|
07 Mar 06 - 04:01 PM (#1687602) Subject: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: MMario upcoming special from Shatner |
|
07 Mar 06 - 04:03 PM (#1687605) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Clinton Hammond I've seen the show... it was crap There's a science show hosted by Alan Alda that Nova runs occasionally that is MUCH better.. I cannot recall the name off hand.... I do recall there's already a thread on this subject, so maybe someone could close this one... |
|
07 Mar 06 - 04:06 PM (#1687612) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Little Hawk If Alan Alda was any more slippery sounding, he could be used to grease skillets. |
|
07 Mar 06 - 05:18 PM (#1687683) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Kaleea It was'nt shat--it was Gene Roddenberry & Star Trek. |
|
07 Mar 06 - 05:50 PM (#1687720) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: McGrath of Harlow It is true that a lot of the future technology from Star Trek, especially the original series, now looks familiar, or even chunky and old fashioned. (Even space warps and hyperspace aren't that far out of reach, it appears.) We ain't got transporters or replicators yet though. |
|
07 Mar 06 - 05:57 PM (#1687729) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Little Hawk I would just love to have a replicator. And a transporter. But specially a replicator. |
|
07 Mar 06 - 06:05 PM (#1687734) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Bill D awww. Arthur C. Clarke did 27 times more than Shatner...as Kaleea says, it was Gene Roddenberry who drove the feel of the show... (I also know that writers like Jerry Sohl, Norman Spinrad and Harlan Ellison tried writing for it early, but were not exactly pleased at the way the series went for mass appeal, rather than good Sc-Fi.....I guess I'm not surprised, as the producers and the network DID want to make money) |
|
07 Mar 06 - 07:07 PM (#1687800) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: DougR Is L.H. ever wrong? Perish the thought! :>) DougR |
|
07 Mar 06 - 07:11 PM (#1687803) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: The Fooles Troupe Replicators would be free. After you make the first one... |
|
07 Mar 06 - 07:19 PM (#1687809) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Peace You can say that again. |
|
07 Mar 06 - 07:23 PM (#1687813) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: The Fooles Troupe Replicators would be free. After you make the first one... |
|
07 Mar 06 - 07:25 PM (#1687816) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Little Hawk Amost never, Doug, almost never... (grin) |
|
07 Mar 06 - 07:37 PM (#1687824) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Cluin Replicators would be free. After you make the first one... Hey, you're right! |
|
07 Mar 06 - 07:53 PM (#1687833) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: McGrath of Harlow They'd find some way to prevent that, and impose some kind of copyright restriuctions, the same way they do with digital media and music. |
|
07 Mar 06 - 08:02 PM (#1687845) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Cluin And I'm sure they would prove just as ineffective. |
|
08 Mar 06 - 05:09 AM (#1688082) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Ernest What if replicators run with nuclear energy? |
|
08 Mar 06 - 05:29 AM (#1688094) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Paco Rabanne Arthur C.Clarke did nothing tangible, neiher has William Shatner. Scientists did it! |
|
08 Mar 06 - 06:31 AM (#1688126) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: McGrath of Harlow Not being "tangible" doesn't mean insignificant.. |
|
08 Mar 06 - 09:59 AM (#1688238) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Paco Rabanne OK, switch the words around then McGrath, my implied meaning remains. |
|
08 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM (#1688250) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Stilly River Sage Scientific American Frontiers with Alan Alda is a very nice program. He always is charged and enjoys learning new things. How can you dislike that? SRS |
|
08 Mar 06 - 11:14 AM (#1688288) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Amos I'm sorry, guys. Little Hawk does not do "right". He is working on enlightenment, and has learned long since that concerns about "right" and "wrong" are not the Way. This, in turn, enables him to show others that he is deeply and truly right, being free of such concerns, and others not on the Path equally deeply and truly wrong, because they are concerned about such things. :>) Thus, the Way is also not the Way. Chop wood ansd draw water, Little Hawk. A |
|
08 Mar 06 - 12:55 PM (#1688365) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Clinton Hammond That's for the link SRS!! That's the show I was trying to remember! |
|
08 Mar 06 - 02:02 PM (#1688409) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Little Hawk Amos, I am as keenly aware of my own fallibillity as I am of yours. As for my concerns, they are fairly prosaic most of the time. I am concerned about money, aging, health, that sort of thing...same as most other people are. |
|
08 Mar 06 - 02:16 PM (#1688421) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: catspaw49 You're completely fucked up in any number of ways Hawk. Anyone who likes Major Tom the psychotic astronaut and fails to dig Cheech is a stupid mamalucca beyond any hope of redemption and possessing no redeeming social value on any level. Best of luck, but in your case it is probably best if you just give up.............. Spaw |
|
08 Mar 06 - 02:36 PM (#1688439) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Amos Oh, LH, you claiming to be normal is like a peacock putting up a huge spread of bright blue and green feathers with "I am a pigeon" written on them!! LOL A |
|
08 Mar 06 - 04:08 PM (#1688515) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Little Hawk I don't claim to be normal, Amos, I claim to have normal concerns... Spaw, Cheech is rude and tasteless. He sucks bigtime. He smells too, like something that died about a month ago. The one thing he always desperately needed, aside from being drawn and quartered and then pissed on, was one gigantic kick in the balls with a very large foot. |
|
08 Mar 06 - 04:18 PM (#1688524) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Stilly River Sage Cheech Marin isn't what his character in films was, you are a sophisticated enough consumer of film to understand that, if you think about it. He has done some remarkable work in his day in the field of collecting and celebrating Chicano art. Just so you know. SRS |
|
08 Mar 06 - 08:30 PM (#1688697) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: catspaw49 Well SRS, ya' can't tell the players without a scorecard.......We are discussing the merits of a different "Cheech" .....Cheech Wizard by Vaughn Bode .... (;<)) Spaw |
|
08 Mar 06 - 09:58 PM (#1688766) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Stilly River Sage Well there you go. Thanks for the link. |
|
09 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM (#1689302) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Little Hawk Perish the thought that I would EVER speak that way about Cheech Marin, Stilly! ;-D It was the vile, despicable, egomaniacal, corrupt, arrogant, vulgar, and totally disgusting Cheech Wizard I was referring to. He is some kind of unidentifiable lifeform whose upper body is always covered by a large hat, so his face and arms have never been seen, not even during sex! His only concerns are screwing nubile human females who look like girls from Frank Frazetta's "barbarian" art, boasting about how great he is, wandering around acting cool, and issuing orders to bemused underlings who are foolish enough to think he IS cool. He is a total fuckhead, devoid of any character or likeability. I suspect, in fact, that he is the very image of what Vaugn Bode, the deceased wretch who wrote the strip, wished to be like himself in real life, but couldn't quite manage. Accordingly, he offed himself one day, thus bringing an end to a comic strip of little or no merit. |
|
10 Mar 06 - 04:13 AM (#1689815) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Cluin Did you ever see Ralph Bakshi's "Wizards"? |
|
10 Mar 06 - 11:46 AM (#1690079) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Little Hawk Yes. So-so. It had its moments. I was not too impressed by "Fritz the Cat", however. Most of that late 60's, early 70's "freak" cartoon and comic stuff was badly compromised by a certain level of gross crudity, combined with a sublime certainty of the innate moral superiority of "freaks" over "straights"....on the part of some very foolish, lazy, irresponsible, and self-indulgent people who appeared to have not the slightest notion that they would one day themselves grow old. |
|
10 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM (#1690211) Subject: RE: BS: Maybe LH is right? From: Cluin But that's a valid enough viewpoint in itself and quite representative of the times they lived in. We may not have to live with the threat of a nuclear war hanging over our heads everu second of our lives anymore, but people are generally more pessimistic about the future these days for other reasons. |