PA> with them!) that has a nice mail-order catalog.
JH> Errr....maybe I just should have asked - "Is it easily available?" VA
JH> is a little bit too far for me to go.
414... that's Milwaukee!
Surely there's something in your area that passes for a Theatre
District. If ya can't find out who they deal through, then call
the New York City Chamber of Commerce (I'll bet there's even a
1-800 number!) and try to get the listing for Paramount
Theatrical Supplies. (or just check your Yellow Pages for
Theatrical Supplies)
Happy Hunting!
Your pal: PhlAsh
... Airplanes make strangers of us all. Give us distance - much too easily.
---
* Ųystertags v1.1 *
~~~ ReneWave v1.01 [NR]
--- Smile :)
* Origin: * The Beast's Lair * (804)498-3070 * Va Beach VA * (1:275/160)
Ä [19] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 185 of 225
From : Jeff Hancock 1:3600/7 .˙ō 12 .íâ 96 12:16
To : Star Hawk
Subj : B5 -- Coincidence?
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
SH> [> implication was that someone said JMS borrowed from WOH, and I
SH> I'm at a loss to find any real connection between WoH and B5...
SH>and i've seen WoH [although not recently]. Without more to go on,
SH>i'd go with the overactive imagination.
That's probably all there is, although associations can spring in the
most unlikely cases from the oddest similarities.
For example, the last new episode of B5 had the "Black Rose killer". I
didn't think anything special of it; until after that I saw some
episodes of Ranma 1/2 with a character self-nicknamed "The Black Rose".
But aside from that, no real similarity. ('course, for all I know, a
black rose is a old story element, not that I'd ever run into it before)
Another anime I ran into had living starships... but again, not even
similiar in detail.
-=-
* Crazy-J * "What we demand is a total absence of solid facts."
--- SLMAIL v3.5C (#1540)
* Origin: Robotech ū Lake City's Music*Demo BBS ū [904] 758*9477 (1:3600/7)
Ä [19] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 186 of 225
From : Frank Glover 1:2613/477 .ķá 13 .íâ 96 18:44
To : Ken Mayes
Subj : Re: nuclear BS
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
KM> To me one of the greatest dangers of nuclear power is over
KM> dependence on it. We already rely far too heavily on it.
It's fairer to say we're heavily dependent on *electricity.* Nukes are just
one source of it, and not the biggest.
Frank
--- QuickBBS 2.80 GoldBase (Zeta-1)
* Origin: The Matrix Data Bank BBS, Rochester, Ny (1:2613/477)
Ä [19] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 187 of 225
From : Roelof Otten 2:282/214 .˙ō 12 .íâ 96 00:28
To : Trevor Pack
Subj : X-files
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Hello Trevor!
Friday January 05 1996, Trevor Pack writes to Roelof Otten:
TP> I don't have access to X-files
TP> echoe
Try to convince your sysop to connect it. Te x-files echo is on the backbone
just like this echo, so he should be able to get it via the same link. I can
even get it in the Netherlands.
Roelof
--- GED/2 2.50+/FMail1.02+
* Origin: The Cheesemaker's Home (2:282/214)
Ä [19] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 188 of 225
From : Lawrence E Dunlap 1:106/2927 .˙ō 12 .íâ 96 23:09
To : Michael Harper
Subj : Re: tv and sf
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Michael,
MH>Thus illustrating the point; you don't have to be good to make it in
MH>Hollywood, just persistent and lucky. Good is icing on the cake.
MH>Straczynski is an excellent example of that. Joe started out writing
MH>for _Masters Of The Universe_, mostly because he watched an episode,
MH>thought "Hell, I can write better than this", ran off a script in the
MH>correct format, and sent it in, figuring nothing >would happen. Next
MH>thing ya know, they're calling him, asking him to >come work for
MH>them. Miracles do happen...
You point out one glaring difference between US and British TV, that
some foundational degree of culture was present when their networks
started. The American networks tried to rise above the poor breeding of
the typical American
M
MH>.ED> Next is a housecleaning of advertising agency executives who lower
MH>.ED> the denominators of the concepts in TV that corrupts the average
MH>.ED> viewer to accept literal *sewage*.
MH>
MH>Again, as long as it sells soap, the ad execs don't care. People like
MH>you and I are the exception, not the rule.
MH>The rule is the thirty-five year-old construction worker who watches
MH>American Gladiators and Cops. He's got a wife who's five or more
MH>years younger than him, six kids, a pickup, a bad-tempered Doberman,
MH>and an eighteen-year-old college cheerleader he's fooling around with
MH>on the side.
My father's generation fought WWII, his brothers fought Korea and
Vidtnam so *this* kind of Baby Boomer could be free to be such a low
breed of life *just* described?
MH>He's got maybe a GED with a year or two of trade school. And this guy
MH>is who the ad execs are aiming at, him and his wife. He'll gladly
MH>chew on what the tube spews, because he doesn't know or care that
MH>there's anything better. This guy finds Trek incomprehensible, and
MH>it's one of the most accessible sf series on the air.
MH>He reads low-grade technothrillers and maybe understands every
MH>other word. His wife reads V.C. Andrews and Danielle Steel. He's
MH>Joe Average, and the only place he ever heard of literature was
MH>when they forced him to MH>read Dickens and Hemingway and Steinbeck
MH>in English class; his only MH>exposure sf has been Trek, and he
MH>didn't understand it.
MH> Origin: (1:123/10)
Any civillized 21st Century culture cannot exist with such poorly
bred citizen of this level of ethical values and literacy in the
sciences as portrayed by the composite man just presented here.
For one thing, in democracies such a man must be currently literate
in the sciences to effectively vote intelligently on scientific issues.
*This* kind of a vacuum brained man would vote in a tyrrany!
You're suggesting--impuigning!--that civlilized intelligent life
isn't preponderant in our country because popular media has cultivated
empty-minded life to prevent any critical thinking about nonrenewanble
consumer products to protect easy profit margins.
Why does my guts suspect a educated and ethical population might not
buy so much nonrenewable consumables or docilely accept this level of
mediocracy in entertainment?
What is your thinking about any good SF finding a place in mass
market media with the declining educational sharpness that you've just
highlighted? To say nothing of the survival of a educatuionally literate
television system in the US?
Lawrence E Dunlap
(1:106/2927)
___
* UniQWK #5136* Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest bystander
--- Alexi/Mail 2.02b (#10000)
* Origin: Computer Living F'n BBS-Houston, TX 713-444-2927 (1:106/2927)
Ä [19] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 189 of 225
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .˙ō 12 .íâ 96 17:48
To : ROBERT LIDGREN
Subj : VIRTUAL SEX
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (09 Jan 96) ROBERT LIDGREN wrote to J.T. SMITH...
RL> Well put but I'm not really interested in virtual sex. The real
RL> thing is better INMHO.
That's not necessarily the case. If you're unable or unwilling to
pursue real-life relationships, virtual sex may be just what the
doctor ordered. And even if you *are* doing fine in the real world,
chances are you'll never get your hands on [insert starlet of your
choice here], but you can *virtually* do it.
RL> I do think virtual TRAVEL would be really nifty though. I'd love
RL> to take a trip on the Space Shuttle and the virtusal form might
RL> be neat. I'd also like to rappel down the side of the Matterhorn,
RL> shoot the rapids of the Colorado River and dive down into an
RL> active volcano - all neat virtual experiences.
And a virtual love affair wouldn't be just as entertaining?
Especially if it were so realistic you couldn't tell it from the real
thing?
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: Folcroft Sanitarium (hsmith@cure.com) (1:105/302.47)
Ä [19] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 190 of 225
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .˙ō 12 .íâ 96 17:53
To : STEPHEN ADAMS
Subj : NOWHERE MAN
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (10 Jan 96) STEPHEN ADAMS wrote to NICOLE WILSON...
SA> It's been established in an episode I saw before Christmas, that Tom's
SA> wife and mother are in on the Conspiracy.
And did they make any attempt to justify this? Are they acting under
duress? Are they brainwashed? Are they going along in hopes of
getting the conspiracy off his back if he'll cooperate? Or are they
simply coopted by fiat, because this shocking betrayal adds to the
paranoia level? [That would be my guess.]
The way his wife turned on him in the pilot was one of the reasons I
lost interest in the show. That kind of 180 degree turn in her
behavior needed some heavy-duty justification. And there was *none*.
If she was a ringer all along, why didn't they just have her *steal*
the negatives, or at least find out where he kept them (so experts
could blow the safe, for instance).
If she really *did* love him so much, why did she turn on him so
completely? And why isn't she a major star if she can be such a
convincing actress--pretending so consistently to love him (if she
didn't) or not to know him (if she's trying to protect him).
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: Folcroft Sanitarium (hsmith@cure.com) (1:105/302.47)
Ä [19] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 191 of 225
From : Mark Jones 1:105/302.47 .˙ō 12 .íâ 96 17:59
To : Phill Ash
Subj : Nuclear
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
On (11 Jan 96) Phill Ash wrote to David Johnston...
PA> er... The most common human mutation over the past 30 or so years
PA> has not been very beneficial to the specie as a whole.
PA> It's called "cancer"
Do you know of any reputable medical authority which actually
considers cancer a mutation--rather than a disease? I don't.
Certainly cancers can be one of the results of exposure to
dangerous levels of radiation. That doesn't make it a mutation;
mutations don't occur in a single organism anyhow (comic book mutants
aside). From what I know of them, cancers seem more and more to the
be result of an interaction between environmental factors and
genetics. Like many other diseases, you may be more or less likely to
develop a cancer based on your genetic heritage--but environmental
(and possibly behavior) influences can influence whether it actually
occurs.
And I believe cancers have been around for a very long time. But
no doubt the vast majority of cancers throughout history went
undiagnosed. Or misdiagnosed.
--- PPoint 1.78
* Origin: Folcroft Sanitarium (hsmith@cure.com) (1:105/302.47)
