While substituting for Q, Chris Ogniben took extreme delight in saying to Shawn
Merrow, "You'll do anything I say?" Shawn quailed when the words "nuclear BS"
were uttered.
CO> Man, just reading that hurts. I mean, they took rod out, and
CO> explosion happened, two dudes fly off, another dude get's the rod into
CO> his body. I mean, impaled that is. It just sounds very painful, and
CO> makes you think twice than to be working at a nuclear power planet.
CO> Thank goodness that, no radiation leaked out, or anything else that
CO> could have happend in a very bad way, didn't.
That incident was in the *early* days of nuclear power, and was Army, who had
less experience than anyone else in reactor management. Those lessons have been
learned.
Todd Sullivan
... "California dreamin' on such a winter's day." --Mommas & Pappas
-*- ASTG 1.9
--- Spot 1.3a Unregistered
* Origin: Todd's Spot in the Continuum (1:202/720.3)
Ä [18] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 79 of 143
From : Brandon Wolgast 1:363/216 .cę 21 .íâ 96 21:35
To : Christopher O'conor
Subj : Foundation Again
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
.TID: HyperMail! v1.21 94-0049
CO>BW>Should you read the one(s) before it even
CO>BW>though they were written after or even though they take place before
CO>BW>should you read them after? (kinda like the Star Wars movies, even
CO>BW>though all six will be out one of these days you should still watch
CO>BW>parts 4, 5, and 6 first.)
CO>I've only read the trilogy, so I can't help. But, for the record, Star
CO>Wars has NINE parts, not six. (Three trilogies - one before "A New
CO>Hope", one after "Return of the Jedi")
Yes, but we all know I think that the third trilogy will not be made.
Lucas even stated that, "Star Wars is actually six movies." So you know.
---
* OLX 2.1 TD * Hello, I am part number ||#||||#||#||#||
--- HyperMail! v1.21
* Origin: Data Systems Internat'l (407)292-8009 Call Today! (1:363/216)
Ä [18] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 80 of 143
From : Emilio Ares 1:379/1 .îí 22 .íâ 96 17:19
To : Mark Jones
Subj : Re: X-files
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
.TID: GE 1.11+
-=> Quoting Mark Jones to Emilio Ares <=-
MJ> Or something. I just finished DRAKON (the new Draka novel by S. M.
MJ> [STEVE] Stirling). One of the technologies you encounter in this
Can you send a list of the novels in this series? S.M.Stirling is a good
writer and I've the entire "The General" series.
Emilio
... To kidnap a Kzin is probably a mistake.
--- GEcho 1.11+
* Origin: The Transporter Room - Online Doom! - 704/567-9513 (1:379/1)
Ä [18] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 81 of 143
From : Emilio Ares 1:379/1 .îí 22 .íâ 96 17:19
To : Jon Helis
Subj : Re: Star Trek
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
.TID: GE 1.11+
-=> Quoting Jon Helis to Emilio Ares <=-
JH> Voyager has had some good scripts, but again, it's also had some
JH> disappionting ones. The problem I see with Voyager, as I
JH> observed in this echo even before the show came on, is trying to
JH> use a premise that has been unsuccessfully used before in
JH> Battlestar:Galactica and Space:1999 on Star Trek. It just won't
JH> work.
The premise can work if it is handled correctly. That is the problem with
Voyager. The writers they have seem to be afraid to use the possibilities
of the unexplored region of space in which they are trapped. Admittedly,
some scripts have been better than mediocre but not up to the caliber of
DS9.
Emilio
... Shhh! Be vewy quiet! I'm assimiwating Womulans! -Elmer of Borg
--- GEcho 1.11+
* Origin: The Transporter Room - Online Doom! - 704/567-9513 (1:379/1)
Ä [18] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 82 of 143
From : Emilio Ares 1:379/1 .îí 22 .íâ 96 17:19
To : Glenn Shaheen
Subj : Re: Star Trek
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
.TID: GE 1.11+
-=> Quoting Glenn Shaheen to Emilio Ares <=-
EA>Star Trek, yes, in all its incarnations except Voyager. They need to hir
EA>some writers.
GS> VOYAGER?!?!!?! I think Deep Space 9 is the one who needs to
GS> get some writers. Voyager is actually pretty good.
GS> -=-
You must be watching a different Voyager than I am. I stand by my opinion
and I respect yours.
Emilio
... No cause is so right that one cannot find a fool following it.
--- GEcho 1.11+
* Origin: The Transporter Room - Online Doom! - 704/567-9513 (1:379/1)
Ä [18] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 83 of 143
From : Ecarey 1:101/230 .ķá 20 .íâ 96 06:51
To : Michael Harper
Subj : TV AND SF
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>LED> You point out one glaring difference between US and British TV,
>LED> that some foundational degree of culture was present when their
>LED> networks started. The American networks tried to rise above the poor
>LED> breeding of the typical American.
>
> But don't forget, for every BBC Shakespeare production, there were
> half
> a dozen sitcoms that were just as brainless as anything we have
> here.
> The British and Europeans aren't the paragons of culture you'd like
> to
> think; ten years ago, I saw a Scots folk band called the Tannahill
> Weavers here. During the course of their show, they lamented the
> fact
> that they were missing _Dallas_. At the time, it was a national
> obsession in Britain and Europe.
The fact that we're cherry-picking British culture, importing only the best bits
for our enjoyment, is frequently missed by those who assume that what they see
is all there is, or at least typical of all the rest.
The immense world-wide popularity of _American_ cultural products is steadfastly
ignored, or treated as an act of aggression on _our_ part. However, although
you've noticed its popularity world-wide, I note that you _haven't_ asked
yourself why, if it's so inferior, it nevertheless manages to speak so
effectively to such a wide variety of people in so many differenĀų)hEĶÄŪ cultur.
Āīm@FI
It's rarely apparent _at the time_ which bits of contemporary culture are going
to be lastingly valued; we make a mistake in believing we can pass final
judgment on what's being produced now, and expect to be more right past
generations of cultural pundits were about the products of _their_ era.
>LED> Why does my gut suspect a educated and ethical population might
>LED> not buy so much nonrenewable consumables or docilely accept this level
>LED> of mediocrity in entertainment?
>
> The audience isn't the problem. The execs and the sponsors are the
> problem. The government is a major problem when it comes to
> nonrenewables. Read _Fallen Angels_ by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle
> and ĄĘ
> Michael Flynn. Then get back to me on nonrenewable resources.
The advertisers sponsor the most _popular_ programs available, or else the most
popular with the demographic they're interested in reaching.
A large part of the problem here is simple snobbery, and an unrealistic
estimation of what the "common man" of _prior_ generations was doing for
entertainment. In Shakespeare's, the illiterate groundlings were attending
Shakespeare's highly commercial and successful popular plays - and also
bear-baitings, dog-fights, and cock-fights.
We're not doing worse today - the bear-baitings are gone, dog-fights and
cock-fights are less generally popular than they were, and executions - popular
public entertainment right down to the nineteenth century - are now witnessed
only by the families of perpetrator and victim. Meanwhile, the classics of many
centuries are in print, and readily availale in almost any bookstore - which
means they're _selling_, unpopular as that conclusion is. The bookstore chains
are wholly focussed on profit, which means that, espcially in cramped little
mall bookstores, they can't afford to waste shelf space on things that don't
sell. Of course romance novels and the Destroyer books sell, too, but this isn't
exactly a new and original cultural crime - or even a cultural crime at all.
There has always been light entertainment, although in prior centuries much less
of it was in print form ecause many _fewer_ people were capable of reading, and
books were vastly more expensive. Often the "light entertainment" is enjoyed by
the same people who, at other times, are also buying those classics.
Think about the implications of the fact that Jane Austen is one of the hottest
new writers in the tv & movie business these days, responsible for PERSUASION,
SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, CLUELESS, and the recent A&E PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. What
this means is that people are perfectly happy to watch movies and tv shows based
on some of the enduring classics of English-speaking culture - which in turn, in
their own day, were only "light entertainment".
The same is true of Shakespeare, and modern movie productions such as HENRY V,
RICHARD III, and OTHELLO - I mean, of course, _including_ the part about
Shakespeare having been "light entertainment", not high culture, in his own day.
The truth is, we have no idea what may survive from our own time to be regarded
as "high culture" by future generations, and the assumption that _nothing_ will
is pure pseudo-sophisticated snobbery firmly grounded in ignorance of what was
popular and what not, and how _present_ classics were regarded, by earlier
generations.
As for FALLEN ANGELS - surely noticed how hard the authors were grinding their
particular political axes? To the extent that their concerns are _real_, there
are much better explications of their points, and much of their "points" are in
fact mere political demonizing of those who disagree with them.
A footnote - if the American public is so completely ignorant and illiterate,
why were A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, by Stephen Hawking, and THE NAME OF THE ROSE,
by Umberto Eco, both runaway bestsellers? Hint:Arguments that they were bought
but not read by people who wanted to look fashionable are arguments proceeding
from the _conclusion_ that the American people are _of course_ illiterate. No
one has ever offered any direct evidence that people who obught these books were
actually less likely to have read them than any other bestseller - and I
personally am quite struck by the notion of hundreds of thousands of commuters
carrying around the hardcover of THE NAME OF THE ROSE, solely to impress all the
stranges on the bus and the subway with them.:)
--- FLAME v1.0
* Origin: Withouta Net - Drop In Anytime! - 617/846-5416 (1:101/230)
Ä [18] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SFFAN Ä
Msg : 84 of 143
From : Ecarey 1:101/230 .ķá 20 .íâ 96 07:09
To : Roelof Otten
Subj : NUCLEAR
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>PA> The most common human mutation over the past 30 or so years has not
>PA> been very beneficial to the specie as a whole.
>PA> It's called "cancer"
>
> Two things, cancer isn't a mutation, but a disease. Neither is it
> something of the last 30 years, it has been there for a long, long
