known fact and there is no bias or opinion involved. It is a fact. Wait. I've just been given another fact concerning the movie: It sucked. I don't make the facts, I just report them.
One last thing and you can continue square dancing. This comes from the NY Public Library Desk Reference Calendar (pretty nifty stocking-stuffer, by the way):
"Isaac Asimove was not only a highly prolific author, he was also extremely versatile. He wrote over 400 books and is the only author to have a book in every major Dewey-decimal category."
Make that: Todd Cassel's response to BRIAN SIANO's response to Frank Church. Sorry. But all white boys look the same to me.
I absolutely agree with Todd Cassel's response to Frank Church in re: "there is no God."
Faith, belief, succor are just fine. Blindness, rationalizing the blame for human iniquities, slavish fanaticism, serving the ends of a religious apparat to the detriment of those who want to believe . . . are not just fine.
And just because I have arrived at a theological/philosophical conclusion that works in my life for ME, it is absolutely unacceptable to me that anyone should use it as an argument to belittle others' world-view and conclusions.
Vouchsafing I ain't yer stepping-stone, Harlan.
Brian Siano sez: "To Frank Church, re evolution. There Is No God. I don't know how often some of us have to say this, but once again, There Is No God. "
Brian, I hope you are responding in this high and mighty manner with tongue firmly in cheek, because if you're not then this is certainly the epitome of your often high-and-mighty attitude in ending arguments with the classic "I am right and you are wrong."
You've taken one of the most debated issues in the history of known thought, and you've responded to it as if you were saying to your children, "how many times must I tell you, there is no such thing as talking cows!"
You can say you don't believe there is a God, and that many on this board don't believe there is a God, and we know that Harlan does not believe there is a God, but you cannot state this in such a way that it sounds like a fact that only a moron wouldn't know.
"I don't know how often some of us have to say this, but once again, There Is No God. "
Man, if that ain't said with tongue in cheek, you sure don't see the inflexibility of your debating skills. Yeesh.
-TODD
P.S., I am not arguing with your statement.....I am a rabbi's son who basically agrees; would love to think otherwise about what happens when we depart this planet, but I basically have no faith in anything at all. I am not arguing your statement, I am arguing the way you stated it like it was fact and you had proof because of the many times others have said the same on this board.
**Brian, if belief in God will get people to keep their violent urges at bay, then I am all for it. **
Right.
And if shit didn't stink, you could rent out your bathroom to boarders.
That one got away from me.
How tough is it to play this baseball game?
If you can teach me I will play.
:)
That is if y'all don't mind a right winger.
:)
Cindy
Hey
Bag-O-Scott ~ Glad to be of service...(I hope Melissa's not jealous that she hasn't got a new name ::grin::)
As far as the ex-stepdad is concerned, no one really knows why he was so cheap. But, I'll tell you, he was very proud of his ass-wiping prowess.
BTW, I'm with Lynn. If the spots can't be filled, then by all means, let's fake a couple of teams.
Frank ~ You know, it's funny. The local paper has a slightly different take on the events at the book signing...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20020314-9999_1m14men.html
I'm curious why he'd choose a middle school auditorium for a book signing (not that I dislike the guy, quite the contrary, but it is a little strange).
-Andrew
Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.
Lynn:
Hmmmm...the High Lama as GM, Chang for manager...I guess their strategy would be a form of Buddistball.
Well, it'll be an interesting season, watching their star slugger Conway battle through spring training in the Himalayas, only to lose his love Maria when, during the September pennant drive, she suddenly starts aging after leaving the dugout to argue a close call at second.
I'm game, if there's a volunteer.
The Commissioner of Webderland Park, Bag-O-Scott, speaking before Congress: "Our league isn't in financial trouble, Senator; we have no money at all..."
Micheal Moore, it seems, almost got himself arrested at a book signing in San Diego. You gotta read this--it is a hoot.
http://www.zmag.org/content/Repression/moore_booksigning.cfm
Todd, see, no right winger would have this happen to him.
Brian, if belief in God will get people to keep their violent urges at bay, then I am all for it.
Well, isn't it obvious what it would be? The Shangri-La All Stars, of course. But then he'd want to draft out of the hall of fame. (Hey, I think I've found a new niche market. Imagine if you would, a program that would advance a hall-of-famer's best season statistics as if he were playing that season. I know, I know, they play more games now than before, but that could be figured in somehow.)
As for trades, by committee sounds terribly... stressful, if you ask me. How about a volunteer? Yes, I know it means playing two teams, and competing against yourself for your absentee owner, but if you won, think of the kudos!
L.
I don't see a problem. Maybe you could assail the man to name it.
The only rub is trades. Who works as his agent, or do we do it by committee? I'm assuming he's going to be a absentee owner, unlike a Steinbrenner...
Commish Bag-O-Scott
Dummie teams, rather. ::duh:: Is it Friday yet?
L.
Bag o' Scott~
Dummie league sounds fine with me, only let me suggest this. One of the dregs and one of the good stuff, only we'll play it for Harlan.
Whaddya think?
L.
Andrew: Me likes new nom de plume. Mucho thanko.
Now to business.
As any who care and those who don't are aware, we're trying to put together a rotisserie baseball league for those at the site who love both the One who is Ellison, and the national pastime.
We've two spots left open, but I don't feel that they will be filled by the March 27th deadline. Not for lack of interest; just folks I've talked to have other nuisances ongoing, and I don't want to push more down their throats.
If we don't fill the league, we'll lose it, and there's a great chance our teams will be spread into other leagues to fill them. Now, I myself want the league to stay, and have come up with a couple of options I'd like to present to those who've signed up for their consideration.
1) Invite a couple outsiders to join. (I'm not a huge fan of this one; I'd rather keep it to ourselves)
2) Invent two "dummies"; teams that we can put together and place in the league to fill the vacant spaces. These teams would consist of the worst ranked players, the dregs nobody's going to draft under any circumstances. Both dummy teams would be open to examination by the other eight to assure their mediocrity, and the plums in the talent pool will be shared by eight, instead of ten, teams.
Now, there's not a great rush yet, so let's take a few days to consider these proposals and any you other members of Webderland Park might come up with. I'd like to keep the seats open at least until the 20th, and see if somebody here wants to enter. After that, we can go with the consensus decision.
So, contact me either here, or at my email address. Keep your gloves oiled, your bats tarred, and your toilet paper dry.
BTW, no limit on the amount of sheets you can use at a sitting.
League Commissioner Bag-O-Scott, aka Meat Lite
For can-opening instructions, nothing beats the multiple-page memo Howard hughes wrote to instruct his staff on the proper method for opening a can of fruit. _Vanity fair_ ran it a few months ago-- it ran for nearly a full VF page, detailing the need to wash one's hands, the boiling process, the removal of the paper wrapper, and lots, lots more. Utterly mad.
To Frank Church, re evolution. There Is No God. I don't know how often some of us have to say this, but once again, There Is No God. (I, for one, just picked up Stephen Jay Gould's monumental _The Structure of Evolutionary Thought_. SERIOUS brainfood.)
Re Toilet Paper. I, too, hate the perfumed powdery crap that leaves one feeling dirtier and fouler than before-- one imagines that their main sales go to middle-aged ladies who own poodles. So, until they start marketing actual Goose's Necks for asswipe (Rabelais's preferred choice for sphincter-cleaning), I'll stick with the store-brand generic.
As Arsenio Hall used to say: This is not a joke or anything – just something to make you go hmmmm.
Had a can of Campbell's Chunky Old Fashioned Vegetable Beef for lunch at work today – and this is the first time I've ever read the instructions on how to open the can that they've printed on the top. (For those unfamiliar with the product, they've started putting the soup in pull top cans...) I read the thing and started laughing. Instructions (as printed):
1) Lift Tab To Rim
2) Pull Back Slowly
So far, so good – then I read the warning printed twice in a circle in the middle of the lid: "Do Not Use If Tab Is Lifted"
Talk about a blonde joke...
I've redirected the bulletin board and a few other pages to the new site. You don't need to bookmark this, once the doman name stuff percolates through the internet it will be back to the old URL. Due to my bandwidth throttle of 500mb/day I'm going to have to start archiving the board once a week - but I'm working on a database forum that will allow both the "old school" view and a threaded forum view.
You'll also notice the Bibliographical Database is working again. Go MySQL!
Please e-mail me if you notice any problems with the new site!
NOTE:
E-MAIL ME,
don't fill up this board with bug reports...
Actually, I believe in a form of what is known as, "creative evolution," which is basically that God, or whoever's in charge created the universe and all things, but that most of what happens in evolution is fairly natural and not supernatural. God to me has limited power and is mostly a mystery that cannot be pursued fully in this life. Coarse, as Dennis Miller says, I could be wrong.
Joseph, Actually the acting in Purple Rain is pretty weak, except for Clarence Williams, who played Prince's father. But the music is dead on amazing.
Kevin Smith bores me actually; but I did like Dogma, mainly for the performance by Matt Damon and Ben Aflect.
See Joseph, no mention of politics.
To Michael, and Lorin, and all others who have suffered loss;
I guess I sit in a port of shelter when it comes to tragic loss of those you've loved, although Scotty has been hit with loss worthy of making Job look like a petty whiner by comparison.
I'm not going to waste your time with the old chestnuts of sympathy, although I think it worth noting the ease of which you can seemingly reincarnate their personalities, their physical person, perhaps even to aid you in times of grief at their loss, almost as if their strength of being remains and seems to strengthen you at these times.
I hope you never lose any of the memories of what these people meant to you, or any of the emotion you feel noticing that they're gone.
Melissa
Melissa,
I'm religious, and I'm just as repulsed as you by "Intelligent Design," or "Creationism" or "Wacky Fundamentalist Creation Myths." Pathetic attempts to subvert science into their own little narrow mindsets.
Regards,
Joseph
Hello all, have just risen from my almost-deathbed with a particularly nasty flu, and thought I'd delurk for a little...
Favorite Musical: Well, my ongoing love affair with Leslie Caron (don't tell Alia!) compels me to say that "An American In Paris" is my all-time favorite. Though "Guys And Dolls" is right up there. And Scott, I have recently purchased the CD of Brook's "The Producers"...the Broadway show, not the film...and it is nothing short of wonderful. Springtime indeed...
As to the whole Asimov/AIDS/lingering illness thread...
My mentor and lifetime father figure, Jose Rafael Rodriguez, the man who taught me my craft and my responsibilities to that craft, died of AIDS on February 22nd, 1996. About two months before his passing, I flew out to his mother's home in Ponce, Puerto Rico, where he had elected to spend his last days. I spent every day of those two months by his side, watching this robust, powerful man waste away to the point where he could no longer even speak. It's not a good way to go...not, perhaps, that there is ANY good way to go (barring Lorin's death-by-orgasm trip), but this was particularly difficult, both for him and for the people who love him. As a person in the performing arts, I have lost dozens of friends to this plague, and while I will forever honor their work and art, I am always left with the IMAGE of these fine humans in their last weeks of life. To me, this is the worst part of what AIDS does to our loved ones. It leaves us seeing them as a shadow of their former selves. It traps them in this husk of a body, and when you KNOW the size of their spirit and talent, it seems like some kind of final cruelty of the disease.
Sorry to be a bummer, but the day doesn't go by that I don't miss Jose. I miss his wisdom and his short temper, and his unerring knowledge of what works and what doesn't on the stage. I miss his resonant baritone, and his laugh. Every time I step into a theater to work, I ask myself, "What would Jose think of this?," and I wish he was there to tell me. I miss my friend.
And if any of you people leave us, well heck, I'll miss you, too.
Sentimentally yours,
Michael
off to get his baseball jersey right now, dammit...
A small moment of lucidity, in the midst of chaos.
Spring Break, and my children are home for the week. I love my little ones dearly, but having them hover about me all day, surrounded by games; both board and video, books, movies, toys, the outdoors, the pets, each other and then stating "there's nothing to do" is enough for anyone to lose their minds.
Of course, when I mention that we could clean the house, they immediately scatter.
Intelligent Design; the firm agnostic in me is repulsed by this attempt of pseudo-intellect. It sounds like another attempt by the religious to go around the process of evolution by a hypothetical side door. I'm reminded of the nonsense professed by creationists who amended their theories to explain the dinosaurs by stating that man existed at the same time as the great lizards, without factoring in the lack of a fossil record to match their speculations, or the simple error in chronology this idiocy represents. Still, you've got to admire the little religious buggers; no amount of reason or sanity can dissuade them from their path.
But, give them time, and religion will come around. After all, it only took 360 years for the Catholic Church to apologize to Galileo.
We're still waiting on the reversal of the sentence of Giordano Bruno, however.
And we worry about the Taliban...
Toilet Paper & Dingleberries: The Important Stuff of Life:
Bermanator and Andrew:
This morning, on our PC, I see a Post-it in Scotty's printing: "Got Wipe?". Imagine the conumdrum of the man facing that dilemma in an ad.
Public restrooms, Andrew? Try to use the women's facilities at a gas station without making any physical contact with any surface therein.
I'm still chuckling over the stepfather. God god, I can't imagine the thought process of a man who states that right there is where he got to cut the budget.
We're an amusing species, I've got to say.
Melissa will be hanging out with Mr. Whipple, giving out three-ply love.
And, please remember: Dingleberries are not meant for picking...
HEATHER: I'm another one for the list. My mom died of breast cancer in '00 (And even though I was 34 at the time, I felt quite bitter about becoming an "orphan" at what still seemed like a young age.) I don't know if I can honestly say I "nursed" her or even that I was all that much comfort to her, but I was with her in hospice while she was dying. The experience was horrible and profound and is still with me. And that, as Forrest Gump would say, is all I'm going to say about that. :)
Heather: add me to the list of people who've nursed a strong female role model through her agonizing departure from life. Grandma, kindest person I've ever known (chose my husband because he reminded me of HER -- only the RIGHT guy would take that as a compliment), died slowly and painfully of emphysema.
regarding comics: When I thought about your question, I was surprised to realize that most of the ink chicks I like are members of the supporting cast. LOVE Molly from BOOKS OF MAGIC. She is a fiery chick with a low bullshit tolerance and the heart of a tiger. Kit from HELLBLAZER is another winner. What IS it about the Irish girls?
Never been a superhero fan (except for Frank Miller's DARK KNIGHT and Alan Moore's WATCHMEN). Wonder Woman does have an interesting little subjugated role in the new DARK KNIGHT miniseries, though. I've had to watch the new Justice League series (Tivoing it for a friend), and I must say that Hawk Girl kicks ass. She's much more interesting than bland ol' Diana. A mace upside the head will beat a lasso of truth any time.
amy
p.s. - Harlan, Susan, if you're out there...I now have my first Gir. Border Collie mix from Animal Control, terminally cute.
I'd like to think that, in the end, Asimov was able to ponder it all with a bit of aplomb.
After all, here was a man who was more interested in pure knowledge than any other writer I can think of. He wanted to know everything, and he wrote about everything. Sometimes he went out on a limb, writing about subjects that no science writer usually touched, like the Bible, or sometimes he occupied his time writing silly little mysteries solved by a clubby group of swells and their faithful butler. In the end, the only left to know was death, and in what manner the reaper was going to choose to visit him.
So after the first grip of abject terror that is common to us all when we see our impending death, after the private weeping in his darkened office, the rage at the hospitals, the bargaining with doctors, the comforting of his wife, the searching of his books and his gods for a reason, maybe father Isaac, biochemist turned world-famous writer, was able to sit back and say with acceptance "so this is how I'm checking out."
It could have been different. A scaffold could have crushed his car. He might have been shot at a McDonald's, or had a heart attack while shoveling snow, or just got in line for the big C that's gonna get most of us who were born after the war. It could have have come ten years later, or twenty years earlier. I'd like to think that after the first months of panic and depression, he relaxed, and found peace in acceptance of what comes for us all, and that he had a chance to know and understand this, too.
I'd like to think so.
King Lurk
All right. My brother is finishing up a degree in mathematics, with designs toward a masters, and eventually a Fudd (Ph.D). He came up to me after I had trudged home from a rather lengthy, hairpulling day at work and says with all earnestness, "You know, there are *three* kinds of mathematicians . . . those who can count and those who can't."
---Peter
Brian~ Randi's site doesn't seem to contain anything specific regarding debunking "Intelligent Design".
ALL~ I suggest you give a hearty round of applause to Mr. Rick Wyatt, quietly toiling away behind the scenes to ensure that this site keeps ticking along smoothly. {hearty round of applause here} Thank you Rick for all your hard work.
L.
http://www.cafepress.com/webderland
"Getchur jerseys now! Getchur ball caps! Get 'em while they're hot!"
Intelligent design is a major issue here in Ohio, where a couple of the State School Board members are trying to get it into the State education standards. Larry Krause--who spends a lot of time on the bestseller lists by sneaking science into innocent minds with titles like "The Physics of Star Trek"--has been doing a superlative job of arguing for real science against this dreck. Unfortunately, after a legislative hearing on the topic, the lawmakers here just pulled a Pontius and washed their hands of it. It's now back at the school board. I very much fear I'll have to pull my girls out of the public schools.
Little Washu, Christopher Franke? Formerly of Tangerine Dream? An erratic, but
occasionally sublime electronic musical group(Live in Poland. Yum.).
Useless trivia: Purple Rain was mainly shot at First Avenue(Uncle Sams), which
is about to host their annual St. Patties Day show with Boiled in Lead.
http://www.omnium.com/bil/index.html (Punk-folk, ya gotta love it...) If you're
silly enough to be in Minneapolis in the middle of March, this is the place to
be.
And Scott, ever since you revealed you work at a rink, I've wondered; do you get
many queries RE, "I wanna drive the zamboni"? The Gear Daddies tune on "Billy's
Live Bait"(#11) which the record company let them record on the condition they
don't list it on the CD?
PS If pressed, I'll go into why I would tell people to RUN, don't walk away from
Pychons V. ;)
That will end todays obscure music trivia section...
Isaac Asimov.
Jesus Christ. What a sentence. We're all sentenced to die, but some are luckier that others in how they go. It does hurt to know that it was that unpleasant. I have a few friends living with HIV. So, it hits home. At the time he was infected, I'm not sure there was a reliable test for HIV. No one really knew the extent of the blood supply problem.
As a reader, Dr. A. was an old childhood freind. His was one of the first SF writers whose name I picked out among the stories I read. That is, besides Verne and Wells who pre-dated the pulp ghetto, and were therefore more "respectable".
I supposed there will be some Frankenchristers who will crow over this. To me they're like the carnival geek described in "Gofer In the Gilly". Rolling in their own filth, biting the head off chickens. They don't even realize the foul smell they're decrying is coming from them. I won't let that interfere with my memories of discovering Asimov's writing, the way they seduced me into another world entirely, a place where reason always eventually won out.
I will remember "Nightfall", "Foundation", "I, Robot", and the dry, reasoned commentary he included in his anthologies, and the essays he wrote for the magazine named for him. When I get frustrated with how overbearing the newest word processors get, I remember a story he published in 1990, "Fault Intolerant", in which a SF writer, named Abram Ivanov, finds his newest word processor is correcting his writing and making it better that it was originally. Eventually, the software becomes a better writer that Ivanov. Today, it's almost that bad. The humor in the story helps. I remember the first time I actually heard his voice in a television interview. I had no idea he'd have a New York accent. Silly me. I thought he'd sound a little more like Arthur Clarke. He certainly looked like he'd have the stereotypical LEARNED SCIENTIST voice. His accent acutally made him more human. Warmer in a way.
That's what I will remember.
Hey, Scott and Melissa, nice to see (read?) you around these here parts again.
Chuck
Theory of Intelligent Design (and its quasi-sophitsictaed counterpart, the Anthropic Principle)? Probably the single most persistent fallacy around. If people here were advocating it, then maybe I'd debate it here, but since most of us are rational people...
As for debunking sites, you can't beat http://www.randi.org.
That previously vague thought meant to say, please suggest any of your favorite debunking sites and I will be most appreciative.
L.
Anyone here feel passionately about the "Theory of Intelligent Design" and why it's utter bullshit? If you'd like to contribute, there's a discussion going on on my boards right now. Possibility number two is your favorite debunking site.
The proliferation of idiots never ceases to amaze me.
L.
Bermanberrie,
(I'm sure the rest of Webderland is gonna love this topic ::grin::)
Unscented Cottonelle's workin' out just fine, thank you very much.
The John Wayne TP ("It's rough, it's tough, and it don't take shit offa nobody") you find in public restrooms, is the true right-wing conspiracy. Pat Robertson is behind those goofy, paper, seat covers that nobody ever uses.
I'll not comment on the dingleberries of others. Suffice it to say, the less said, the better.
-Andrew
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.
I've been living in Winnipeg for almost two years now. My only computer access has been the public library, with its small clutch of workstations situated at the center of the main floor, people chattering as they wander past, a maximum time limit of one hour per day; and the university library with its high ceilings, two outside walls of glass windows with the sun and weather streaming in. And the people wandering past...
Whereas, this room, THIS room...
It's a small yet airy loft situated above the floor above the floor above the floor above that sunlit room. It reminded me of my Toronto apartment; staying up late on weekends (and some weeknights), pounding out replies to my first, somewhat sugary mailing list, on my old, however impoverished (does a 60 MB hard drive tell you what I mean?) monochrome-monitored computer; or later, in Brandon, at the software developer's office sitting later into the night--we all did this, I was surrounded by geeks, remember?--at a brand new computer with high-speed cable modem, finding out about the Internet. What a kick. Quiet, contained, conducion to thought (if I had them.)
Thing is, both those periods of time became marred by something.. someone(s).. a situation.. it was the beast with the blessing. Sure, I got "on the net," as they say. But I also fell into a jumbled time, a time where the surface yawed and cracked, an unsettling.
And now.
I'm here (alone again but feeling more whole than I have in centuries), crouched down in an orange plastic chair, staring half trance-like at a high res screen, the atmosphere subued and subtle, listen-to-the-quiet-hum-of-the-blessed-heat-in-the-air-ducts, no one within eye view (but I can hear keyboards clicking behind me.)
The mood is one of quiet concentration here (and, like a still undiscovered country, as this area IS rather new, thinly populated.) A bank of computers lines the inner and outer floorspace--our backs to each other. I can go over there and sit and stare into a large slanted wooden roof, or sit over here and stare cryptically out, past the railing, at a far wall of similarly slanted roof or down at the periodical stands on the floor below. There's a slate blue spiral staircase up to this floor--makes me think of a treehouses--'NO GIRLS ALLOWED!"--and two workstations each at dull chocolate brown laminate tables with those computers, those sleek, black space-aged computers: the keyboard, the monitor the computer tower, all in delicious, pristeen black..
I feel a wave of calm envelop me, even as I sit here, thunking out this missive....
Ahhh...the horror..the lovely delicious, delectable horror..
of a mind, well-fed, and unfettered.
Andrew: Cottonelle sucks! It's got that crumbly consistency that leads to dingleberries for the less fortunate (or so I hear). Also, you gotta hate the scented TP-- it's like trying to close the barn door after the proverbial horse is already out. Can cause allergic reactions too.
I think scented Cottonelle is a right-wing conspiracy engineered by Pat Robertson.
Bermanator
Noodling around the website, came across a review or two. One was Alex Jay's. He talked about dealing with a prolonged illness of a relative. I noticed that same thing with Rick, as well, in a rant. In both cases, it was a strong female member of the family. (One of the things Alex sought solace in was an Ellison book.)
How many others here have experienced a similar loss. Is this merely a coincidence?
Heather, probing...per usual.
B.O.S.,
No shit...
I have no idea why he chose five sheets over four, or six. I would guess that he found that four was too much and six was overkill.
Thirteen years later we still laugh ourselves to tears over his anal-retentive (pun intended) behavior.
Your suggestion about the New York Times pretty nearly caused me to choke on a saltine. Warn a guy next time, willya?
-Andrew
Who prefers Cottonelle, 'cuz it's so very comfy...
This Just In:
Andrew, inform your ex-stepfather that the New York Times is not only informative, but extra absorbent and two-ply.
Just don't get the crossword wet.
Diet Bag-O-Scott
Heather,
The new Dells are better, but Macs are the tops. Okay, I'm writing this on a G4, and I'm a stockholder, so I'm prejudiced.....
Frank,
Does every post of yours have to have a poltical polomiec? Hell, I was ready to join in with my like of "Purple Rain." Anyway, take a gander at "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back," which has Purple Rain as a major plot point. And a very funny one, for that matter.
Regards,
Joseph
Andrew:
I likes Bag-O-Scott, especially in the family size.
Gods, we're laughing here. That's a "No Shit?" (pardon the pun) question there.
The only thought I had was, Why did he choose five as the cutoff? I mean, if you're scrimping on "wipe" for the budget, why buy at all?
Bidet, anyone?
Remember Bag-O-Scott, now available in Ranch, Barbeque, Cajun, and introducing Tooti-Frooti
I realize the convo on Asimov is moving on.. but..
Was toodling around the Ellison site and came across this:
http://harlanellison.com/text/asimov.txt
I'd never read it before. (I'd never heard of the "I, Asimov" book till it was mentioned on the forum.) You might find this piece interesting.
Heather, sitting in a semi darkened room using a very space aged black Dell computer -- they've got some new computers here at the library on the mezzanine level. Much quieter here. Rather nice. (with other applications on them too!)
Bag-o-Scott,
I realize it was rhetorical, but I just had to comment on your TP comment (we all could use a chuckle, right?). My *asshole* ex-stepfather asserted that he used five sheets, no more, no less, per visit. Strangely, I never wanted to shake his hand...
-Andrew
The artist formerly known as Meat has come.
Lorin: Actually, speaking as a man who runs a rink, a "tinker's damn" is worth less than a "rinker's damn", and both are less valuable than a rat's, or a Pat Robertson's ass.
And remember, if you tink or rink and especially if you Pat Robertson, don't drive.
Asimov: Nothing to say except I hope he died as a man feeling his life had real worth by making a definitive contribution to improving the species Homo Sapiens and, for his efforts, he was respected and admired by both friend and stranger alike.
I live in the comfort of thinking his end was simply that.
Well, not much else from here.
Why do they perforate toilet paper as they do? Have you ever seen a person tear off just one sheet for the purpose intended?
Scott needs to ask these questions.
Here is the government some claim capable labyrinthine conspiracies:
Dead 9-11 Terror Suspects Get Visas
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020313/ap_on_re_us/hijackers_visas
Frank: You're right - we wouldn't have a country if only the right existed - but don't be deluded that the opposite would be any better. The sane path is usually down the middle somewhere...
I forgot my favorite musical--of coarse my pick is not actually a musical: Purple Rain.
Propaganda is on both sides, but remember who owns the country, and the media?
I wonder if we would even have a country left if it wasn't for activism by leftists over the years.
For those of you curious what t-shirt Todd is referring to, please go here:
http://www.cafepress.com/webderland
We now return you to reality, already in progress.
L.
Lorin O:
Tinker was never really used in the UK to refer to a profession, it’s an off-hand, somewhat derogatory term for gypsies, tramps, and wayfarers who would have taken up tinkering, mending knick-knacks as they went their merry indigent way, but always beneath the disdain of good propertied folk.
Lynn, I received my Webderland baseball shirt this afternoon: Love it! Thanks for designing it and making it available to all. I enjoy being able to wear shirts (be they t-shirts, or loud ugly Hawaian-or-what-have-you shirt) that very few people in the world are wearing.....and this would certainly be up there as one of my rarest (no offense, but you know what I mean)!
Naturally, the wife rolled her eyes when I opened the package..... but she enjoys my childish jewish jigs around the house.
-TODD
JIM: What IS a "tinker's damn"? Is a tinker's damn worth less than the damn of someone engaged in another profession? The etymologist in me must know!
LYNN: What confounds me completely is that SLATE made no effort to verify this guy's identity! It would have taken only ONE quick phone call to put an end to his little hoax. It's not even as though he was impersonating a REAL "Robert Klingler." Tsk, tsk. S-L-O-P-P-Y journalism! But instructive, still, for the rest of us.
Now those emails I get from a "top government official" in Nigeria, asking for my help depositing a large sum of money in the U.S., THOSE are real, right? ;-)
MELISSA: Pat Robertson is, of course, a gigantic ASS. But his ignorance, re: Carl Sagan, and also re: every other subject under the sun, is not surprising. If he were to EVER say something compassionate and/or intelligent, I'd take THAT as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
I don't have much to add to the chorus, re: Asimov and his death from AIDS. I agree with others who've said their outrage is not a result of a value judgment, but a response to the tragic element of the story - that his death could have been avoided, were it not for faulty medical procedures. Also, as has been said, AIDS is a pretty horrible way to go, as it basically combines all the worst elements of a bunch of different diseases.
But, of course, he was lucky in that he got to leave an incredible legacy, and THAT'S what I'll think about when I revisit his work over the years.
DAVID: My apologies for not fully flogging that infinitive. :) I'll make an effort to CONSISTENTLY split them in the future!
Over and out --
Lorin O.
To Lynn, Jim et al.:
Well, I don't know the tale of Asimov's ending, but do wholeheartedly agree that a death brought on by any form of medical incompetency (and that's how I'd describe the transmission of HIV through a transfusion) is an almost criminal act.
Sadly, it seems Asimov becomes another victim of both irresponsibility and fear stemming from the great debacle of AIDS and how both government and societal ignorance in confronting this disease led to tragedy after tragedy in the US and Canada (we've got a large number of stories of similiar circumstances that happened up here).
My love and sympathy, Melissa
An interesting example of how the myth of internet anonymity can come back and bite you in the ass...
How Slate Got Duped
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063114
L.
Ah, something I can REALLY give some advice on:
BERMANATOR: TENCHI THE MOVIE has no offensive cursing, nor does it have any 'full-frontal nudity' as you put it. There are two key scenes where a woman is rendered naked, but it's completely tasteful. (We don't see a thing.) There is some typical anime pummeling here and there but no hardcore, nasty Paul Verhoeven stuff. Some blood can be seen in a few scenes. As for the story, it's very intriguing, but it might have to involve the viewer being familiar with the TENCHI! characters in the tv series that came before. Or not, I can't say for certain. Visually, it's a gorgeous flick, and the music is by none other than Christopher Franke, the composer of J. Michael Straczynski's 'Babylon 5'. (Small world, after all.) The villian, Kain, is one of the more impressive bad guys to be seen in a long time, and keep your eyes peeled and you just might catch a cute little red-headed scientist by the name of Washu...
Hope that helps, P.A.
(To quote Calvin from Bill Watterson's CALVIN AND HOBBES: "I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.")
Lil' Washu
I own more Asimov books than I've read. One that I have read was I. Asimov. I read it in October 1999 and when I was finished, I felt a distinct loss which was strange to me. I had only been marginally aware of him when he died (I was fifteen and still four years away from reading I, ROBOT for the first time) so I felt like I wished I'd read him growing up, when he was alive, to have been able to watch out for him in the media and get more of his ideas. Today's announcement had touched me like most of you, the opening of an old wound. For me, it feels fresher because I only just discovered what a good man he'd been.
About RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and Indiana Jones: Talk about him being as real a person as heroes are allowed to be, has anyone else noticed that whenever Indy needs to read something, he pulls out glasses? Think that's a sublte character trait or just the simple answer that Harrison Ford has bad eyes?
As far as blockbusters killing cinema, though they may not be playing at every multiplex, there are more smaller movies being made now than ever before. Audiences who are interested in such movies might need to look a little harder for them, but they're out there.
Going back behind the curtain,
Bill
P.A. Berman,
Tenchi: The Movie (the 1st one, I assume, "Tenchi Muyo In Love") should be just fine to show. I can't remember anything horribly unsuitable. Here's a review site I use, which has very useful notes on violence, nudity, that sort of thing for each title, which may make it a great future reference for you. Go toward the bottom for specific notes:
http://animeworld.com/reviews/tenchimuyo/tenchimovie1.html
Isaac Asimov, along with Ray Bradbury, was my constant companion through the hideous years of Middle School Hell. For all the laughs and deep thoughts he evoked from me, I am eternally grateful. I am sorry he suffered before he died.
That said, I need to ask you anime-heads a question:
The Science Fiction/Fantasy Movie Club wants to show this anime called "Tenchi: The Movie" in it's dubbed to English version. It's not rated, of course. Is this appropriate to show in school; ie, no serious swearing, no full frontal nudity, no extremely graphic violence? Is it any good? I would love to view it myself beforehand, but it might not happen. Your expert advice & opinions requested.
Thanks,
Bermanator
(Reads Pat Robertson's statement, as recorded by Melissa.)
(Scratches another check against him on the Wall of Shame.)
(Stands back, and looks at an almost perfectly-black surface.)
Melissa~ Points well taken. I didn't really think you were calling us small minded. I'd like to think that anyone who gives a damn about Asimov's passing would be capable of ignoring any scurrilous commentary issued by those not worthy to utter his name.
L'Washu~ Okay, your points about RotA are better understood now. Two things: I enjoyed the Mummy. It was one of the best summer flicks in recent memory. The Mummy II fell right back into the trap of which you spoke. And be careful who you call pagan. Some of us resemble that remark.
L.
Alex Jay: Thank you for your passionate words. You expressed my pain and rage perfectly.
Melissa: Just so you know: I don't give a tinker's damn about the social stigma attached to AIDS. The manner of Isaac's dying doesn't diminish my respect for him or his works one iota, and is, in a way, irrelevant to me.
But the idea that he contracted such a horrible disease from a surgery performed to extend his life...that's just obscene. It's also possible that he didn't even realize he was infected until the very end, which just compounds the tragedy. And if we're comparing ways to go, I submit to you that AIDS is one of the very worst. If Isaac had died from a heart attack, it would have been sad, true, but at least we could have comforted ourselves with the knowledge that his passing was quick.
But AIDS? That's as far from "quick" and "relatively painless" as you can possibly get.
Even though we never met, I considered Isaac a friend. And for a friend to suffer in such a needless fashion is almost intolerable.
LYNN: I'd just like to complete my statements on RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK for you. You see, in the 1960's we got a HECK of a lot of variety in mainstream cinema; I mean where else could you have seen Chuck Heston battling a planet full of talking monkeys? And then came the 1970's. We had a LOT of really depressing, meaningful, disturbing films then: THE STEPFORD WIVES, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (the remake),THE EXORCIST, and DON'T LOOK NOW. Pitch the concept of any of those films to a suit nowadays and you'll see his tiny brain short-circuit on the spot. Now we came to the 80's and RAIDERS. RAIDERS for me, was utter joy, no matter how many multiple viewings I had. Indiana Jones was an old-fashioned pulp hero, but he was first and foremost human; a brilliant decision by Spielberg and Lucas. When Indiana gets socked across the jaw, he feels it; when he gets a snake dropped in his lap, he freaks out; if he was pulled along a road by a van on a dirt road at 80-85 mph, he sure wouldn't feel, or look, or smell, that good afterwards; and by the end of yet another day of adventure he feels like a total piece of shit. RAIDERS was a smash at the box office, as it genuinely deserved to be. Audiences were probably so beaten down by the cerebral and artsy-fartsy days of 2001 and THE FRENCH CONNECTION that to finally see a film that was just plain WHEE! HOO HOO! HA HA HA! WHEEEEE! fun was pure joy. Now, movie execs, being movie execs, attempted to duplicate RAIDERS' success, with all the guts 'n' blood but none of the heart 'n' soul. And it didn't stop. I mean, how many comparisons with THE MUMMY with Brendan Fraser could you make to RAIDERS?
The people in power became scared. They became chicken-shit. They became pagans, cultists, worshippers of the ever-prevalent, all-powerful audience demographic. This ever-elusive demographic has been employed by many an executive to drag down and annihilate a filmmaker's dream. Sid Sheinberg used this demographic when he attempted to violate Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL. There's got to be a formula; sex, violence, romance, action, and above all a happy ending. 'Unhappy' endings, or endings where the characters resolve themselves in ways the audience doesn't want, is literally a joke now.
So, you see Lynn, RAIDERS wasn't fully responsible for the dumbing down of Hollywood, nor was Spielberg or Lucas. It's because of the fact that Hollywood is full of monkeys who are unsurpassed in imitation but not in quality.
ISAAC ASIMOV: I have not read enough of his works to make a fair judgement of the man, but Harlan himself has described him as a true human being in every sense of the word. I feel pitiful for not ever meeting him. Can anyone recommend some of his greater works outside of his most popular to me? (I've already read I, ROBOT and NIGHTFALL.)
Little Washu
Lynn:
To me, all death only makes sense in the fact of ending, that things just stop. I agree, the only relevance that the occurrence of AIDS makes in this is as an explanation for that end.
The problem I interpreted is that "smaller minds" (allow me to add that I've yet to find a poster here at the Webderland I would fit into that category) would make this into a salacious or hurtful inference about his character, either as a person or as a writer.
Allow me to illustrate. Not long after the death of Carl Sagan, I was turning off the television after Cassie had viewed one of her movies. Pat Robertson's face was there and he was talking about the scientist's demise. After pointing out Sagan's atheist leanings, with Mr. Robertson labouring to make the point that this was a terrible viewpoint for a learned man such as Sagan to express, Mr. Robertson stated in a voice that assured the listeners that they were hearing judgment from the mouth of a god itself:
"Dr. Sagan used marijuana"
Well, is that excuse enought to dismiss a lifetime of scientific exploration, and improving the knowledge of man and his universe? What pompous, self-righteous tripe to try to use something so trivial to undermine a man's life work by espousing the perceived evil that a small divergence into what is, by comparison, the same as so many christians who imbibe wine, or smoke.
It just angers me when this happens, Lynn, and it won't be done by those here, but by those who would use such news for other means. I just hope it doesn't happen in this case.
Love to all, Melissa
Melissa - The way I feel about this revelation on Asimov's death runs along these lines: I have known and dealt with the knowledge for several years that a friend, someone I grew up with, has died. I have come to terms with the loss over time. And then, one morning, there arrives in the mail the disclosure, the certain fact from the lips of that very friend who held and holds a place in my heart, that he didn't have to die when he did - and suddenly, old wounds of loss are open and seeping again.
The reason for the Good Doctor's death is immaterial, and I don't think anyone fears he will be diminished in the eyes of the world as a result of this disclosure. It's more that what was once sad and unfortunate has now been leant the weight of tragedy, and must be dealt with all over again on these new terms.
Xanadu - The next time you tell me that you aren't eloquent, I'm going to whack you good with a croquet mallet. Or, in appreciative words everyone can understand, well said.
Jon - the book is supposed to hit the streets end of the month, from what I've heard, though I have no exact date.
Shane - Thanks for the heads-up.
Melissa~ I think the outrage is not so much *how* Asimov died, but outrage at the senseless nature of his death. I can look around this room at a bunch of intelligent people and know, as I look into each and every face, that the outrage, the sorrow, the anger and sense of helplessness would be just as palpable had Asimov contracted Hepatitis C instead of AIDS.
Small minds we are not.
L.
Salon's run a fine portrait of the late comedian Bill Hicks at http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/03/13/hicks/index.html. Well worth reading.
Harlan's appearance on "Conspiracy Zone" will repeat on Saturday March 16th, 2002 at 1:00-1:30 A.M. MST.
Risking an accusation of "blatant ass kissing", I'd just like to express my utter delight at witnessing another informative and engrossing appearance by Harlan Ellison. SMACK!
Well, I've read many of the postings here at the board about Asimov (forgive my ignorance; I had to ask Scotty who he was). I don't see what the big deal is.
Yes, he died, an unfortunate circumstance which will occur to us all. I agree with Xanadu (I love Coleridge) that how he died isn't relevant: the truest measure is in how he lived.
I look at Scotty's shelves for the man's name, and find about fifty books, hardcover and paperback, there. Scotty had mentiond what a decent man he was, even though my husband had never met him. It seems that from many of you there is a visceral angst out of the disclosure of this information, truely a sign of some bond of respect for this person, and the implied notion that the mention of AIDS will diminish his talent or person in some people's eyes. I hope I'm reading this wrong.
I guess what I'm saying here is that the perveyance of AIDS as some form of curse isn't going to remove from Scotty's mind one shred of respect for the man as both person and writer, and the same could easily be said for many of you. I personally don't even see it as being worth mentioning unless it can be used by his family to further a better good about informing people that this is a disease, not a god's venegance or somesuch nonsense that has been promulgated by both a sometimes hysterical media or the self-righteous religious kooks.
If what Scotty told me is true, Asimov would probably just dismiss this himself as the hobgoblin of smaller minds, and just move on as best he knew.
Just my two cents, or in Canadian funds, .0005 cents American
Love to all, Melissa
Good commentary, Xanadu.
Having waded through a few postings on the Asimov/AIDS story in other netvenues, I'm gladdened by the lack of 'He should have told the world' postings here. A caveat, if someone does want to make a posting to that effect -- some postings suggest that Asimov wasn't told by his doctors about having AIDS.
The book isn't out yet, is it? I imagine it would clear much of the speculation up.
Off to ski country and then tobacco country for a few days. Have a good one,
Jon
Oh, I know, Xanadu. And NOTHING; NO manner of death, could in any way for me take away from the man and his work--such a man; such a work.
But for me, the sadness comes from the fact that we did not know, did not understand, did not ascertain the danger of the disease; of the idea of a tainted blood pool. The sadness comes from knowing that he did not need to die--at least, not then.
But then, no one really does, do we?
Dr. Asimov is dead. The fact that it was AIDS is almost irrelevant. Would it have been any easier if we just found out he had had cancer, or TB, or small pox, or ebola, or Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, invasive Staph., a heart attack, stroke, that he drowned, that a deranged fan shot him.... Of course, the list can go on....
Isaac is dead. Do not let the misfortune of his passing carry you too far from the amazing accomplishments of his life. Do not let "He died of AIDS" become his epitaph. Go to your shelves, pull out one of his books - I know you all have some - (if you don't, run (I do mean run) to the bookstore and pick something up, we'll wait...) - read it.
THAT is his legacy, THAT is what he should be remembered for - not the particular brand of death that finally got him.
AIDS is a terrible disease, but so are most of the other wasting ailments we are heir to. It is another way to die in a world full of them.
Isaac died before his time. Hopefully, most of us will. (I say it that way, meaning that I hope we all die with our boots on, vibrant, full of things we have yet to accomplish. We're all going to die - let our loved ones, our great great grandchildren whisper among themselves that it was too soon, that they didn't know us long enough, that there was so much more we had to do - THAT is the best way to go.)
Remember how he lived, what he lived for, not from what he died - that, I'm sure, is what he would've wanted.
I know, Jim; I know.
Except of course for the 9/11 tragedy, nothing--not even the quasi-breakup of my longest relationship ever--has made me sadder than breaking the news about this to this board.
And I say this, having lost friends to this fucking disease.
Having seen them on their way out.
I kept hoping against hope, despite the flurry of fact-checking I did after first reading the news on the alt.obituaries newsgroup, that some intrepid Webderlander would turn up some kind of refutation; some indication that I had been mislead.
Damnit damnit damnitall.
Now, this pains me to say, but it's undeniable: These friends contracted the disease through what could only charitably be called foolishness: Being promiscuous, and unsafely so, in an era when such behavior is madness; trusting in the wrong damned people.
But what did Isaac do? He got sick. He underwent an operation; an operation which saved his life. And, ultimately, cut it shorter than it would have been.
These lost friends, they were young. Some would have that this fact makes their deaths all the more tragic.
Bullshit. Isaac Asimov was young, no matter what his personal calendar may have read. He was vibrant, productive, even to writing a book with his old friend Fred Pohl even as he was dying.
Yes, he had lived the very fullest of lives, but we had more years of the Good Doctor due us; he had more years to enjoy.
My computer crashed as I wrote this post the first time, and that's how I've felt these past few days: Crashed. Hit by a truck that didn't have to be in my lane.
The book he wrote with Fred Pohl in his last year of life, OUR ANGRY EARTH, detailed the many ways that our planet is being poisoned and made less habitable for living things; how our resources are being depleted and our lives the worse for it.
Though the book only mentions AIDS once, in passing (in addition to a mention in Pohl's afterword), I can't help but see now an undercurrent in the message being given us, and I can't help but read a note toward Isaac's own condition in the preface he wrote.
And I can't help but be angry, in addition to my sadness.
Several years before his death, a friend of Isaac's (and yes; I use the familiar; the first name-basis--after all, Isaac was a friend to any reader lucky enough to enjoy his writings) had a batch of business cards printed up which read simply:
Isaac Asimov
National Resource
However much I might quibble that the label should have read "Planetary Resource," the message is still valid, and still clear.
And I cannot stand the thought of this particular depletion of our resources.
Though I'm still hoping this is just a rumor, Locus Online has posted the news that Isaac Asimov died from AIDS. Since I can't imagine them NOT double-checking the story for veracity beforehand, it must be true.
Is it even possible for me to express how completely WRONG this is?
Isaac's fiction was so important to me as a kid; I remember days spent on my bed, surrounded by piles of his books, perfectly content. Let me tell you, if I had been an ancient Caliph eating quinces and Anatolian figs on a couch of black juniper, I could not have been happier. All those wonderful characters...the Mule...Dr. Susan Calvin...Elijah Bailey and R. Daneel Olivaw...the Black Widowers...do I even have to go on? You know them.
And his works of popular science were damn-near fundamental in arming me with a rationalistic mindset. Despite his massive erudition, the Good Doctor never came off as pedantic or condescending to his readers; science for him wasn't some dry recitation of facts, but an occasion for joy, even when the implications for the fate of humanity were quite grim. Outside of the classroom, Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan were the two best teachers I ever had.
It's so fucking unfair. I've done volunteer work with AIDS patients, and to see healthy young men reduced to spindly revenants is just heartbreaking. I don't even want to think of how Isaac, as an elderly man with heart trouble, must have suffered at the end. To picture him wasting away, ravaged by Kaposi's sarcoma and other opportunistic infections, is more than I want to bear.
Truly, there is no justice in this world.
Harlan, did you know?
For those whose favorite musical was "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"--is the song actually called "Sobbin' Women" or "Sabine Women?" I think I've seen it both ways.
As far as West Side Story is concerned, it always seems to me that if you buy Romeo and Juliet, then you buy WSS. I don't tend to have much empathy with teenagers, so it isn't a favorite with me, although I think the dancing's great--particularly "Mambo" and "America."
As far as Shakespeare musicals are concerned, did anyone see "Love's Labours Lost" when it was out a few years ago? I went to see it in the one arthouse theater that was showing it, and I think I was one of 3 people in the entire place. Odd, and not completely successful, I think my admiration for Kenneth B. gave it a enjoyable patina it did not entirely deserve...
Jeff:
I don't know how much you may have studied up on where you're going, but you might find a few of the things I had to say about West Africa (I flew in and out of Senegal) of some use. Go to
http://www.david-loftus.com/Writings/writings.html
and scroll down to the "Travel" links on the lower left. There are seven short essays on West Africa in the mix.
P.A.B. (Percival Alphonse Berman?),
It's funny you should mention finding Edward Scissorhands in the comedy section. That's usually where I find that they've hidden Brazil (really, I'm not kidding).
-Andrew
Todd,
While he was with the Padres, Rivera was (usually) great in the field, but horrible at the plate. Once in a while he'd connect and go yard, but most of the time he was the whiff king. His average barely stayed above the "Mendoza" line (actually, I believe he finished '99 below .200).
I was pretty glad to see him go, though somehow I think he probably walked out with some of Tony Gwynn's wristbands or something ::grin::.
Don't get me started on Irabu, he is a player without honor...
-Andrew
Share my horror: I had to rent _Edward Scissorhands_ to show to the Science Fiction/Fantasy Movie Club at school. Went to Video King. Looked in Drama. Not there. Looked in Horror. Not there. Getting desperate, looked in Science Fiction... not there!
Went up to the counter, asked if they even had it. Guess where it was?
Comedy.
Comedy!?!
Bermanator
For those of you discussing the NASA/Trip to Mars thing, heres a somewhat interesting link.
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/12/1939216.shtml?tid=160
Jeph,
You rule, my man. "Erosion," indeed.
Scott,
I can't give an ethical review of "The Producers," as Mel Brooks sold me 100% of the show.
Regards,
Joseph
Re color-coded States of Emergency; How many people thought, as I did, of the bald headed guy in _The Prisoner_ reciting "Orange Alert" into a telephone every time Number Six tried to escape?
Hi All,
I've been meaning to post (for the 2nd time ever) on this board,
but something has been jamming my Lurking Device, rendering me
unable to decloak (read: Real Life). Fortunately, that has been
rectified (real life has been disposed of; I am now safe and
secure in my own private illusion, delusion, or whatever. (Damn!
I think I added an extra comma! (Anyone else getting sick of
nested parentheses?)))
Anyway...
Re: West Africa. I'm planning for a trip to Senegal this year. My
reason's pretty specific: my girlfriend's in the Peace Corps
there (today is the anniversary (yes, one year) of her
departure). The official language is French, but that's mainly
spoken in the cities. There are several tribal languages, Wolof
being the most prevalent -- chances are, more people know that
than French. She's in a Sereer village, though, which means that
she's effectively had to learn three languages (her comment to me
at one point is that she's tri-unlingual. When she can't figure
out how to answer, she just makes up gibberish. The villagers
apparently think its hysterical). It's been quite a
year: I moved from Chicago to the Bay Area, her grandmother (who
lived with the family and to whom she was very close) died, her
dad had a stroke (but is fortunately recovering quite nicely)
and, of course, Sept 11th happened. She emails whenever she
checks mail at the closest city (roughly every couple of weeks),
and we talk on the phone about as often (AT&T must love me
tremendously). I honestly never envisioned travelling to Africa
in my life, but right now I'm both nervous and wildly
enthusiastic.
Re: Lynn and Ninja (Am I correct in thinking that the plural of
"Ninja" is "Ninja"?) Has anyone here ever read the original Tick
comic book, in particular issues 3 - 5, which contained
absolutely gut-busting parodies of Elektra (here named Oedipus
Ashley Stevens) and the overall Ronin/TMNT-type ninja craze?
Tick (reading from Ninja Manual): Ninjas can turn invisible! They
can kill a guy with an index finger! They can install telephones!
And I thought all they did was hang around in airports and get
sucked into jet engines!
--
Ninja District Manager: Even now, my ninjas surround her house,
ingeniously disguised as a hedge.
[cut to ninjas locked, arm in arm, rather conspicuously
surrounding the house. Occasionally, one of them can be seen
holding a small branch. A boy, walking his dog, stops and stares]
Ninja: We are a hedge. Please move along.
[cut to inside the house]
Oedipus' father: Dear, I don't remember having a hedge.
---
Ninja1: He's beating the crap out of us. What do we do?
Ninja2: Here's a dime. Call the district manager!
[Ninja2 runs across the street and gets hit by a car]
Passenger: Stop the car, dear, I think we hit a ninja.
Driver: Well, it's not as if we hit a dog or anything.
---
Ninja: He was huge. We couldn't get through.
District Manager: When a stone blocks a river, does the river
try to go through the stone?
[silence, then]
Ninja1: Um, yes?
Ninja2: No?
Ninja3: Isn't erosion involved somewhere?
District Manager: NO, YOU IDIOTS! IT FLOWS *AROUND* THE STONE!
- Jeph
So, I fall asleep on the couch, right? And the kids are rotting their minds with television, just sopping up whatever's on. And I wake up, it's almost nine. "Wow, Dad, you should have seen this, it is SO good!" Unh-huh, sure, dig out the TV guide and---
Son of a gun. "The Human Operators" on the Outer Limits, adapted from the story by Harlan and A.E. Van Vogt.
Another generation falls under the spell.
--Alex
Holly: Purple alert! Purple Alert!
Lister: What's a purple alert?
Holly: Well it's sort of worse than a blue alert but not quite
as bad as a red alert. Could be a mauve alert...
Matt~ The common excuse at our house is "Ninjas." All that need be said when things that were right were you left them a moment ago are nowhere to be found. Must be the ninjas again.
The worst thing about inflection stealing ninjas is the cutesy emoticons they leave in their stead.
::sigh:: Too much coding, must go find food soon.
L.
Well, I for one am glad to see that there's now color coding for alerts to advise on security threats, but they're a bit too generalized about it.
Perhaps this'll help.
Mauve: The state of alert when you should be concerned, but not enough to start challenging Bush and his cronies on starting Phase Two of the war on terrorism without having completed Phase One; the capture and arrest of one Usama Bin-Laden and his top Al Queda associates.
Amethyst: The level of alert advisory that tells you that it's okay; the terrorists are not Al Queda, they're Army of God, in which case you're still going to be killed deader than shit, you atheist bastard! P.S. John Asscroft says hello, and hopes you liked meeting some of his family...
Sulfur: The most unpopular colour of Crayola crayons, so completely disregard any notice of this color advisory as a measure to national security risk.
Just helping out. For more information, please contact you local branch of your Homeland Security agency, or your friendly neighborhood Spiderman...Both exist equally in the real world.
Scott, always willing to do the very least when effort is needed the most.
Todd,
I suppose the phrasing I used to make my request was wrong. It was meant to be read as, "this is a pointless argument based merely on personal preferences - please GOD make it stop!"
Ignore it? Ignore a discussion in this room we call Webderland? You may say, "you can scroll right over it" but you cannot. Trying to ignore a specific conversation in this room whilst reading another is like trying to ignore the couple having a lover's spat two tables away at the restaurant you are at with your friends...It permeates...
Anyway, my post was meant as a request - not a command. Internet "lack of inflection" gremlins strike again.
-Matt
Ruben Rivera is a scout's wet dream, the sort of toolsy player teams never give up on. The problem is that for all his speed and strength, he doesn't have the only tool that is truly indispensable - the ability to tell a ball from a strike. So many baseball types confuse great athletes with great ballplayers. Rivera's just another gym rat who was never a real baseball player.
Still no ruling on the multiple motions for summary judgment in Harlan's lawsuit. It has now been over five weeks... and the judge has a reputation for ruling in under five days. I think that's a hopeful sign that at least she's going to reach all of the necessary issues.
[Aside to Belinda: Next time, _you_ do the argument.]
Jeeezus, you people's like potato (Calling J. Danfoth Quayle; E or no? How about a comma?) chips; can't put cha's down.
Well, I could put cha's down, but I don't like to see a Webderlander cry.
Muzicalz: Mine Be "Cabaret", not for Liza, but Joel Grey, who was amazing, and Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder in "The Producers", which was the funniest musical I've ever seen.
In fact, I hear the music now, so join with me and sing, Sing, SING!!!!:
"Springtime for Hitler and Germany,
Deutschland is happy and gay.
We're marching to a faster pace,
Look out, here comes the master race.
Springtime for Hitler and Germany,
Winter for Poland and France.
Springtime for Hitler and Germany,
Come on, Germans, go into your dance ...
I was born in Dusseldorf, and that is why they call me Rolf. Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party.
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
(Gun fires twice)
Goose-step's the new step today
(Machine gun fires)
Bombs falling from the skies again,
(Bomb falls and explodes)
Deutschland is on the rise again
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
U-boats are sailing once more
[woman's voice]: "Well! Talk about bad taste!" Springtime for Hitler and Germany Means ... that ... soon we'll be going ... We've got to be going ... You know we'll be going to ... WAR!"
You were not bad, says the tenor Scott
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063051
A very well written and meaningful explanation from one of the original designers of the "Tribute in Light". The opening sentences capture eloquently the feeling I felt on September 11, 2001.
L.
Heather, your charm is disarming.
*ducks*
You said:
>I could have an extra limb growing out of the side of my head and be living in the sewers of Paris.
Well, if that's true, what's your favorite musical, "American in Paris? Listened to Gene Kelly do all that tapping and such, hmm?
H
Andrew, being a Yankee fan, I can tell you that Rivera was always trouble a'brewing. That's why the Yanks finally gave up on him and tossed him to the Padres for Irabu. He is immature and has wasted his potential. He struts around like he is the second coming, but the third and fourth coming have already passed him by. He has absolutely no arm from the outfield: everytime he throws the ball he hurts himself and it barely makes it to the cutoff man. He has constantly refused assistance in getting his throwing motion to the limits of a major leaguer. He is often in the middle of the usual late night, drunken club events.
All in all, I was not happy to see the Yanks giving him a second chance, and I am thankful that his true colors came through so that he would not disrupt the team this year with his bullshit.
-TODD
Joseph/Todd ~ I had removed Rivera from my list when I set it up. The kid's got scads of potential, but never seems to pull it all together. This new situation (I read that he had stolen a glove) makes me wonder why the Padres really released him. Maybe it wasn't just poor performance. Too bad though, he is a great, defensive, player.
-Andrew
Just for the hell of it, I checked, and I had Rivera at #35 for Center field.
*WHEW!*
OK, fess up folks, who had Ruben Rivera as their number one outfielder pick for Fantasy Baseball? I have a few trades I'd like to make with you.
-TODD
Matt, if people want to argue/debate the merits or faults of a film, they may. That's what this forum is about...discussion. Topics of discussion are not going to end because someone says "end them now."......if you don't want to read more on people's thoughts on this excrutiatingly self-indulgently dull movie, skip the note.
-TODD
You know, Matt is right. Why waste our time on this sort of discussion, when we have something MUCH MORE INTERESTING to mull!
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news/ap/20020312/ap-yankees-rrivera.html
Get this: Ruben Rivera was released by the Yankees today because he stole a bat and ball from Derek Jeter's locker to sell to a memorabilia weasel.
NOW we've got an odd topic for discussion.
Regards,
Joseph
"Moulin Rouge" arguments must cease and desist as of right now, please.
It is a fairy tale. The characters were performed exactly the way they were supposed to be. These are NOT real people, thought they exhibit real characteristics. The set were intentionally unrealistic and flamboyant because it is not the real world. The campiness in some scenes is as overblown as the tearful sorrowfulness of others. Just like a good fairy tale should be.
This argument (like many others on this board) is going NOWHERE. You can't get someone who loves "Snow White" to hate it or agree with your viewpoint by arguing it. People who love "Cinderella" and "Sleeping Beauty" know why they love it and they know why you hate it.
It is a fairy tale. You love it because it is a fairy tale or you hate it because it is a fairy tale. Pure and simple. Black and white.
--
On another note, I liked Harlan's speech on "wasting our fear" on Conspiracy Zone.
Letting fear take control is pointless. Use your fear for creative ends...Fear something worth being fearful about - and you may overcome it by solving a problem.
One thing I wish they had touched on is that all of the UFOs seen are just that: UNIDENTIFIED. Why jump to the conclusion that they are alien space craft? Until they are identified, the possibility exists of them being just about anything ANYTHING at all. Which, of course, brings Harlan's mention of Occam's Razor to the foreground.
----
And where did that audience come from?? Yikes. I think they asked Central Casting to supply some audience filler from the po' sections of LA...
-Matt
Lorin O. wrote: "Once in a while, too, I even dared to split an infinitive. :) "
Umm ... didn't you mean "Once in a while, too, I even dared to occasionally split an infinitive"?
(I have a cartoon from punch in which a nerdy professorial type is sitting at a typewriter and the caption is: "Dear Laura, how could you have written 'You are a very pedantic person, and I don't want to ever see you again'? Are you aware that you have split an infinitive?")
Just goes to show ya...I thought Ewan MacGregor was revolting in _Moulin Rouge_. First of all, he has those lumps all over his face and neck that the make-up artist utterly failed to hide. I found myself focusing on them in mute horror. I also wanted to kick him in the pants for his character's pathetic self-pity. I just loathed him from top to bottom.
Also, are we sick yet of the "hooker with the heart of gold" stories? I found it hackneyed. Isn't there an Oscar axiom about how women seem to always nominated for playing hookers?
The music was both the best and worst part of it for me: I liked the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" with a twist, and the gravelly voiced "Roxanne," but "Your Song" make me regurgitate. I do like Nicole Kidman, and that farcical scene in her bedroom where they made up a musical was fun.
Overall, the nauseating bits (read: Ewan MacGregor's pre-cancerous melanoma) and trite plot blotted out the small glimmers of joy for me. My companion and I kept whispering to each other, "Is this for real?" and afterwards, I had to apologize profusely for dragging him with me to see it.
But then again, I hate musicals.
Bermanator
NICOLE KIDMAN: There is a whole world of difference between "pretty" and "sexy."
Nicole Kidman is pretty. She isn't sexy.
My favorite musicals? For a long time, I tended to really hate the usual Broadway stuff, like _West Side Story_, and _Sweeney Todd_ got on my nerves-- they were just schlock as far as I was concerned. I tended to like stuff which had a _serious_ shade of dark running through them-- things like Milos Forman's film of of _Hair_ and Bob Fosse's _All That Jazz_.
But I liked _Moulin Rouge_. Throwing pop culture into a mixmaster? Sure, fine-- what's wrong with that? It's not as though they were throwing the Da Vinci Notebooks in as well. (And while she ain't my usual lust-object, I doubt the heterosexuality of any man who doesn't think Nicole Kidman is attractive.)
Re the news on Asimov. I hate to dishonor Asimov's memory by referring to a deity, but "Oh, dear God" is about the only phase I can think of to sum up the shock. One thing that makes it worse is the understanding that, despite Asimov's lifelong stance for science and reason, popular fear of AIDS was enough for his loved ones to keep it under wraps. Alex Berman's right. This just hurts.
MOULIN ROUGE: My review of the film was "I think I like it but I might hate it."
I should have hated it. It is simply disgusting. Luhrmann chews on every bit of pop culture he can find from the last twenty years, pukes it up into a Cuisinart, mixes it and pours it in the punch bowl for everyone to drink.
And yet it it works for me. I don't love it but I like it. It has the infectious charm of a yipping chihuahua. You are half-tempted to kick the damn thing to shut it up but at the same time, you can't help but admire the little guy's spunk and cuteness.
It's tough to take songs that suck in the first place and then remake them as even worse, even cheesier songs but it generally works.
Where I disagree with Moulin Rouge fans, however, is on the performances. I think Kidman is stiff and uninvolving and has all the sex appeal of the bloated corpse of a yak left out in the sun.
But Ewan McGregor was fabulous, delivering a sincere performance that ties the loose strands of this near-disaster into a coherent whole. Without his honesty and believability, this movie stinks.
FAVORITE MUSICAL: Dancer in the Dark. I don't know if that says anything about me except that I don't watch a lot of musicals and I am in love with Bjork.
Lorin: Oh, the MLA. Ugliest citation style ever (Comic Book Guy 128).
Re: Asimov: That is awful. Jeppson's description of his last days in the introduction to *I. Asimov* was sad and celebratory enough. He wrote another memoir? Or is this a cut-and-paste of previously unreleased material and selections from previously published autobiographical work?
Moulin Rogue: "This Time It's Expressionistic": Actually, it's a great typo. Not as gut-busting as the recurring classic 'pubic' for 'public' in newspaper headlines ('Security cameras focused on pubic areas cause concerns about privcy'--Yeah, I bet!), but still a good one.
Jon
Sheesh, didn't know that about Asimov. Poor guy. Not that there are so many GOOD things to die from (my personal choice would involve Jude Law, Brendan Fraser, and one too many orgasms), but that sure isn't up there. Don't know what to make of the speculation that he wasn't actually *aware* that he had the disease. I suppose it doesn't much matter now.
RE: MOULIN ROUGE -- well, call me a contrarian, but I loved that movie! I thought it was inventive and stylish and theatrical and romantic (in a broad sense; the relationship between Ewan and Nicole never quite took off for me). For me, the pop songs were a kind of poetic shorthand meant to reflect the characters' emotions and resonate with the audience precisely BECAUSE they were so well-known.
I guess I wasn't looking to particularly identify with any of the characters, to be swept up emotionally as much as intellectually. I think its artifice and use of "familiar" plot elements (which were mocked via the theater-production-within-the movie) were meant to keep the story on a certain plane so that the characters and events were more symbolic than realistic. But that's just my take.
BTW - I'd also add that Baz Luhrmann came up with one of the most incredible Romeo and Juliet death scenes I've ever seen, and I've seen probably...a half-dozen or so renditions of the play. Maybe more.
PUNCTUATION: I'm not a big fan of the serial comma, either, but its use was beaten back into me via my recent experiences of going back to school for my MFA (which I put on hold for a bit, but which I will probably attempt again one of these days). One of the most difficult challenges I faced was writing formally again, abiding by rules set down in the MLA style guide, having to abandon style choices I'd long since adapted--such as the double dash. AND beginning sentences with a conjunction every now and again. Once in a while, too, I even dared to split an infinitive. :)
FAVORITE MUSICALS: It'd be interesting to do a personality profile on all Webderlanders based on their favorite choice of musical! I'm sure it says SOMETHING about me that MAN OF LA MANCHA is at the top of my list. Also FINIAN'S RAINBOW, which is definitely a "lesser" musical, but which completely captivated me as a kid. Plus it manages to be both a toe-tapping bit of entertainment AND a political/social allegory, so it gets props for that. WEST SIDE STORY is beautiful, as well. I could go on and on...or maybe it'd be quicker and more precise to just say if it's not CATS, I probably liked it. Even being fondled by Rum Tum Tiger did not make THAT experience any more bearable for me.
Over and out --
Lorin O.
JOSEPH: Please DO check--you have no idea how much I want this to be wrong.
The listings I've seen for the book all show it as being released this month.
Damn damn damn. Just found this tidbit on the Prometheus Books website:
"Although Janet Jeppson Asimov concludes this work with a shocking revelation about her husband’s death, the volume is clearly intended as a celebration--as the title suggests--of a wonderful, creative life."
By the by, it's listed as being by Isaac and EDITED by Dr. Jeppson Asimov.
Alex,
Ah, dammit. That's news that's about as high on a sucky level as I care to go for.
By the way, I hope that you don't mind that I did a little fact-checking of my own on this, do you? It just sounds at first glance like one of those "Michael-Stipe-has-AIDS" type rumours.
Regards,
Joseph
GRAMMAR: My take on the serial comma is that it's only necessary when it's necessary. The situations where there would be absolute confusion without it, such as the Ayn Rand and God quote, are to me the only places where an extra comma is needed.
Some people rail against the death of the serial comma because they see it as a sign of the degradation of the English language. What these people fail to take into account, however, is that this is actually part of a valid linguistic progression that has been going on for hundreds of years.
After all, the comma, was used, in language, very differently, and a lot more, a couple hundred, years ago. Commas, were inserted, without rhyme, nor reason, throughout everything, that you you might say.
(I still hate "hopefully" in place of "I hope" and "their" in place of "his" or "her", though.)
MUSICALS: To me, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN is the best musical ever. Oddly enough, two of my five favorite movies are musicals, and ahead of SINGIN': ALL THAT JAZZ and THE BLUES BROTHERS.
I didn't want to see MOULIN ROUGE, because I felt the conceit of using contemporary pop songs--not new ones written for the movie--for it was a copout and a cheat; one that would cheapen the movie.
Granted, there are good musicals that use contemporary songs--note all three musicals I named above--but these do so because it is appropriate for the subject matter and the setting.
******HOLY SHIT!!!******
I just found out--and checked against several sources--that the new book IT'S BEEN A GOOD LIFE, the biography of Isaac Asimov by his wife Janet Jeppson Asimov and with bits by Isaac himself, reveals that he actually died of AIDS contracted from a blood transfusion during his 1983 bypass operation.
Jesus fuck.
I've seen celebrities stricken. I've lost friends to this disease. But this just HURTS. How many more years of The Good Doctor could we have had?
Jon,
Thanks a lot. Not only do I feel embaressed at my awful typo, but now I have this vision of Jean Reno laying a trap for his partner's killer at a nightclub, but Reno is in drag and still holding a really fucking big gun.
And wearing "The Professional" sunglasses.
God, I am one sick puppy.
David,
"Fiddler." How could I forget that one? Also one of the better movie musicals.
Regards,
Joseph
Joseph: *Moulin Rogue*? Man, that actually sounds like a movie I'd want to see. It would star Jean Reno, of course, as a 19th-century painter-cop who seeks revenge for his partner's murder.
David: Yes, that particular agreement error (and all the related pronoun reference errors) once bugged me a lot. However, 'their' does seem to have been sanctioned by a number of gender and women's studies departments as an acceptable error; the combination of that with general confusion about the singular and plural natures of certain pronouns makes me think that this is a shift that will be complete in about twenty years.
Of course, teaching introductory college writing caused me to go crazy and run away into the woods after two years, so I may not be the best judge of the whole thing.
Jon
Jon:
Though I see no reason to be doctrinaire about split infinitives (just try to avoid them in general so they don't become a tiresome commonplace), I simply will not accept the subject/verb disagreement of "Everyone paid attention to their grammar." I don't find "his or her" ungainly -- people simply should get used to it -- although alternating "his" and sometimes "her" alone is a neat way of making people more alert to their use of language, too. And I love the double hyphen as well!
Cindy:
Like Lynn, I want to clarify my position. I did NOT particularly "like" "Moulin Rouge." When I say it was an entertaining and charming failure, or whatever the wording was, that was an aesthetic or critical judgment. I rarely see films I dislike, because I work hard to try to make them work for me -- that's my job as a viewer and reader. Afterward, I make the more critical judgment of whether the effort was worth it.
And, to be honest, I rarely go to films I'm unlikely to get something out of, and the vast majority of films have things to like in them. I can't remember the last movie that really pissed me off or that I wanted to walk out of. (More often, it's the audience reaction that makes me uncomfortable; I recall that much of the humor in "Flirting With Disaster," an otherwise decent comedy, involved shaming and humiliating many of the characters, especially the protagonist played by Ben Stiller, so the audience laughter around me began to make me feel very uncomfortable, and the only consolation was getting to look at Tea Leoni a lot.)
In sum, "Moulin Rouge" was one of the least likable films I saw last year. I just thought it was worth seeing for its flaws as much as its virtues.
Heather:
Favorite musical? "West Side Story," I guess, because the music is so superlative. (For some reason, I've been hearing "Gee, Officer Krupke" a lot in my head recently.) "Fiddler on the Roof" is a close second. I'm not that nuts about musicals in general, because the plots and characterizations are often so lame, and my wife's utter contempt for them has had an effect too. (She loathed "Nightmare Before Christmas.")
I appreciate that you're trying to keep a good mix of topics going, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else is interested in my thoughts on West Africa. Have you read the essays about my trip on my Web site yet? Do so, then post me your questions by private email.
Thanks for the ELLISON ARTICLES ALERT, Infoman. That's one of the things a board like this is really good for.
Of course, all this identity stuff could spur the creation of a Webderland Digital Camera chatroom. Something with a catchy title such as "CoupleS & 3somes doing it live while reading Ellison!"
Yahoo would never be the same.
Eep,
Jon
Cindy,
Interesting. We couldn't disagree more on "Moulin Rogue," and yet we share a love for "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers," one of my all-time favorite movies. Great music, fantastic dancing and a hilarious plot (hell, "Sobbin' Women" is worth the price of admission right there, along with "Lonesome Polecat."). What's sad is that I can still remember the names of all even brothers and the joke about Frank.
As for my favorite musical that has never been filmed, that would be Sondheim & Weidman's "Assassins." A brilliant work, it's (10-year-late) Broadway premiere was sadly postponed after Sept 11, due to the subject matter. One of the best looks at the sad lonely bastards who get it into their heads to shoot at Presidents.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. A short list of favorite musical movies would include Singing in the Rain, Meet Me In St. Louis, Anchors Aweigh, Guys and Dolls and Kiss Me Kate.
Favorite Musical: Camelot. That's as a stage musical - but there's something very cool about the choreography in the movie version of West Side Story.
And don't we all feel so much better now that Homeland Defense has a color system for communicating the level of terrorist threat to the rest of us? Sheesh. While I like they way the war has been handled, the Bush Administration's Domestic Policies are starting to piss me off.
My all time favorite musical:
"An American In Paris", with "Gigi" as a close second.
I've always loved Leslie Caron...
Melissa
Hello, all. A short post, just to fill in some info.
To P.A. Berman and Little Washu: Thanks for informing Scotty of your opting out of the Webderland Park Rotisserie league. He perfectly understands and appreciates you getting back to him in a prompt fashion. We've been busy, so we haven't really had a chance to respond.
That of course means their two spots are open to any and all others interested in pitting your baseball acumen against your fellow Harlanheads...C'mon, there's got to be two hardy fools who seek a daunting task. Any who are interested, please contact myself or Scotty at the above mentioned email address.
Culture: Well, both Scotty's and my tastes run all over the map. I love Hieronymous Bosch and Edward Munch; I must admit I love the Dillon's covers of Ellison's books, Scotty loves Handel, Grieg, Clifford Brown, John Coltrane, The Who and the Chambers Brothers.
Preference is preference. The only thing I hate is when people change their tastes to suit another. I must admit, some of what Scotty listened to or liked to look at often left me in complete disagreement, but over time, I've come to see what he sees and become more well rounded as a result. Fortunately, he's grown in the same fashion.
Well, got to go. Her Majesty Cassie the Younger demands my presence.
Love to all, Melissa
Forgot to put in my favorite musical: South Pacific.
Just last weekend I was arrested for destroying several thousand dollars in electronics at BestBuy because that waifish show child Charlotte Church was trying to simper her way through "Bali Hai". I would have been okay if they didn't have it on all fifteen big screen televisions at once. (Technically she was perfect, but that song needs someone with experience it to sing it. And not just musical experience.)
L.
Cindy~ HEY now. Don't count me as one of the ones who liked Moulin Rouge. While I think Ewan McGregor is a seriously underestimated actor (Trainspotting is in my top ten, not to mention the episode of ER that garnered him an Emmy), everyone here is pretty clear on where I stand about Nicole Kidman (woman couldn't act her way out of a wet paperbag). Moulin Rouge had it's moments. It was camp, and intentionally over the top. The main problem with the production was that it fell into the one trap it should have avoided at all costs: Taking itself too seriously. I am firmly on your side in this one. Kitsch is not culture.
On the other hand, I adore Picasso and Kandinsky, Magritte and Dalí. Hell, I even have a soft spot in my heart for Schoenberg, and you know that makes me just a little twisted.
L.
Heather,
Pink Floyd's The Wall.
Close second, a tie between the Dennis Potter mini-series and it's American remake, Pennies From Heaven.
-TODD
I was once in a wild back-and-forth e-mail exchange with a girl I'd stumbled into on-line. Long, sprawling conversations, innuendo, the occasional bawdy lyric. Went on for a couple of months before we broached the subject of meeting. She copped to nervousness. In an attempt to soothe her fears, I said (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) "I can understand nervousness. The anonymity thing can be really daunting - I mean, for all I know, you could be a six foot seven ex-con named Leon on parole for serial jaywalking."
Never heard from her again. E-mail account vanished. The mails started bouncing back. As Arsenio was known to say, "Hmmmmm..."
The double hyphen? Nah. Ellipsis are the way to go... the implied gap of indeterminate time... the curiosity over what...has been omitted... give me three dots and I can rule the world... the city... well, maybe my apartment...
Cindy: It's really immaterial whether you - or anyone - "gets" any particular form of artistic expression. The important thing is that you know what you like. Your tastes are yours, and different tastes and opinions in no way equate to some kind of social ranking among real people. If anything, be suspect of the snoot-jobs who truly believe that not knowing the composer of, say, "Carmen" is a cardinal sin against art. They're self-important, preening morons. And "uncultured" is the arbitrary measure they apply when they have no other way to feel more important than the people around them.
Jazz suffers from a stigma among many as being too highbrow to be easily embraced. I love jazz. I'm in the minority on that one in my friend group, most of whom wouldn't know Duke Ellington from Duke Snyder if they saw one of them stealing home. But that still in no way makes me the Pope, y'know?
Heather - hands down, "West Side Story". It hits all of the buttons for me, every time.
lonegungirl - Thanks for articulating my precise feelings on Kate Capshaw in IJATTOD. You know a character is ill-conceived when you're rooting for the villain to drop her into the fiery pit, already...
Heather: I may be a guy who dated a girl; I may be a girl who dated a girl. I may be a guy who dated a guy; or a girl who dated a guy. These are all...just...words. Know what I mean? I could have an extra limb growing out of the side of my head and be living in the sewers of Paris. Could be a three hundred pound 65 year old housewife on a respirator in Des Moines, laughing my ass off right now.
But I'm not.
Bermanator
Cindy: Having ended up in the last few years with a number of friends whose knowledge and love of classical music and opera often daunts me, about all I can say is -- don't sweat it. I like sections of operas, and I now understand certain elements of why and how they work so that I at least feel my relative non-appreciation is at least partially informed, but for now I'd rather listen to Gilbert and Sullivan than *La Traviata*, and I'm comfortable with the fact that my liking of Wagner qualifies me as a plebe in some circles. Opera may be constructed as high culture, but like renaissance drama it wasn't presented solely as such when it was popular -- it *was* popular. You've got no more reason to feel bad about not liking opera than you do about thinking *Saving Private Ryan* was a better movie than *Shakespeare in Love* ( I agree, not because I thought Ryan was profound, but because Ryan was a better movie -- more visceral, more heart-pounding, more visual. *Raiders* was a better movie than *Chariots of Fire*, which it lost to at the Oscars, and *ET* was better than *Gandhi*).
Heather: Berman's gay? Cool!
Serial commas: The greatest source of humour in this is the call in all style manuals to 'be consistent.' (The hobgoblin etc. etc.). Were serial commas the standard before typesetting omitted them for reasons of space? Well, when I find a history of grammar in my stacks of books, maybe I'll post on it. It seems as if the omission of the last comma came about because of typesetting brevity (thus the debate about Jones's vs. Jones', another supposedly type-motivated shift). But given that the "bans" on split infinitives and dangling modifers existed due to holdover attention to Latin grammar, where both made sense (the split really made sense, given that you can't split an infinitive in Latin -- it's like having a rule about not inserting a word in the middle of another word), language shifts motivated by technology aren't any dumber or smarter than any other rules of language.
But as to barbarism -- is the gradual shift to 'their' as the standard singular non-gendered pronoun awful or good, as in "Everyone paid attention to their grammar"? Number aside, it's less annoying than "his or her" et al., assertions about writerly control aside.
As to real barbarism, my overuse of the double hyphen (what's now an em dash, thanks to better typesetting) came from newspaper writing. But damn it -- I love the double hyphen!
Cheers,
Jon
Heather,
That would be Seven Brides For Seven Brothers.
:)
Cindy
Moulin Rouge was painful for me. The use of popular/overplayed music in place of original dialogue was irritating in the extreme. I would like to tell you chapter and verse why it is that I would rather listen to a 16 hour speech by Tom Daschle than watch the first 25 minutes of Moulin Rouge again, but I have blocked the particulars.
I didn't finish watching it. I couldn't bear it. The last film I walked out on was called Trash Men or Trash Can Men or Trash Stupid People Will Pay Good Money To See.. I can't remember. It featured Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez and was a sublime annoyance...not unlike Moulin Rouge. Oh and YES I was one of the stupid people who paid to see it. My excuse is that I live in a town the size of a Seven-Eleven and we get one movie a week.. only one ( we have to bring our own chairs and "Babe" was a live production-- but that's another story). I will give just about anything a try.
In the Trash film the Sheen/Estevez boys were dressed in sexy wife beater shirts. Moulin Rouge featured Nicole Kidman dressed up like a Bob Mackie Barbie and stuck on a swing.
After that bit of set decorating, somebody must have said something like, " Writing dialogue is so taxing! Let's just throw in some popular songs! Nothing original necessary. We will dazzle them with Kidman's good looks while we SCREW them with our lack of effort and plot. THEN we will wrap it up like a nice burrito heavy on the faux-art outside, and stuffed on the inside with a jumbled melange of spectacular effects, surreal situations and unmitigated bullshit.
The masses will eat it with a spoon, just as they did Shakespeare in Love.
It's the refinement of the bourgeois. If they don't " get it" they can't be "cultured". Those who don't or can't get it will seem uneducated and low brow. Those who DO find value in our little slight of hand will feel superior, taking great satisfaction in the knowledge that THEY understand art. In the end there will be money made LOTS AND LOTS of money. And THAT is what it's all about.
Okay before y'all get out the rope-- hold on.
This is only my opinion and I am the FIRST to admit that I AM uncultured. I don't get opera-- I think that would be the same as spending an hour in HELL. I don't get Picasso- AND I thought it was a CRIME that Shakespeare in LOVE was even MENTIONED in the same BREATH with Saving Private Ryan... the former being insultingly trifling and ill-conceived-- the second profound and important.
I have GREAT respect for those on this board who said they enjoyed or appreciated Moulin Rouge, Lynn, Heather, Lurk, David everyone-- it is not my intent to insult. I can say in all sincerity that I value your opinions. I have to conclude that y'all are just better men than I because, once again, I don't get it.
But I guess it isn't necessary that I do. As they say in these parts, chicken shit to one.. chicken salad to another.
Friends?
Cindy
Heather,
Bottom of the ocean, vs. the moon & Mars: It is a lot easier to get to the bottom of the ocean than to the surface of the moon. After all, you just let water into the ballast tanks, and down you go. However, surviving, living down there is much more difficult, due to the enormous pressure down there. It's enough to squash you like a bug. Down that deep, the human body can't even gradually acclimate to the pressure as it can at lesser depths. Humans are still confined to the interior of a submersible. On the continetal shelf, however, people could live down that deep. Maybe. No one's done a study on the long-term effects of living down there, say, years at a time. Yet.
Favorite Musical: Singing in the Rain. Or is it Cabaret? Or maybe All That Jazz? Victor/Victoria? Depends on my mood.
THIS IS LOBO. LOBO SAY CHUCK STAY UP TOO LATE. NOT GET UP TO GO TO WORK WITH CLEAR HEAD. LOBO SAY TIME FOR TO GO TO BED. HOW DO LOBO KNOW HOW TO USE INTERNALNET THINGY? LOBO TAKE COURSES AT DEVRY. TIME FOR TO GO TO BED. NIGHT-NIGHT.
For anyone who's interested, here's my stream-of-consciousness responses to various bits of the twenty pages of today's postings:
My issue with IJATTOD was strictly with the female lead-it's difficult for me to concentrate on a plotline when I want so desperately to whack one of the characters over the head with a bat. But I did enjoy the opening number.
Favorite musical? Singing in the Rain. No contest.
One of the problems I had with Moulin Rouge was the early revelation that Kidman was dying. Knowing that she was dying, I think I resisted investing too emotionally in her character--and none of the others seemed sufficiently developed to take her place as centerpiece.
Internet Love By Todd Cassel almost made me snort pizza out my nose.
ELLISON ARTICLES ALERT: the March/April issue of "Pages" magazine (www.ireadpages.com), available at Borders and Waldens (but not Barnes & Nooble), features the article "Harlan Ellison Vs. AOL" And, the Travel Issue (volume 10, the one with Charlize Theron on the cover) of "Animal Fair" (out soon at Border Bookstores, Barnes & Noble bookstores, and finer Petsmart stores near you) has an article, on page 92, titled "Furry Muse" which features a few words from Ellison about his realtionship with Ahbhu (as well as other writers like John Iving, Dean Koontz, James Ellroy and Connie Willis); and it's followed by a reprint of Ellison's essay, "Ahbhu."
Informationally, the Man
Let's see:
++Current Films
I LIKED "Beautiful Mind" because of the people relationships. I LIKED the way the sudden scary twist to Nash's realities was portrayed. Russell Crowe's gonna be around a while. He may not get this one, as (I believe), he got one for "Gladiator." Sometimes, that's the way it works. Best adapted screenplay.
I LIKED "Moulin Rouge" because I enjoyed listening to old songs made strangely relative to a beautifully staged MUSICAL.. oKAY, it's a musical--it AIN'T "War of the Worlds"--which I like too but no one's talking about that. I didn't know how well the two leads, Kidman and McEwan, sang, before this film. I was VERY IMPRESSED. Best costumes, dance and scenery--if they've been nominated, that is.
[Movies are about pleasing audiences, at a certain PLACE, at a certain TIME, in their personal lives. (One reason why so many of you talk of your favorites from when you were very young or young at heart.) Nominations aren't always fairly derived but, if nothing, I think they are planning to make more musicals as a result of this film. That would be a positive outcome, whether they get awards or not.]
-----------------
++New subject:
[In fact, what IS your favourite, all time, FAVOURITE, musical?--the one you remember so VIVIDLY.]
End new subject
---------------
I LIKED "LotR" because the scenery, both real and imaginary was enthralling. The pace and story wowed me. (I may even pick up a Tolkien book as a result--never, never read any of them.) I could say more but what the hey--we talked this movie a wee while ago. Best picture. Best cinematographer.
"In the Bedroom" - Best director. Best actor. This story blew me away. I want more films like this. Sissy Spacek was damn good too, but I bet she get ousted by another actress.
------------
+++Turning to other films...
I LIKED "Indiana Jones" - the first movie because, in 1980 or wherever I saw it, I had no movie of this nature to reference as a part of my current culture. (Old movies, sure. We could talk about "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Bridge on the River Kwai" but I realize part of the charm of Indy was, he was there when I was younger (than I am now, anyway.) so I drooled for more when...
The SECOND "Indiana Jones" came out. This was in the early days of modelmaking per Spielbergalia and I enjoyed watching the "making of" shows in television. And yeah, I liked Short Round and Kate Capshaw had been in a lot of movies by then and it was cool to see her in THIS one. Kooky bed room scenes and passages filled with crawly things--I was easy to please.
That was a long time back. I don't try changing what I thought about it at first view. Don't you do that?
I don't go into a theatre with an Oscar check list. I don't compare one movie to another.I only SEE one at a time and give it all my focus--right there; right then. I hadn't seen many films for a while, just before seeing "Moulin Rouge." I was blown away from the opening scenes. It sucked me down. It sucked me down but good.
As Alex puts it...Nyah.
---
++Commas, etc.:
I thought commas were all about being clear. If the comma helps the writer be more clear, that's all there is to it.
By the way, Chicago Manual of Style..who or what does that refer to; the Chicago Tribune?
--------
++Space flight:
Living on the moon? Living on Mars? About how living under the earth or at the bottom of the ocean? How about that, hmm? I think either one would be very cool.
-------
++Hollywood and the film industry:
Isn't there a chance that independent films could change the focus of film production in L.A. as well? I realize there's a bit of crap out there, in terms of independent films, but isn't production increasing; production that is giving the major studios a run for their money?
Even if the indies start presenting their films more frequently on cable or something?
I've heard L.A. is an expensive place to live. And isn't Vancouver pricey, as well? (Never mind that rather long rainy season out there--and the mosquitoes, from what I've been told.)
-------
P.S. Bermalligator: I had a dog named King. I guess I don't think of the word as 'one who rules.' My "King" was a wuz. Maybe you can draw some parallels there, hmm?
P.S. Eric: Don't use just "Lurk." It makes me think of Ted Cassidy in "The Adams Family." We just cleared up the fact that Xanadu does NOT wear roller skates, I'd like to keep things clear.
Oh, by the way, P.A. is you say, you are GENDER BENDING? Didn't you go out with some GIRL? Didn't you tell us about it?
Yer not a girl TOO, are you?
Nah, couldn't be.
P.S. David: I think you have a good point about using humor on a forum. But then, hell, why not have fun? I've NEVER considered myself humorous, yet I seem to continuely crack wise on the net. Rather strange, actually.
Tell me more about West Africa. How did it influence you.. then..?
Sure thing, Lynn. I'm just going to sleep first.
Little Washu
L'Washu~
EX-squeeze me? Would you care to back that up with something a little bit more open to debate?
And keep in mind, I'm endeared to this film. And not just because I'm an antiquities-loving puzzle freak with a penchant for fedoras and bullwhips either.
L.
As beautiful, hair-raising and adrenaline-pumping RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was, we all know that, sadly, along with STAR WARS, it triggered a modern film tradition of mainstream movies getting dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber, and dumber...
Little Washu
....and as I re-read my postings for the day, I must chuckle at the fact that only a couple hours after mocking sensitive internet readers, here I am getting all pissed at Frankieboy Church. I must mock myself:
Todd, hey Todd....you stupid fucking moron. You point fingers and you make up silly little playlets and then go running home to mommy the moment the dopey kid down the block makes fun of you. Boy, Todd, you sure are sensitive. Whatsa matter? You can dish it out, but you can't take it? Wah wah wah wah. Run away home baby boy. Go hide in momma's skirt....the world is too scary, and you must be protected.
((thank you, thank you. A little playlet I call "The World Sobs For No One" by Todd Cassel....dedicated to my friend, Frank Church))
-TODD
Yes, I looked at the pictures and I have been following all that has gone on in NYC today. I live just 45 miles away, work just 20 miles away.
FYI, I was just in NYC this weekend to see The Crubicle on Broadway. Fan fucking Tastic. Absolutely marvelous revival. I only wish that the Tribute Of Light were already shining as we took the ferry back to NJ in the evening.
-TODD
Bermantor: ":: Perhaps the best argument for the serial comma is that apocryphal book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God". ::" Damn, P.A., I almost fell off my chair laughing at that one! I'm thinking of putting in seatbelts. Of course, anything that puts down Ayn Rand is fine in my book.
Matthew, Hollywood & Edison: I'd heard and read about that part of motion picture history. It's amazing the things the BIG BOYS got away with back then, right down to mafia-style thuggishness. They have to be more subtle these days.
Rick: Uh, yeah, what Lynn and Peter said. I think. When net info gets that specific, all I can think of to say is, "Tell me about the rabbits, George".
Todd: Loved the Internet Love posting. See above about installing seatbelts over here.
Brian: For further info on my current position on going to Mars, check out "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin. He not only puts together a plan for Mars itself, but for a space-faring civilization. He even has a few suggestions for a martian bill of rights, including an amendment that would abolish any kind of military draft. I wasn't won over by Mars Direct right away. In fact, it took years.
Chuck
Todd, I not only take no offense - I offer a mea culpa - you are absolutely correct. While I accept the noting of the six month milestone. "anniversary" was the wrong term to use.
But, did you look at the pictures?
No offense meant to you, Xanadu, just something that's been bugging me all day.
-TODD
I know that today is a solemn day for some.....but I must give what appears to be an unpopular opinion about this 6 months 'anniversary'. It is purely media driven. What is 6ous among radioactive materials. Which, I might point out, was the primary concern among YOUR sources, and why they specifically protested the Cassini mission.
Two - Lawrence Livermore Labs - according to you, "a nuclear weapons designer" - You'd think THEY would want to exaggerate the destructive nature of plutonium, not diminish it - since they are, after all, in the business of death-by-bomb. Or do you think that scientists routinely keep two sets of data; the "real", ultra-deadly "facts" - and the sanitized stuff they use for public consumption?
Three: Atomic Insights link - you know what, I pored over the entire site - they did not have a single reference to either gun control or greenhouse gases, sorry. Though I have a question, how do your "morally credible" sources reconcile the FACT that 26 people ingested what your sources have unequivocally labeled a spectacularly lethal dose of plutonium, and that some 20 of them are still alive four DECADES later? Yeah, Frank - 20 people whose very existence says YOUR "sources" are bullshit.
Four: FortFreedom: yeah - they're fairly right-leaning, but the specific article I pointed to was, in fact, peer reviewed.
Your final line: " The idea that someone who is "progressive" is willing to fake information to suit his bias is a hoot--but where's the proof?"
So, you seem to believe the left wing never engages in propaganda.
Frank, EVERY side engages in propaganda. Left, right and centrist. Learn that, and you're well on your way to winning an argument on this board. But you're not there yet - during this entire NASA/Plutonium debate, your "morally credible" sources have been whacked upside the head by facts, and lost, each and every time.
Frank,
You said:
"The other two sources are right wing, pro-nuclear bs."
I think you've stepped over the line a bit. The sources you provided seemed to be just as baised. Some might even call it, left wing, anti-nuclear bs. Now, if we could just get you to read between the lines...
-Andrew
I swear I only clicked once. clicked once. once.. clicked click click click.
Okay, I apologize. I just hated the second Indiana Jones film. It could have been so much darker. It was my very first sequel disappointment. I've never gotten over it. And I'll never forgive them for the Club Obi Wan. How fanboy can you get.
L.
Okay, I apologize. I just hated the second Indiana Jones film. It could have been so much darker. It was my very first sequel disappointment. I've never gotten over it. And I'll never forgive them for the Club Obi Wan. How fanboy can you get.
L.
Yes, when I think of Indiana Jones, that's precisely what I'm thinking of. Not occult conspiracies in the desert surrounding ancient archaeological discoveries with mass casualty potential, not intricate and deadly traps designed to make grave plunderers pay with their lives, not a mad chase across multiple continents to save the world from destruction at the hands of the pinnacle in evil overlords. No, when I think of Indy and company, what I really want is...
PEPPY DANCE NUMBERS.
::sigh::
L.
Recently, AMC was showing, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, and Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom. I must say that I never could understand why so many think the first film is superior to the sequal. IJATTOD just has more pep--the opening dance number is worth the price of admission. Just seemed a lot more fun to me.
Todd, Yes you are right--I do think my side of the fence has more moral credibility: Just as I would ascertain that black civil rights groups have more credibility on their issues than someone like, David Horowitz. But remember Todd, you told me once that you don't even read the other sides opinion--so who is the one with a bias?
I at least look at both sides, than make my move.
Remember what I said about the Royal Tanenbaums and Memento: these movies are very clever, but are not artistic masterworks that should be housed in the Smithsonian.
I do not even see Moulin Rouge as a 'fascinating failure.' It was not fascinating to me....it was dull with a capital 'd'. I went into this film wanting love it....wanting to see something special....and about 20 minutes in I thought "I assume this is going to pick up now" and about 40 minutes in I thought "Can I bear even another HOUR of this?" and about 90 minutes in I woke up to their rousing rendition of 'Roxanne' and when the final credits rolled I asked myself how I managed to not walk out.
I thought it was absolutely putrid. I don't give points for 'nice tries' in regard to attempting a modern musical or tossing lots of pretty colors all about. I could not hate this movie enough. It felt to me as if Baz set out to do something different and cinematically exciting, but then lost interest and fell lazily back on lots of half-second MTV shots and psuedo-clever little adaptions of modern hits.
By the way, I need to express this in case my point has been missed: I hated this movie.
That is a fact, my hating the movie. So, if anyone feels the need to spit on this posting with your attempts to make me look dumb, please recall the main point of movie criticism: it is opinion. I loathed this movie: Fact. Someone else probably loves this movie: Fact. Someone else finds it to be a charming failure: Fact. See how it works? When it comes to OPINIONS, all statements are facts when relating to the speaker.
-TODD
Gee, what a surprise, Mr. Frank Church is waving away citings that come comes from right-wing publications. Propoganda! Horrors! I wonder if Mr. Church is able to now look in the mirror and see my point on source citing: or does he truly believe that right-wing sources are sewage....left-wing sources...my Gawd, what do you mean left-wing? Why, my wing is the correct wing you fools you!!
The only wing I want right now is a chicken wing.
-TODD
PA and David, I'll have to continue to disagree. To say something is needed at _all_ times because there are occasions when it should be used but is not used is to hand over control of the language to the subliterate. We may as well accept quotation marks as the new italics (another of today's commonplaces).
But that's my final comment on this. I didn't mean to create a big argument. I was simply twitting "Adam Link" for an unfair remark.
--Alex
Alex: I think the Oxford comma is needed, simply because, as David said, often it is needed when it's not used. You can probably tell I'm not a "less is more" person when it comes to language, so an extra comma that's not technically incorrect doesn't bother me. It helps younger writers be more clear. And it looks nice.
Also, I don't have a significant other, just a friend that edited a reptile magazine.
David/Lurk: What you guys said about _Moulin Rouge_? I agree with it.
Bermanator
Lurk: Honestly! You assume I'd tell those X-Files freaks who I really am? Little did they know that, lurking amongst their Mulder-humping microanalyses was...
...Ok, you caught me. It's time for me to take off my glasses and reveal my true identity...::cue dramatic horns::
I am Proctor Absinthe Berman, Defender of the Serial Comma, Circumcisor of the Dangling Participle. I'll curl your comma for you if you don't watch it, you dastardly splitter of innocent infinitives! You non-negator of double negatives! You would be persecutor of the present perfect participle! Don't make me whip a Silent E on you, 'cause then you'd be 'ric... and that would be... not your name.
OK. That's my lame-ass grammar humor for the day and attempt at public reconciliation. Love it... it's all youse gettin'.
Bermanator
whose grammar goes down the toilet in moments of public revelation, and who would like to talk more about the Oxford comma, please
Xanadu, were you kidding with those nuclear power sources? Lawrence fucking Livermore lab??--Can this be believed? A nuclear weapons designer is not my idea of "independant" sourcing.
The other two sources are right wing, pro-nuclear bs. If you will notice, on the same pages, are articles articulating the evils of gun control, and the scam science of the greenhouse effect. Hell, most mainstream scientists agree that the greenhouse gases and global warming are a major problem, and must be dealt with.
Republican apologism is not "independant" research in my book.
The idea that someone who is "progressive" is willing to fake information to suit his bias is a hoot--but where's the proof?
>I thought "Moulin Rouge" was a fascinating and charming failure. I would not have nominated as one of the Best Pictures.<
I agree, David, nicely put. The director was more successful with Strictly Ballroom, where his Aussie oddness could reign free without hurting the feel of the story.
But here, it was all a little too much. I felt cheated at the end, not sure why...maybe because the "tragic" ending didn't jive with the overblown, hallucinatory production. Misplaced seriousness, where final craziness was expected.
King Lurk
William F. Buckley loves the serial comma? I rest my case!
(Now someone will prove that Chomsky abhores the Oxford comma, and I'll have to hide under a semicolon.)
--Alex
Put me down as a strong supporter of the Oxford comma (I wasn't even aware of the name) in ALL contexts. I won't pitch a fit if someone else wants to forgo it in his or her copy, but I always use it, and support its return -- my impression was that it used to be de rigueur but started dying out in the past 40 years -- because I keep seeing too many instances of its omission creating uncertainty of meaning.
Since too many writers apparently lack the ability to judge when it's unnecessary, I think we might as well stick by it as a hard-and-fast rule.
I thought "Moulin Rouge" was a fascinating and charming failure. I would not have nominated as one of the Best Pictures.
To answer your questions briefly, Heather: I went to West Africa because I had two different friends who were temporarily there who could host me and show me around. I stayed with them basically for the first half of my 3 months, and then struck out on my own. I went by myself, yes; set my own pace, did not take any tours other than less-than-day jaunts at a specific site. (This was not too challenging an adventure, given a good guidebook and regular stops at Peace Corps houses where I could visit with other Americans who knew the area much better than I.)
French was the official language in 3 of the 5 countries I visited, English in the fourth, and there was sufficient grasp of French or English in most of the places I went in the fifth, Guinea-Bissau, which is a former Portuguese colony.
I did not keep in touch with anyone I met on that trip, although I kind of wish I had in one or two cases (British and American travelers like myself, not locals). I wrote seven columns about my observations in West Africa. They're all reprinted on my Web site.
People at work find me very funny. I tend to react against whatever is going on around me. So I'm mostly sober in this forum because so many other people here are trying to be funny and often not succeeding. What some of you need to learn is that for humor to work, you have to have a foundation of relationship: you need to know your audience and they need to know you well enough so that both sides have a reasonable chance of knowing when someone is being funny when he or she is not.
So on the 'net, it's not wise to start out trying to be funny in a new forum unless your humor is VERY BROAD. And that tends to end up just looking adolescent. Better to start out stealthily and subtly, then you can hit 'em hard.
Yes, Jon, but what about the elusive Serial Comma Killer. Quantico has a profile on a grammatically sensitive editor, probably works with online content, who is suspected in over three hundred serial comma killings. Possibly countless more that they will never be able to prove in a court of law. It is said that he keeps the souvenirs from each of his brutal slayings in a shoe box under his bed. A box of --- pauses.
::raising an eyebrow in Alex Krislov's direction::
L.
It's all funny until you do a search under 'serial comma' and discover several million hits which tend to be one of...
1) A definition.
2) A definition and a lament about the decreasing role of the serial comma in today's terrible modern society.
3) A definition and a lament about the increasing role of the serial comma in today's terrible modern society.
4) A definition and a paean to the triumph of the serial comma in today's terrific modern society.
5) A definition and a paean to the defeat of the serial comma in today's terrific modern society.
6) The 'Ayn Rand and God' parental anecdote.
7) A reference to Lawrence Block's hatred of the serial comma.
8) A reference to William F. Buckley's love of the serial comma.
9) An explanation of the Oxford/serial/Harvard alternate names for this particular use of the comma along with at least one reference to the history of typesetting.
10) All nine of the above along with a MIDI soundtrack loop and a pop-up window for a computer camera set-up.
Jon
>Lurk is doing some scary stalker-ish research about me on his free time<
Hardly. There are other X-files fans out here, you know. And per your request, I've e-mailed you, to clear the air. Waiting on your reply.
Lurk
Rick!
Lead on! I will follow you wherever you choose to take us.
Cindy
Hey Mathew,
EXCELLENT information on the film industry question.
Fascinating!
Thank you,
:)
Cindy
Lynn,
Oh, get off my back, woman! You're telling me I'm too sensitive, Lurk is doing some scary stalker-ish research about me on his free time, and I feel like you're all paying waaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much attention to me. Go conjugate an intransitive verb or something, will ya? Talk to your friends in real life, or something freakin' meaningful.
Bermanator
Lynn, I could make a crude joke about you getting your tongue out of my cheek, but some sensitive people on this board might misinterpret my off-color gag and threaten a lynch mob.
I could of dunnit, but I din't.
-TODD
Todd~ We could discuss transitive verb abuse instead. You could of brought that up. I mean, we would of talked about that if you'd mentioned it. Maybe we should of... I dunno.
;)
::tongue planted firmly in cheek::
L.
Lynn, I'm sick and tired of your endless, senseless comma-usage harangues. If you don't start treating us like the grown-ups that we are, I'm going to take my ball and go play in another field! Bitch! Harpy! I hate you , I hate you! Oh, why did father have to die?????????
(( thank you, thank you. That was an original playlet that I call "Internet Love By Todd Cassel))
-TODD
P.A.~ Um, no offense, but your sensitivity is showing. Rey di Lurk isn't really the one being hostile. Playful maybe, but I don't see his posts as attacking you.
Can we fight about comma usage some more?
L.
Rick~ I can't testify for ProHosting, but I can tell you that Xeran's tech support is top notch (if a bit full of themselves sometimes). They always respond to inquiries within two to four hours of the question being asked.
L.
PS. And yes, digitalcarrion.com is hosted with Xeran.
Lurk: Sorry, dude, not calling you "KING." You don't get to be King here when you leave in a huff. Lurk will have to do for you. If you want to call me Paula, or late for dinner, knock yourself out. You're making yourself look like a vindictive jerk, but then, you must realize that. I think you should get over it and move on, and stop attacking me. People are leaving this board in droves because of just this kind of shit. So can we stop now, Godfaddah? And talk about something other than our stupid selves?
If you really want to have it out with me, mail me privately. Otherwise, stop degrading the atmosphere here and talk about something that actually means something.
Bermanator
Rick:
I've gone through the four services you've listed and for me it is a tie between Prohosting and Xeran. I don't know how much space you actually need for this site, but I'm thinking that bandwidth is probably of higher consideration, especially given the traffic on this board alone, the reloads, the lies and recriminations... oh wait, that was something else.
You might want to scope out OLM.net, although, I not completely sure about its advanced access, (CGI-BIN access, etc.)
---Peter
PA, my mistake...I was under the impression that Paula WAS your actual first name.
For me, King Lurk will do as well.
King Lurk
P.A., well, if it's any consolation, you're not the only English nerd here. While I'm a writer and webmaster by trade, I do have two degrees in English. Like your signicant other, I have several years of experience as a magazine editor, too. A few minor journalism awards dot my wall. So, despite the clown hat and the rosy nose, I'm not entirely unqualified.
Obviously, I learned a different approach from yours. I believe the acceptance of the unnecessary comma is a capitulation to the commonplace, not unlike the adoption of "hopefully" as a word meaning "I hope." A matter of taste? Perhaps. To my mind, adding something that's not needed is always a crime against the language. I believe the now common addition of unnecessary commas is an affront to English. It looks awful to me. Whether this is due to my exquisite taste or my status as an old fart is open to question, of course. In fairness, I must note that I just joined AARP, so I'm now, officially, Not Young. So if my grammar seems creaky, it's only matching the sound of my bones.
--Alex
Lurk/Eric: Didn't we decide to make peace? I guess you were only saying that to lull me into a false sense of security as you planned your next fiendish assault.
Just don't call me late for dinner...but you might want to use my correct name.
Just for the record:
P.A. Berman (don't strain yourself typing that)
or
just Bermanator (for the typing impaired)
will do.
Thanks. More gender confusion re: my identity is fun and exciting for me. However, probably not so interesting to the rest of the board, so maybe, if you want to discuss me further, you could e-mail me privately. Otherwise, things are going to get ugly again real fast, and nobody wants that. Right?
Bermanator
Rick,
Good luck, and I hope that acronoym problem clears up.
All right, so I'll admit I have no idea of what most of your post was talking about. That's why my company has an IT department: to do the things I don't understand.
Matthew,
Thanks for coming up with the reason for the origin of Hollywood. I knew there was money involved, but I couldn't quite remember the exact reasoning.
Regards,
Joseph
>Peace, man, and, uh, welcome back. Can I call you Eric? "King Lurk" just gives me a pain in the ass. I promise if I need to insult you, I'll use your pseudonym.<
Only if I can call you Paula. "P.A." is too hard to type.
King Lurk
Alex, yes I'm an English nerd, so I am interested in this debate about the Oxford comma. I always learned and was taught that you needed the final comma before the "and" for clarity. I'm not too sure about whether or not it's unprofessional... my best friend is a magazine editor and he considers it standard (yes, I asked him. It was a thrilling convo).
I got the sense that journalists don't use it much but academics do, thus the Chicago Manual of Style advocates its use. Is it really fair to say that only amateurs use it? Personally, I don't see it as an "ugly appendage"; I think it makes the sentence look neater, more accurately compartmentalized. Could this in fact be a matter of taste, to be judged on a case-by-case basis?
I can hear everyone snoring...
Bermanator
Konnichi wa, folks!
ANDREW: Thanks for supplying that information on Earth-to-Mars transit time. I was actually a little surprised - only 18 months? I was thinking 30 or 35.
RICK WYATT: Good luck in moving the Webderland. I'm sorry to say I'm utterly clueless when it comes to hard-core computer gobbledygook, but the other guys are bound to be a lot more help than me.
On the 'CONSPIRACY ZONE' broadcast: I don't get TNN. GodDAMNit. I haven't seen Harlan in the flesh since his days on Sc-Fi Buzz, and I was about 10 the very last time I saw him. Once again I can't be a part of a fantastic conversation.
I do have something to say on commercials, though. They are breeding. And they completely remove even the remotest enjoyment you can take out of any program. Ten minutes of intriguing story...BRAINWASH TIME!!!!! Ten minutes of story...BRAINWASH TIME!!!!! I think DOCTOR WHO had it right - a good half hour of uninterrupted thrills 'n' chills at tea-time, and you could switch off the screen the moment the credits have rolled.
I actually hurt nowadays when I watch commercials. I mean, I'm in actual physical pain. The only, ahem, GOOD commercials out there (a gigantic contradiction, no matter what) are the ones that actually take the time to make fun of themselves in the process.
That wraps it up for now.
Little Washu
(P.S. My thanks to Harlan for showing that 'TV' and 'tv' are indeed two very different things.)
Thanks to all for your kind words regarding the new baby. Told the family and everyone is excited. The next few months will be interesting.
Jay & Pam
It's already been said...too many damn commercials.
I thought the most salient point HE made was when it was admitted that the only "evidence" was eye-witness accounts. In other words, UFOlogy is a revelation, not a science. It has not empricical evidence; it is all based on personal experience and witnessing. Sound familiar? It's a religion.
That's not to trivialize the mystical experiences that people are having, and that get attributed to UFO abduction. Whether these experiences are because of schizophrenia, or dream-states, or Jaynes' bicameral mind theory, or fairies, or whatever, the worst thing debunkers can do is call these people fools.
HE didn't do that; he focused on the two yahoos that he was paneled with. They are "more dangerous" than "abductees" because they seek to create a vast conspiracy theory and false science to explain psychological experiences. Humans have been having visions for a million years; UFOs are just the flavor of the month to explain them.
What really pisses me off is when any technological achievement of the past 50 years is attributed to "back-engineered" UFO technology. Like we could handle the cotton gin and the telephone, but are too stupid to develop the transistor and the laser. Ugh, give me a break. Well done, HE.
King Lurk
P.A.,
That's a good example of the need for commas to avoid confusion. However, when there is no confusion likely, a comma is just an ugly appendage that draws attention to itself. As to snippy, yep--I was deliberately giving "Adam Link" a taste of his or her own medicine. There really is an "Oxford comma," you know. To quote from a "good usage" manual here online--
"This last comma—the one between the word "and" and the preceding word—is often called the serial comma or the Oxford comma. In newspaper writing, incidentally, you will seldom find a serial comma, but that is not necessarily a sign that it should be omitted in academic prose."
In other words, the pros don't need it.
--Alex
P.A. Berman: Just a REAL quickie, re: India.Arie. She's fabulous! If you think she sounded good on SNL (and you're right: their sound system is atrocious), check out her CD, "Acoustic Soul." It's gorgeous.
She was also recently nominated for a slew of Grammys, but was passed over in favor of Nelly Furtado and Alicia Keys (also wonderful).
More later. Off to be a productive member of the species! Groan.
-- Lorin
Jon & Brian--
Thanks for the reccommended books. Sagan talks about Gardner's book, I believe. I wrote the titles down and will put them with my Webderland titles--all the titles I've written down that have been posted here. Hope my wife doesn't catch me or she won't want me to come lurk here anymore. She already thinks I have too many books despite my insisting there is no such thing.
Now HERE's an idea for CZ. Either hire Harlan as a cohost or give him the host job. He's just as funny as Kevin Nealon and I'm willing to bet people will tune in just to watch the poor believers get put in their place.
Bill
Alex K: Feeling a wee bit snippy about comma usage, are you? Definitely take it up with the Chicago Manual people, but don't kill the messenger.
Funny, this is the example I found that argues in favor of the use of a serial comma, which happens to be relevant to another discussion we've been having:
:: Perhaps the best argument for the serial comma is that apocryphal book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God". ::
See, doesn't that make you long for punctuation?
Bermanator
Why did people originally move to Hollywood? Thomas Edison.
In the early part of the 20th century much of the film-making was on the North-East coast of America, around Menlo Park.. With the increase in technology Edison was suing left and right for patent infringement. Eventually he and 9 or 10 of the biggest companies got together and formed the Motion Picture Patents Company. Anybody who wanted to make a film effectively had to go through them, and if you didn’t want to then the heavy mob came around to effect a little amateur chiropractic. Independent film makers wanted to get as far away as possible and this particular hegira eventually led them to southern California, which was largely unsettled, had good shooting weather and was close enough to Mexico so that every time some legal threat was in the offing from MPPC they could nip over the border. Eventually, around about 1915 or so the MMPC was broken up by Anti-Trust legislation but by then people like DeMille, Sennet, etc had settled down rather comfortably.
I finally followed Joseph's link to the article on the Ayn Rand Institute site. Yipe. Talk about rhetorical overkill. Linking being a "communist" with the deaths of millions in the USSR was quite a leap of irrationality. I've encountered a few Ayn Rand ayndroids, and they just give me the creeps. I almost expect them to give a reflexive Nazi salute like Dr. Strangelove's artificial arm. They have taken her ideas, which were an almost satanic celebration of self-centered narcissism, and turned them into a set series of pre-programmed responses.
I recall Rand once saying that the United States should attack the USSR right away. I think it was in the mid-eighties. She assured everyone, her being an expert, having emigrated from there, that the Russian people hated their government so much they'd rise up and overthrow it. Yeah, like they did in World War Two. God, I'm glad she's dead.
Chuck
OKAY GANG - NEED YOUR HELP HERE
I've decided Webderland probably needs to move. I have been to long without database and hit/referer tracking capabilities and it's holding my back on improving forums, putting the bibliographical database back online, etc. Volpegroup.com has been great but the guy that set all this up for me isn't there anymore.
I need fairly high bandwidth (you guys keep this site busy), my own cgi-bin directory that can handle my custom Perl scripts, database access with server side includes such as ASP/SQL or PHP/MySQL, 24/7 telnet access, domain pointing to subdirectories for my two vanity domains rickwyatt.com and homerdog.com with e-mail support for the vanity domains, POP e-mail, and decent hit tracking and referer tracking.
I've looked at quite a few web hosting services. I've decided that as much as I'd like to go with ASP and SQL Server, the Windows 2000/NT solutions are just too expensive. So I'm gonna go with Unix and PHP/MySql. Dissenting opinions are welcome. Here is a short list of my best candidates - look them over if you have time and tell me what you think looks best. Or suggest another provider.
Communitech - communitech.net 26.95-31.95/mo
Tons of features, $25.00 one-time charge for domain pointers
Pair Networks - www.pair.com - Webmaster Account 28.95/mo
Has telnet and SSH but a 500mb/day limit, domain pointers free
Xeran Technologies - www.xeran.com - eUser Account 18.95/mo
Has unlimited hits but extra domain pointers $8.95/mo EACH
Pro Hosting - prohosting.com 34.95/mo with subdomains
Chuck wrote...
"It was an epic plan. It was small compared to the 1952 DAS MARS PROJEKT by Von Braun, which would have needed to launch 37,000
tons to Mars. That's the dry weight of a WW2 battleship."
Oh, man. Now we know where *Starblazers* got the "Yamato in space" idea!
And...
"Chuck Who leads a maniacal death cult full of yellow tabby cats. The cult serves no useful purpose, and poses no threat, since it's damn near impossible to get yellow tabby cats to
do anything, no way, no how. Manson tried this before the Helter Skelter thing, and was reduced to tears within a week."
And if they're calico tabbies, Chuck will be completely safe from John Ashcroft...
Jon
I have that Sladek book. It's a real treasure, and well worth hunting down. But, if you can't find it, James Randi's _Flim-Flam!_ and Martin Gardner's _Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science_ are equally seekable.
Chuck: thanks for the further discussion of the Mars-mission logistics. It's made the prospect a lot more probable, but I still stand by my opinion that establishing a Moon base is a step that must be taken before a manned Mars mission. A lot of potential Mars-mission problems could be ironed out with this earlier, smaller-scale project, and given the Moon's shallower gravity-well, it'd probably make the job a lot easier.
Of course, we'd probably benefit from a series of really strong _unmanned_ return missions to Mars. Send machines out, let'em do the soil sampling and atmosphere-analysis, and launch the samples back to us. It'd improve on the remote-control issues, and provide a stronger basis for having a manned mission in the first place.
Re Biosphere II. The John Allen group was an extremely flaky bunch, no doubt. I cited the project solely because the idea of building a test biosphere on Earth, to work out the bugs and engineering problems, was a sound principle. Granted, they didn't do it _right_, but that's what you get when your leader's a crank.
To Cindy, re nuance and dialogue and more. There's still a lot of Good Stuff turning up here and there. Martin Scorcese's never disappointed me, and the monumental legacy of Stanley Kubrick was well served by Spielberg this past year. Curtis Hanson's last two films, _L.A. Confidential_ and _The Wonder Boys_ demonstrated fine cinematic style with proper respect for the written word. And remember, if you haven't seen it before, it's new, so you can always discover such gems as _The Apartment_, _One, Two Three_, _The Maltese Falcon_...
Now calm down. I'm going to be brief.
Conspriacy Zone: I only caught the last 10 minutes, so all I got was a soupcon. What was there was choice, although I was a bit upset that Nealon only brought up two toothless wonders from the audience to ask questions and make comments. Maybe the reason the aliens won't reveal themselves is because they always seem to kidnap and anal-probe people like this and think that this is the way we ALL are.
For those who also missed it, the show will repeat on Friday at 10:00 pm (mountain time).
Lynn: LOVED Your Fox Common Denominator Award. This man IS the Fox audience.
Cindy, Joseph, Heather, Brian & Jay: The discussion on the history of Hollywood is fascinating.
Chuck
Brian,
I'm glad you pointed out that fact. We owe a great debt to so many who came here seeking refuge.
Are there any men left who dazzle like those from that golden era, when it was all about dialogue and nuance and not about blowing up cars and exposing hi tech breasts?
Ok, there's Harlan... name two more... wait, Algis Budrys dazzles, Steven Spielberg.
Any more?
I'm not talking about innate charm or superficial sparkle-- which can be fascinating.
I mean brilliance of the kind that makes you want to shut up forever and just listen.
Cindy
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
THIS IS GOING TO BE A LOOOONNNNG POST.
On the Moon and Mars (Sorry, Bermanator. Mwahahaha!): First the question by Little Washu on mission duration. It would take from 5 to 10 months to get to Mars. That's with conventional chemical propulsion, preferrably with methane or hydrogen as fuel. With more exotic propulsion methods, the trip can be shortened quite a bit. I'm primarily talking about using technology developed in the 60's and 70's for Apollo and the Shuttle. So, we're going with good old reliable (as reliable as the techology gets right now) chemical propulsion.By the way, if the mission duration seems brutal, remember that people sailed across oceans and around the world in wooden ships with rotten food, (literally) slimy, stinky drinking water, brutal discipline, and the only toilet facilities for the crew consisted of a grating on the front of the ship. On the OUTSIDE of the ship. Hanging right over the bow. Imagine having to take a dump in the middle of a freezing rain storm, with waves splashing over you. The facilities on the proposed spacecraft would be a luxury cruise by comparison.
Brian: The statement I made on "return of investment" concerned the article in Astronomy magazine in which the author wrote about "getting a return on our investment in project Apollo", which I mentioned earlier in my post.
By the way, thanks for spelling my name right (wink-wink, nudge- nudge).
I'm a little puzzled by the referrence to Biosphere 2 and the maniacal death cult lurking in the background. Biosphere 2 can be used as an example of how NOT to build a Mars colony, although some areas, like the water recyling system were both ingenious and sucessful. The oxygen system, however, was commandeered by microbes, causing problems with the biosphere's atmosphere. As for the cult, well, the original "Biospherians" did come off as kinda flaky, and the claims about the air tightness of the greenhouse shell of the biosphere were 100 percent hype. You also didn't mention the fact that Biospere 2 "inspired" a Pauly Shore movie. Yech.
I must apologize for some of the areas that were unclear. I was trying to have an internet conversation with family members at the same time I was typing up my post. I also meant my statement to be preliminary, not a finished argument.
Andrew talked about "fuel factories" as a part of a Mars program. In addition to his post, I would like to give credit to the one who came up with all these ideas: Robert Zubrin, former engineer for Martin Marietta, (before they were bought out by Lockheed). Let's go back to 1989, during the 20th anniversary celebration of Apollo 11. Pres. George I challenged NASA to sent an expedition to Mars by 2018. NASA responded with the 90 day paper, which detailed a mission to Mars involving a 980 ton spacecraft assembled in Earth orbit, Space Station Freedom being used as an orbiting shipyard, god knows how many launches, orbiting fuel depots, etc. It was an epic plan. It was small compared to the 1952 DAS MARS PROJEKT by Von Braun, which would have needed to launch 37,000 tons to Mars. That's the dry weight of a WW2 battleship. NASA proposed 980 tons. Then, someone asked how much this would cost. NASA hemmed and hawed, then finally gave their estimate. 480 billion dollars. Talk about sticker shock.
Zubrin asked himself why it was so huge and expensive. The reason was that the spacecraft would haul all the propellant and consumables for the entire trip. More propellant meant more spacecraft, which needed more propellant, etc. The problem, he reasoned, was that NASA was not using the same approach to exploration that previous explorers used for thousands of years: live off the land. He proposed an idea that would reduce the size of what was now two spacecraft to about 280 tons total. Spacecraft one, the return module would be sent ahead, umanned, to Mars. Once it landed there, a chemical plant inside the vehicle would use a 19th century chemical process to combine the CO2 atmosphere with a tank of hydrogen to produce methane, oxygen and water. The water would use electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen, the O2 going into the tanks, and the hydrogen going back into the methane making process. It would take about a year for the process to fill the tanks on the return vehicle. Once the tanks were full, the manned expedition would be launched. When the mission was over, the return vehicle would launch directly back to Earth, leaving the hab module behind, along with whatever experiments were being conducted. A return vehicle would be launched at the same time (roughly) as the manned expedition, which would be used by the next crew for their return trip, or the first crew in an emergency. The hab modules would be about 33 ft. in diameter with two decks. It would look like a huge tuna can. (Sorry, Stanley) The hab module would carry enough food, water and other consumables for three years as a safety margin. This would be decent food, not roast beef and mashed potato paste in a tube. The hab would also carry a methane powered rover with an enclosed, pressurized cabin. It would also use the methane and oxygen produced by the return vehicle's fuel plant.
The type of trajectory used in the 90 day plan was faster, but it only gave the crew 30 days to explore the surface of Mars. Two weeks would be lost to the crew recovering from the effects of the zero g experienced on the trip. A two-week window of exploration for 480 BILLION.
Zubrin's plan, dubbed Mars Direct, would use a low-energy path which would allow the crew to stay for over 400 days on Mars, costing about 20 billion. The previous figure is the start-up cost, spread over ten years. The actual missions would cost two billion every two years. The use of fuel made on site would reduce the cost of a Mars mission by a substantial degree. NASA's referrence mission varies from Mars Direct in that they would launch a third spacecraft, a crew transfer vehicle. It would be the taxi to and from Mars, with the return vehicle scaled down to simply launch the crew from the martian surface to the orbiting taxi home. This would mean a total of over 400 tons of spacecraft costing 40 billion or more.Zubrin called this Mars Semi-Direct.
Zubrin has built and tested a small-scale fuel manufacturing plant, and used the propellant to power a small liquid-fueled rocket engine. It works.
The moon has no atmosphere at all, so if you used the same principle of living off the land, you'd need to mine the soil and rocks for oxygen, and there's nothing there for propellant. All fuel would have to come from Earth. As for the growing of crops, that would be for a larger colony, not a small base. The bases on the moon would be easily supported by the same infrastructure as the Mars expeditions, with a scaled-down return vehicle and the same hab module.
Mars Direct and NASA's Reference Mission would used a Saturn V equivalent rocket derived from the booster section of the Space Shuttle. Nothing new or exotic.
I'm digging for the figures in the amount of DeltaV needed to reach Mars versus going to the moon. I'll post it in a later, shorter post. (Hmm. First a loud groan, then a grudging sigh of relief. Hey, I wasn't all THAT interested in the baseball postings, but that's what the scroll bar is for.)
I'm sure I left some things out in this posting. Feel free to rip away at it. It ain't the bible.
Chuck
Who leads a maniacal death cult full of yellow tabby cats. The cult serves no useful purpose, and poses no threat, since it's damn near impossible to get yellow tabby cats to do anything, no way, no how. Manson tried this before the Helter Skelter thing, and was reduced to tears within a week.
Debunking and Wilderness Areas:
Bill: John Sladek also did a fine book debunking the paranormal called *The New Apocrypha.* Unfortunately, it's generally listed as 'Hard to Find,' but if you do find it, it's a treat.
Frank Church: You're not related to the former senator, are you? I ran across references to the 'Frank Church Wilderness Area' while doing nature research (don't ask) and went, enh?!?!?
Jon
Hidey hidey high...
Breaking radio silence for a pertinent message, then back into my life again.
Just woke from solid sleep, and killing a bit of time before passing out again. Viewed "The Conspiracy Zone" and, after sifting past annoying commerical breaks with the technological advance of the fast-forward button, liked the overall show.
Good Job, the One called Ellison. Buy the jumbo-sized Visine to clear up the redness in your one eye.
Well, have fun all. Agent Meat signing off. If you're ever up my way, don't hesitate to drop by.
What's that? You don't know where I live? Oh, sorry, I forgot. It's...
(end transmission)
On the run here, but...
We're adults here, not fifth-grade students still learning how to use the comma. Thus, we should not confuse the use of commas between independent clauses (e.g., where "but" is used") and the use of commas in a series. The "Oxford comma" is used only to avoid confusion--or by lazy writers who can't trust their own control over their materials.
Nyah.
--Alex
Damn, the [snip]s are mine, and they appear below as six periods in a row.)
OK, Frank - you've provided sources with facts - here are three that disagree with the basic premise that plutonium is spectacularly lethal - after each link below is an excerpt that makes the point for a casual reader (the s are mine)... But please, feel free to read the papers for yourself.
-----------------
http://www.atomicinsights.com/may95/plutonium_eff.html
"During the Manhattan Project in 1944 and 1945, 26 men accidentally ingested plutonium in quantities that far exceeded what is now considered to be a lethal dose.......As of 1987, more than four decades later, only four of the workers had died and only one death was caused by cancer.......It has to be considered important, however, to know that at least 22 men have been able to live more than 40 years after ingesting 'the most toxic substance known to man.'"
http://www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/
"In summary, the claims of dire health consequences from the introduction of plutonium into the air or into a municipal water supply are greatly exaggerated. The combination of rapid and almost complete sedimentation, dilution in large volumes of water, and minimal uptake of plutonium from the GI tract would all act to preclude serious health consequences to the public from the latter scenario. And although the dispersal of plutonium in air (as the result of a fire or explosion, for example) would cause immense concern and cleanup problems, it would not result in widespread deaths or dire health consequences, as terrorists might hope. Dissipation due to wind and air turbulence would rapidly dilute any respirable aerosol. Only people within a few meters of the source could receive a prompt lethal dose. Delayed effects in the form of fatal cancers outside this region would probably not appear in affected individuals until years later. For a vast majority of the population of any city, the increase in cancer risk arising from exposure to plutonium aerosol would be a fraction of that arising from other, more common health hazards."
http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm
"It is clear from Table I that Pu is dangerous principally as an inhalant, so we now consider the consequences of a dispersal of Pu powder in a populated area.......As we know the cancer risk per microgram of Pu inhaled from Table I, it is straightforward to calculate the total number of cancers expected per gram of Pu dispersed. When corrections are applied for the fraction of typical Pu powders that are in particles of respirable size, the efficiency of dispersal, the protection afforded by being inside buildings, and decreased breathing rates at night, the result is that we may expect about one eventual cancer for every 24 g of Pu dispersed, or about 19 fatalities per pound.
If there is a warning, as in a blackmail scenario, people can be instructed to breathe through a folded handkerchief or a thick article of clothing, with a resulting decrease in fatalities to 3 per pound dispersed."
----------------
There you go Frank - three independent, scientific analyses of the danger of plutonium. Since your sources, while technical, are definitely not peer-reviewed papers, would you please consider that maybe your sources are exaggerating the danger for a specific, political reason? Or will you simply dismiss these papers as part of the larger conspiracy?
HarlanEllison.com - Your Gateway to the Pre-Continuum of Nuttiness.
I'd like you to know that Bill, my loving husband-to-be, sitting on the couch next to me, at one point looked up at the television, watching you with your fingers interlaced, with that enormous stack of documents in front of you, and counted aloud, "Four... Three... Two... One... Cue Harlan..." He then went back to his book as you tore into 'em. I was rolling as you laid the painful truth on that disbelieving congregation.
Did you bring the entire GAO report for 1947 with you? What were those blue binders? And kudos to Kevin for asking the gentleman (who was talking about Area 51), "How many areas are there?" Yes, the editing sucked; yes, there were too many commercials; yes, I'll probably never watch it again. But if you folks out in Webderland missed this one, you missed a glimpse of Harlan in his finest form.
And I nominate one Rebecca Williams of Los Angeles for the "Most Obscure Yet Unyielding Pronouncement in the Form of a Question" award. Mr. Kee Dogo brings up the rear with the "Lowest Common Denominator and/or Fox Channel's Prime Demographic" Award.
L.
Courtesy Strunk & White: http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#2
In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last. Thus write,
red, white, and blue
honest, energetic, but headstrong
He opened the letter, read it, and made a note of its contents.
This is also the usage of the Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press.
In the names of business firms the last comma is omitted, as
Brown, Shipley and Company
Frank, yI really wish you'd stick to the subject. You were complaining that we couldn't debate the funding of NASA. I pointed out that we have done so. Now you're complaining that the decision isn't on your tax form.
Then might I suggest that you complain about _lack of participation in the budgeting process_, rather than singling out NASA or yabbering about how we can't debate it? If you're going to complain about NASA, fine-- you've done so. If you're going to complain about the decision-making process on budgeting, then address your comments to _that_ topic.
To Cindy, re your comment about how Los Angeles became a haven for the New York intelligentsia. That's true, and in addition to that, it also became a haven for the _European_ intelligentia that fled Hitler-- Fritz Lang, Billy Wilder, Bertold Brecht and Thomas Mann among the more prominent members of this elite.
To P.A. Berman: I really enjoyed _Moulin Rouge_. T'was like a big Italian wedding cake layered with shitloads of multicolored frostings. To each his own, I guess.
Re skeptics on TV. This is a subject I can speak on with a _little_ authority, since I've actually done that duty on a local talk show. (Just once, and I found I look terrible on TV.) It's a tough gig to perform, especially if a studio audience is involved, and you have to have a taste for being the Spectre at the Banquet, to borrow one of Harlan's phrases. And there's always the danger that the host will be a believer, and will turn on you in a second-- this happened when James Randi did the Oprah Winfrey show, and that multimedia powerhouse stood revealed to me as a small-minded, moralistic tyrant with little tolerance for rationality or reason.
The great thing about Shermer is that, on television, he doesn't come off as arrogant or condescending. I've seen skeptics go on TV with the attitude that they're H.L. Mencken at a snakehandling tent show, and they usually come off as jerks. Shermer really is fascinated with why people believe strange things, and he doesn't adopt any poses.
Is anyone here familiar with the music of India.arie? I saw her on Saturday Night Live last night and was really impressed. Her voice was strong, the guitars was superb, and her lyrics were uplifting. It's *tough* to sound really great on SNL's sound system, so I'm wondering if she might be something special. Haven't ever heard her before and was hoping to get some opinions of her album before I go out and buy it. Anyone?
Bermanator
My biggest complaint with tonight's CONSPIRACY ZONE (I've only seen tonight's) is that it seemed roughly edited. Oh, yeah, and what someone else said here (sorry, I forgot who it was): too many damn commercials. Will I watch CZ again? Nope.
Keeping in this vein, I'm reading Carl Sagan's book THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD. Great book.
Bill
Joseph says:
"While I find your comments on Moulin Rogue incomprehensible, they're opinions, and not some statement of fact. "
Of course they're opinions. What else would they be? And is it truly so hard to comprehend why someone wouldn't like Moulin Rouge? I realize that you liked it, apparently plenty of people did and that's cool, but I hope you will acknowledge that there were valid reasons why Cindy might liken it to a root canal.
Also...Could the cliched love story really hold a candle to the beautifully wrought relationship in _Monster's Ball_? Could Ewan MacGregor's stilted acting compare to Guy Pearce's nuanced work in _Memento_? Could the annoying Elton John song hold a candle to any of the musical numbers in, say, _Shrek_? Or the ensemble cast hold a candle to the crew in _The Royal Tenenbaums_? And didn't Nicole Kidman give a much more interesting performance in _The Others_? You may not agree with any of the above, but that's why I feel like MR didn't deserve to be nominated for Best Picture. There were just so many great, edgy films this year that were totally ignored by the Academy.
Alex, re: RoboBoy's use of the comma after the "and"-- The Oxford, or Harvard, or serial comma has become standard. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends its use for greater clarity. Just to be fair...
Bermanator
Mr. Ellison:
First, my applause for your appearance on "The Conspiracy Zone". I found you both charming and informative, unlike the other two "experts". Scotty will watch it tomorrow.
I was a bit dismayed at the two questioners they subjected you to at the end, both apparently dyed-in-the-wool UFO nuts (I personally don't believe myself). The woman seemed most strident to point out that your extrapolations about this Roswell nonsense were an opinion, unlike the other two men, who only posited supposition, without any proof.
It's a pity, sir, to find folks who are so willing to throw aside their logic and reason working alongside the facts which could only leave the conclusion that "little men from Mars" can only exist in the minds of the easily duped or the entirely uninformed.
My applause to you for your efforts, delivered with both charm and humor. For what it's worth, I've picked out a couple of your works that Scotty has recommended.
Thanks and congratulations, Melissa
I just watched Harlan's appearance on Conspiracy Zone.
It's hard to believe TV has devolved to the point where a half hour shows needs to take FOUR commercial breaks. Good grief.
I spent the first part of the show wondering how the two UFO guys could get taken seriously. The Rube Goldbergian machinations they can explain so well but provide no proof for don't even pass the most rudimentary of scratch and sniff tests ("I ain't buyin', mister, if that's all you got to sell. At least give me a decent song and dance!")
However, the woman's question at the end reminded me of why guys like that have a receptive audience. People want to believe. And they don't want to be bothered to think. When she boiled down her convoluted question to its essence, she asked nothing more than "Why NOT believe?"
Ugh! You don't know how depressing I find that attitude. It's frightening, too, because so many of my fellow hairless apes adhere to it.
The sad thing is, the woman was on to something with her first mangled form of the question. She asked, "How can we be so arrogant to think our opinions have anything to do with whether aliens are visiting us or not?"
Damn right! Whether Harlan believes it's not true or whether the guy who wrote the book believes it is true is irrelevant. My opinion, your opinion - they don't count.
That's what we have facts for. The facts are out only guide.
A few times Harlan asked, "What proof do you have?" None was offered.
And that's the answer to the question, "Why NOT believe?"
I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of applause Harlan did get from the audience on a few occasions. Skeptics are rarely well received in such forums. The few times I've seen Michael Shermer on Politically Incorrect, it feels like the audience wants to lynch him.
It must be difficult to have to look like you are taking this argument seriously. As a baseball fanatic/historian, I have to deal with a similar issue all the time - the whole "Shoeless Joe was innocent" insanity. Joe Jackson took money to throw games. He admitted to it. He played poorly in the four (the ONLY four) games the Black Sox were paid to throw. At the trial, he asked when he was going to get his money. He was angry that he had only received a part of the agreed on payment.
Apologists linger to this day and as the facts get more and more obscured by the passage of time, their case only grows superficially stronger. I have no patience dealing with these people. They are wrong. The facts indicate clearly they are wrong. And it's so compeltely uninteresting, they don't even deserve to be taken seriously anymore. Yet they must be for no other reason than that they are loud, relatively numerous and trumpet a message with tremendous crowd appeal. Likewise, the UFO conspiracy theorists.
Besides, if you insist on discussing UFOs, why focus on Roswell? It has been so completely debunked, it lacks interest as anything other than the pervading cultural myth it has become. The Tunguska blast is far, far more interesting.
Harlan,
Now that, to use modern jargan, was sweeeeeeeeeet. Loved the way you took over the show. Too bad it wasn't longer.
Moulin Rouge--I loved it, although not quite so much as I loved Strictly Ballroom. But the film had a particular, peculiar vision and made it work. It was fun, crazy, unique and filled with eye candy. I thought it deserved an Oscar for the parody of "Like a Virgin" alone. We need to encourage this sort of chaotic, rule-breaking spirit. It wasn't _dull._ How often can you say that about a film anymore?
But the Oscars are strange this year. The foofaraw over A Beautiful Mind on the Drudge site is an indicator of how influential the web has become--and how it has become influential for all the wrong reasons. Someone managed to plant a bee in Drudge's bonnett so that A Beautiful Mind got plenty of negative coverage for being politically incorrect. And worse--it got the bad coverage because the subject was politically incorrect even when the movie was _not_ politically incorrect. Heads I win, Tails you lose thinking, masterfully applied through a third party.
I know the Oscar voting can be political, but this was downright dispicable.
Adam Link, Wiseass:
You wrote, "we also try to pay attention to the rules of grammar, word use, spelling, and punctuation." Please be advised that you don't need a comma before the "and." When you're reprogrammed, leave out all that snot.
--Alex
Washu ~ I believe that current mission profiles run about 18 months transit time (or is it 10?). A lot depends on Earth's position, relative to Mars, and the type of orbit they are trying to achieve.
Brian ~ You make very good points regarding the Moon vs. Mars. There is one small addition I'd like to make, if I may. One of the mission plans being discussed, for a manned mission to Mars, involves the launch of automated fuel "factories" that would be launched well in advance of the manned spacecraft. When the actual expedition arrives, the factories would be well on their way to producing enough fuel for the return flight.
-Andrew
Frank,
Thanks for providing factual (albeit questionable) sources for a change. I do notice that none of the sources actually mention several additional reasons why solar power is not feasible.
1) Interplanetary debris: There is an awful lot of material between Earth and Saturn (there was in fact a lot of doubt as to whether or not Pioneer would make it to Jupiter intact, at the time it was launched) and an immense solar panel (or a pair) makes an incredibly large target.
2) Fuel Cells: As Apollo 13 (the mission, not the movie) demonstrated, this a technology that has an incredible failure rate. Batteries are okay, but batteries with enough storage capacity would add a great deal of weight to the craft.
3) Complexity: The RTG, in a nutshell, uses the heat given up by decaying radioactive material (in this case plutonium, I believe uranium was used in earlier models) to generate electricity by way of a thermocouple. It is incredibly simple in its basic form. Solar panels of the size required, need a deployment system (once the craft has separated from the launch vehicle), a storage system (batteries or the equivalent), and possibly a system to adjust the panels. If you were the engineer designing the craft, which method has the greater chance for failure? There have been several mission failures involving improperly deployed solar panels.
I think it's best not continue discussing the safety issues regarding RTG's. I noticed a lot of couldas and wouldas and not a lot of didn'ts. As I stated in an earlier post, it is possible to get different results from the same data set. Especially if one is looking for a particular result. There's a lot more danger in getting in your car and driving, it would seem to me. You run risks every time you turn on the oven, run your microwave or even use the toilet (I heard on NPR that most accidents in the home involve the toilet, I'm not kidding). And if you think I was kidding about that smoke detector crack, think again. You might be surprised to learn that most of the detectors in use today use radioactive material in the sensor unit. Still think you're safe?
-Andrew
Why yes, I am an agent of Satan. However my duties are largely ceremonial.
HE is on Conspiracy Zone NOW and he's kicking ass!
You've only missed the first few minutes...turn on TNN.
King Lurk
Dan Thorne: Be careful - I've heard there will be TWO LotR DVDs released, the first, in August, will be the theatrical release only - few extras. It's the November release - at least two discs - that incorporates the extra footage. It's also supposed to include scenes of gifts being given to more of the Fellowship than just Frodo.
RE: Lord of the Rings
Peter Jackson said the dvd release will be about 30 minutes longer. The extra footage will be incorporated into the film, not tagged on as an extra. It's supposed to include more character moments of the kind between Aragorn and Gimli.
Berman,
While I find your comments on Moulin Rogue incomprehensible, they're opinions, and not some statement of fact. As for Tenenbaums, I find it to be one of the finest collection of actors I've seen in a while, and I was quite annoyed that more people didn't get nominated from it.
Here's my annoyance, though. How the hell did Lurhmann not get nominated for Best Director? I mean, you try pulling together a two-hour musical in an era when anything with songs is considered to be a a kiddie flick for Disney. He had a particular vision and GOT IT DONE, with admirable results (personally, I'd rank it in my top 10 for the year). Certainly not the best film of the year, but Lurhmann was insulted with no Director nomination.
Regards,
Joseph
Heather: Thank God someone wants to talk about movies and not NASA. I totally agree about _Lord of the Rings_. In fact, I wanted it to be longer, and was sad when it was over. There were even a few things I thought Jackson could have added. It's clearly the best picture of the year, especially considering its company in the Best Picture Category.
Talk about a long movie... _Moulin Rouge_ was like 2 hours of nails on a chalkboard. I practically chewed my leg off waiting for it to be over.
How did _Memento_ and _The Royal Tenenbaums_ not get nominated?
We should start a betting pool: pick your favorites (not who you think will win) in Best Picture, Director, Actor/Actress, Supporting Actor/Actress, and Screenplay (original and adapted). Then, when Oscars roll around, we'll see who's personal taste is closest to the Academy's.
Bermanator
Okay Heather,
By 1930 there were countless studios all over Los Angeles.
The weather certainly must have been a factor in the initial surge of filmmakers, challenged by the number of theatres across the country that needed material in a steady stream. Permanent sets and dependable weather meant shooting would not be seasonal.
As the talent moved west more were compelled to migrate. Networking must have been important at the time and due to the heavy concentration of people in the business in the Los Angeles area, there again you'd have a magnet at due west for those who wanted an "in".
During the dawn of the " golden era" in Hollywood-- came the transition between silent films and those with sound. A different sort of talent was now required... writers who could produce not only stories but dialogue. Words became the most important component in a successful film. As Los Angeles Studios began to import proven literary figures, Hollywood became a mecca for New York intelligensia and cafe society. This set up a classic case of " if you build it they will come". Los Angeles was beautiful, comfortable and filled with fascinating people--like attracts like. Talent rolled in like a tsunami and so did the money.
Add this all up and stack it next to the great Depression of that era. Perhaps the difficulty of the times made movies all the more important to the American public. People didn't stop going to the theatre. I guess they probably needed the diversion even more.
All of this builds up the momentum of the industry and as y'all know once something is rolling it's tougher to make it stand still.
Is it weakening? I suppose in some ways it could be. The advent of digital film has been an incalculable boon to those who don't have the advantage of living in the filmmaker's Mecca. Incentives given to the film industry by places like Canada and Texas have sweetened the lure to go elsewhere to make movies. The financial expectations of workers and industry talent indigenous to the LA area could also made other places more appealing.
2. Infrastructure assets keeping the entertainment buisnness in LA include everything listed above plus an established concentration of talent and representation of every kind. There again, momentum plays an all important role. I seriously doubt anything is going to topple that Roman Empire any time soon.
That's what I think--
:)
Cindy
While I detest continuing to come in here as the Voice of Reason, it seems incumbent upon me to point out that while Frank's grammar is not impeccable it's readable. And he looks like E.B. fucking White compared to most people debating politics on the Internet. You folks, robot or not, have been spoiled by the literacy levels here.
I don't necessarily agree the Internet is contributing to what Harlan calls the "Twilight of the Word." You have to be able to READ to do most anything on it, and it is an advantage to read and write fast and well.
WASHU: When someone yanks my chain, I sometimes give a good hard yank back. Since I usually only do this to friends and those of kind nature, you can assume when I do so it is also with good intentions.
ON THE SUBJECT OF SUBJECTS HERE: I wouldn't put the subject as part of the name as the name is used by some search mechanisms. Country should work okay. I'm looking into improving this forum, suggestions in e-mail are welcome. I'll look into an interim method of applying an optional subject line here. Yes, I know this was mentioned a LONG time ago. I just remembered. Remind me when I forget again.
Joseph:
Weirdest thing about that scaffold incident. I had a dentist appointment close to four hours before the accident (Dr. Fiss' office is about a block north from the Hancock). Afterwards, the wife and I went shopping in the Loop and took a cab back home which passed by the Hancock building ten minutes before the incident. Didn't find out about it until two hours later when I turned on CLTV to check on the weather.
Quite an eerie sight seeing all those smashed windows and half of the scaffold hanging by a thread, bouncing around in the wind (for those outside of the Chicago area, we had wind gusts of over 58 mph yesterday; the city will be looking at weather and how secure was that scaffold and what the hell was it doing there in the first place in the next couple of days).
Brian, I guess I missed that debate then.
I vote for a check off on tax forms stating what part of the govenment you would be willing to pay for. I bet the environment and education would go up, and the space program would go down.
Heather/Joseph -
I'm sure I'll be taken to task on this one, but from what I'm seeing Producers are being pulled out of the LA/NY Axis for places like Toronto and Vancouver or Orlando all of which have growing production facilities. Granted, the heart of the business will ALWAYS remain Hollywood, but the world is shrinking and decisions made in LA won't be limited to being carried out there. With the growing technology allowing cheaper and more powerful editing and pos-production work, you could conceivably shoot anywhere more affordably than established production houses on either coast.
Re Hollywood as the film capital. There's no one reason why the entertainment industry grew in southern California. Climate's one reason: the weather's pretty nice out there. and well suited for filming outdoors. (You needed a lot of light in those days, and lights weren't exactly high-powered then.) Also, the city wasn't as established a city as it is now, so it was a lot easier for someone to blow into town, start a business with cheap labor and little regulation, and maybe become a power in the community.
To Joe Finn, re Ayn Rand. That's no surprise. Ayn Rand herself testified before HUAC on the dangers of red influence in Hollywood. It says a lot that this apostle of a "minimal state" and "freedom" would be so eager to help the State decide what the
culture ought to do.
Tp Frank, re your copmment about how we can't even debate the space program. Of course we can. We always have. We're doing it right now, and every major NASA effort has had its share of debate. Matter of fact, your argument could say "We can't even debate the NEA" with exactly the same amount of truth. (And by and large, most people do support a space program.)
With all the Mars/Moon chatter recently, I've just wanted for someone to remind me...how long WOULD it take to arrive to Mars from the Earth with today's technology? I know vaguely that it's REALLY one bitch-ass long time, which makes all the zipping about throughout the entire UNIVERSE you see in Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, etc. all the more hilarious.
Uh oh...more new goofy webderlanders.
Adam Link, Robot? Fantome Minus? Have these guys been here before?
Looks like I might have to return to my actual name soon before it gets too wacky in here...
Little Washu
Adam Link Robot, go fuck yourself!
More fact checking: Remember, they even had to scrub the first Cassini launch in 1997 because of so-called "glitches." Then there was the torn insulation. But enough of that--for those who need more proof, here are more links on the Cassini shit:
http://www.lovearth.org/gambling.htm
http://www.southmovement.alphalink.com.au/antiwar/kaku.htm
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/index.htm
Also, the mainstream news all mention the controversy, but frankly, not in much depth; which makes sense, since they don't care.
Joseph, basically I was saying that I think for myself.
I am not an expert on solar power, but I do bet that solar was a feasible alternative to plutonium, and that NASA covered up the facts. My sources back me up.
Okay, I happen to have access to Chomsky through something called the Z magazine sustainers program; which gives one the ability to ask questions of the esteemed professor. I asked about NASA and here is his short answer:
"I don't see any ethical issues about space exploration beyond the question whether this is the best use of scarce resources. There's no general answer to that--as to most such questions."
"Some of the NASA projects were primarily propaganda shows: the Apollo project, for example. The worst device to put on the moon is a human being, apart from propaganda. Others are doubtless worthwhile, but that leaves the question of comparison open: it has to be looked at case by case, with the choice of alternatives specified."
--Noam Chomsky.
This is close to my point. But we aren't even allowed to debate these subjects. As Katha Pollitt was talking about: we give our tax money to the space program that that's that. No discussion of the outlay of funds. We have to spend the money and take it without dissent. This is the main problem. Chomsky makes the wonderful point that these subjects have to be discussed openly, not just ran through and forced on us. This is the basis for any democratic country. They could at least ask the tax payers if we are willing to pay for it. At least discuss with us all the angles. But mainstream society is shut out of the debate--and that is wrong.
Fantome,
"He" was referring to Michael Berliner, the author of the article I linked to. I am fully aware that Ayn Rand was female.
Regards,
Joseph
A robot speaks up:
Please don't refer to Frank's writing as being robotic again. While we robots encompass a broad spectrum of political views, we also try to pay attention to the rules of grammar, word use, spelling, and punctuation.
Your metallic friend,
Adam Link
Note regarding Ayn Rand...
"he's" a she...
Did any of Frank's comments make any sense to anybody?
Joseph, how dare you defame Ayn Rand's memory like that. All that left wing media is getting to you. Ha, ha, ha.
I have no idea what "the party line" is, but I have no access to any such thing, or do I want to. I believe in independant thought, using outside news sources to inform myself. Getting "facts" is the basis for any rational conversation about anything of substance. Saying that I am some leftist robot is an easy out for people who have no rational counterattack, beyond jingoism.
I also have no idea what "Leftist" propaganda is in the first place. These terms that we bat around have become rather meaningless. Conservatives use the term "Left" as a tool that marginalizes those of us who believe in social reform, and an alternative view from mainstream, corporate culture.
We all know that corporate news is mainly here to "serve advertisers"; so in that kind of culture I mainly rely on alternative sources for news--not because I want to maintain a party line--but I believe alternative sources are at least less tainted with the needs of corporate control. The Nation, Z and other screeds also dedicate most of their print on dedicated fact finding, not just printing what the wire services sputter up. News should tell us something we don't already know; but news today usually relys on the opinion of so called, "experts" that are usually on the tit of corporate think tanks. My alternative sources usually make no profit outright, and have to recieve outside funding just to exist. This is why I trust their ideas a bit more. They aren't reporting news to make a buck, and it just makes their ethics a bit more above board.
But to answer the Ellisonians, I rely mostly on my common sense when looking at a subject. There is no handbook that I go by. Compare a Marxist to an Anarchist and there are glaring differences in style and belief. Or a Progressive atheist and a religious liberal; The left has a very open ended playing field. Hell, we dissagree more than we agree. You should see the flame wars in the letters pages of most left journals. But I digress: I refuse to by typecasted by people who have no idea of what it is I believe. I am my own man, believe it nor not.
To prove that point, Chomsky has no problem with parts of the space program. But I will get to that later. See, I even dissagree with my hero's.
Brian, we have more in common than you might believe. Scary thought, eh?
Oh, this is rich. Try an essay by a Ayn Rand follower claiming the Hollywood Ten were the real villains. My favorite part is when he refers to Hollywood as "anti-capitalist." Hoo, yeah. Riiiiiiiiiight.
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/HUAC.html
Regards,
Joseph
Heather,
I'll answer your 2nd question first, as it's the least complicated.
The majority of United States film production takes place in Hollywood for a very simple reason: it is much more economically feasible, all things considered. The equipment is already there, the personnel are already there, the various companies devoted to every nook and cranny of a major production are there; it's a lot easier than going to say, Chicago, which has very little in the way of major studio space and not as many of the top notch technical companies needed.
For lack of a better term, it's a vicious cycle. Why does the talent (artistic and technical) move out there? Because production is there. Why does production center there? Because that's where the talent is.
I don't know the exact reasons why Hollywood became the center in the 1930's, though something comes to mind about disputes with the prevalent radio companies of the time (NBC, CBS, etc) and wanting to get away from their headquarts on the East Coast for reasons of financial and artistic independence. Though I could be wrong on that. I'll poke around and report back if noone else gives a better explanation.
Regards,
Joseph
First of all, apologies to Chris-- it was _Chuck_ who urged going to Mars before establishing a moonbase.
Now, to go into more detail. First of all, Chuck says that the issue of "manufacturing' rocket propellant from either Martian or lunar soil is an important factor. I doubt this, for several reasons. The most obvious is the requirement to bring along the equipment necessary to extract or refine this hypothetical fuel from the soil in the first place. In other words, you'd have to bring along a fairly bulky and sophisticated refining system all the way to Mars. (Plus, if you're going to have to refine out the necessary fuel to return, that requires life support for the extended stay on Mars-- a very large material and logistic requirement.)
As for growing of crops, that's also not the dealbreaker Chuck makes it out to be. He argues that, in order to flourish in the day-night cycles of a lunar greenhouse, plants would require substantial genetic engineering. First of all, plants are actually pretty hardy in many ways, and very adaptable-- it's possible to develop such strains within a few (plant) generations under controlled conditions here on Earth. Second, it'd be relatively easy to control the greenhouses' access to sunlight-- during the two-week daylight period, shutters could regulate an Earthlike 24-hour cycle, and during the two-week nighttime periods, sun lamps and even Moon-orbiting mirrors could provide the proper photoperiod.
As for food being "imported," well, it's obvious that it'd be far easier to import food to the Moon than Mars. Remember, a Martian expedition would require food and life support for roughly a year of space travel-- a one-time-only "import," as it were. The Moon's only a few days away-- thus the food payloads can be lighter, and imports are far more easily accomplished.
And it makes simple engineering sense to build manned bases on the Moon before trying for Mars. After all, it's closer, and thus easier to repair and supply and even rescue people from. If you're talking about establishing manned bases on other planets, which do you do first? Set up a base on a planet that's a year away, with a thin ecosystem whose properties aren't completely established, on the hope that materials there will support the explorers until they can return? Or, set up a base on a nearby satellite, where supplies can be sent within the week, and from where the explorers can return with relative ease?
Chuck's last point about return on investment isn't very well established, either. As he writes, an observatory on the Moon's far side would be a terrific scientific boon. There's also the possibility of low-G manufacturing, plus the use of raw materials of the Moon for the construction of space stations. There's a lot of ROI on the Moon. But where is the ROI on Mars? Sure, there's the scientific knowledge. But we couldn't bring Martian raw materials back to Earth very easily. Mars wouldn't be a terrific place for an observatory, either-- after all, if we put Hubble in space to get outside our atmosphere, why put one into the Martian atmosphere?
I guess we all remember Biosphere II, that massive self-contained "ecosystem" in the Arizona desert. Chances are, many of us didn't know that that project's original reason was as a test-run for a Martian base. A long time ago, millionaire Ed Bass fell under the spell of a guy named John Allen, an apolcayptic cult leader who wanted his bunch to migrate to Mars. Bass put up the money for the Biosphere II project. Needless to say, over the years, the project's changed its focus. The thinking behind it was wacky, and its scientific benefits are still being debated, but the principle of building a prototype to iron out the bugs before the actual project was sound.
In summary, it makes far better sense to establish manned bases on the Moon before we begin any serious attempts to send humans to Mars.
These are actually some questions I came across at a web site for the UCLA Anderson Forecast...but still..
Would anyone want to venture some opinions on these?
1. What were the agglomerative forces that created the entertainment cluster in Southern California beginning in the 1930s? Are those forces weakening?
2. What are the infrastructure assets that help keep the entertainment business in LA?
Went to see "Lord of the Rings" last night.
oh my god.
It should win, for best picture. Beautiful cinematography. The movie flew by. I have no idea what anyone was talking about who called it long.
Wow.