Posted on 08/12/2005 8:44:29 AM PDT by JRios1968
"Actually, I like Star Wars more"
Deep Space 9" (read that 9 as in inches) is actually better.
It's all about the Force! But Star Trek does have the Scottish fat guy...no, not Fat Bastard!
Wrong finger!
All your tricorders are belong to us!
I have to agree. THe original Battlestar Galactica was better, IMHO.
As for greatest TV show in history...The Family Guy!
LOL.......Stay Safe !
Always! :)
Actually it was Leela of the Sevateem, meaning "Survey Team."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leela_(Doctor_Who)
http://members.wap.org/kevin.parker/chp/leela.html
She's one of the best companions ever because none of the others dressed in animal skins and protected the Doctor with a big butcher knife. No wimpy screaming and crying and a twisted ankle while running away. Gotta love those strong female characters!
Babylon 5 and Star Wars and Firefly were good, and Farscape was okay but weird. But Star Trek will always be my favorite because the original series combined good science fiction with good writing and was a real eye-opener for its time.
And whoever put "Geek Alert" in the title of this thread is obviously clueless!
I agree with you completely!
And while I have a chance to say it, I wish "I Robot"
had followed the book instead of the whole
idea being butchered. I will never see that movie.
Space shuttles? The fact that the government wanted to get their hands on the technology strongly suggests that they didn't voluntarily give his ship up. How many billions of dollars do you think the IASA spent putting him into space and given that they sent him there to study wormholes so that he could keep whatever he found to himself? John Crichton didn't put himself in space and didn't conduct his initial wormhole research with his own money. He was using government money and government equipment to do his research. All evidence suggests that he was an employee, not an entrepreneur.
We can also simply just assume, like I do, that the episode is badly written by a globalist with an axe to grind over the the United State's handling of the war on terror.
Do your quotes respresent the entire statement that thos politicians made or were they the excerpts that the press decided to use as a sound bite?
As far as the "People don't dream like they used to" quote, that was Jack's personal opinion expressed during an ordinary conversation with his son that you've taken out of context.
I took it in context. The purpose of the "People don't dream like they used to." quote was to set up the straw man that John Crighton could knock down rather that address the more substantive, if ham-handed, line about it all being about survival. Basically, it lets the writer take the conversation off in a direction about how his father's idealism has been lost rather than addressing the far more substantive issue of the threat that the technology could cause if given to everyone. The writer gets to pretend that the arguments is about dreams and idealism rather than about the risks posed by giving advanced weapons technology to everyone. As I pointed out, you'll notice that John Crighton turns this into an argument about his father rather than his father's concerns. And that his father seems to ultimately agree with him suggests that the writer thinks naive idealism trumps an adult assessment of the threat of putting advanced weapon technology into the hands of everyone.
No, the purpose was to allow the US to gain access to the technology embodied in the equipment.
Yes. You were the one arguing that they wanted the equipment. My point is that they wanted the technology, not the equipment, per se.
Diplomats regularly get immunity from prosecution while on US soil, don't they? US laws hold no jurisdiction over them.
So now they are diplomats? Were you watching the same show that I was watching?
As it turned out, this is exactly what happened. See? Nothing to worry about, after all. Those nasty ol' aliens with their evil techology is safe from Al Qaeda.
And the clearly misanthropic message from that episode and the one that followed showing TV shows from Earth about their visit suggests that the real evil the author sees is Earth humans. Heck, they even make the Skarans more human than the people of Earth in many ways.
Space shuttles?
I'm beginning to have doubts whether you really ever saw this show. Crichton's ship was a one-man ship that's the size of something like the X-24A/B and not something like the current Space Shuttle which about the same size as a DC-9.
It doesn't really matter, though. The government has routinely abandoned hardware even as large as B-29s and allowed private individuals to recover and own them without even a cent changing hands.
Case in point; the ill-fated 1994 B-29 Kee Bird recovery expedition or the 1992 expedition to recover a P-38 ("Glacier Girl") and B-17.
We can also simply just assume, like I do, that the episode is badly written by a globalist with an axe to grind over the the United State's handling of the war on terror.
Everyone's a critic. Let's see you do better.
Neither.
And that his father seems to ultimately agree with him suggests that the writer thinks naive idealism trumps an adult assessment of the threat of putting advanced weapon technology into the hands of everyone.
Ah, naive idealism, like, " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", etc.?
It's funny that no amount of security and secrecy kept nuclear weapons techonology out of the hands of everyone.
You were the one arguing that they wanted the equipment. My point is that they wanted the technology, not the equipment, per se.
I see the problem. You're not debating what I've written. You're debating what you want me to have written.
From my post #103. I quote: "John wanted to give the technology to all countries in order to unite them."
So now they are diplomats? Were you watching the same show that I was watching?
I never said they were diplomats. Re-read what you wrote and to what I replied and stop putting words into my mouth.
And the clearly misanthropic message from that episode and the one that followed showing TV shows from Earth about their visit suggests that the real evil the author sees is Earth humans. Heck, they even make the Skarans more human than the people of Earth in many ways.
It's clear you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this or anything else, so there's no point in going round and round, especially in light of the fact demonstrated above that you're arguing with what you want me to be I'm saying and not with what I'm actually saying.
I'll let you have the last word, no matter how untruthful it may be.
FRegards
I assume that what you are saying is in the context of the episode that we were discussing. If it isn't, then why are you saying it? You're arguing like a person who is simply looking to disagree with each statement as some sort of abstraction. The issues you raised was the whether the US had jurisdictoin over John Crighton, wether it had the authority to demand that he turn over technology, and whether it had the authority to govern the aliens while they were on US soil. In response, you went off on tangents about abandoned government property, diplomatic amunity, and a host of other subjects that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I'll let you have the last word, no matter how untruthful it may be.
Oh, that's mighty adult of you, calling me a liar before I even reply. Obvously, you don't know how to admit that you are wrong so, whatever.
Have you ever held a public office? If not, does that make you unqualified to complain about what politicians are doing. One does not need to do something themselves to know that what someone else has done is bad.
You ever see the video of Nimoy doing "The ballad of Bilbo Baggins"? (or was it Frodo?) Freakin hilarious in a totally non-ironic way.
Then you'll be missing what I thought was actually a half decent action/sci-fi flick. Maybe it was because my expectations were so low going in, but I enjoyed it, despite the prescence of Will Smith, who plays the same part in every movie he's in. As far as following the book goes, it's been a while but wasn't "I, Robot" a series of short stories?
I don't care if the movie is another "Treasure of the Sierra
Madre", I get angry just seeing the name on the Satellite Menu.
I've liked Will Smith movies up to this one, but there is no
excuse for this Hollywood abortion of an excellent original
work. Forgive me I'll just have to miss this one.
Hey, I shared your outrage at first that they had put the name of an Asimov book on this movie that clearly takes little from the book, although there's more there than you might expect (not the major plot, but the Three Laws and some of the other background info). But if you just ignore that it was ever supposed to have anything to do with the Asimov universe, it's really quite an enjoyable movie.
Really, most, if not all, Asimov writing is far too dry and consists too much of people sitting or standing around talking at each other to ever make a really good movie. If I was to pick any of his stories to make movies from, I think the robot books with R. Daneel Olivaw and Elijah Bailey would make the best prospects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.