Just who is this "rl" and why is she here?
Johnson
Aside from joining in mob style tactics and being labeled as some type of
net bully or net cop on your regular group inquiring minds want to know more
about your background. A common courtesy one should be able to give when
they are so vocal on such a hot topic.
You have seemingly come out of nowhere to involve yourself in a very serious
investigation with worldwide implications and can only contribute technical
contributions about skydiving. Other than that it has been me too's and what
I consider chat room type tactics. Your numerous references to Google
archives should make it clear you know your way around Usenet but Usenet is
not a chat room and this disaster is not a joke. Please try and keep in mind
that thousands of people are reading this group from all around the world.
With phrases such as "<examines statement closely, notes implied,
left-handed ad hominem>" We cannot see you examine the statement we are on
computers miles away from you. Or when you say looks around the room or nods
at OM etc. We the readers cannot see you do these things; we are miles away
from you. Also when you say the following
"JJ, you're a top-posting putz to begin with, which is what really
started your troubles here. What's irritating to me is that I first
tried sending you a friendly-toned e-mail with some very basic
information on posting standards, as well as a tool for your
newsreader to make it easier to follow those standards."
Didn't the word "putz" start some type of flame thread? Why are you
privately emailing people without their permission and why are you using
bullying type tactics to take over a group you just joined? Just to chat or
do you have something to contribute to the investigation other than your sky
diving background? It would be nice to get more meat out these posts on such
a serious incident and you are not helping, but that's my opinion.
This is why I lurk, to find out who is who but even then I don't jump in to
areas I know nothing about just to add to the signal to noise ratio.
So the question remains. Just who are you Rhonda Lea Kirk and what is your
engineering and/or space shuttle background? I will base my kill filter
decision on you and your posts based on your answer. My silence to your
reply will make my decision obvious unless you have something more to
contribute background wise.
JJ
Herb Schaltegger
"Johnson" <Joh...@johnson.com> wrote:
>(snip!)
She's polite, erudite and to the point, a lot more than can be said of
many. Oh, yes, she often takes up for the (relatively) innocent victims
of baseless flaming and helps others to realize the errors of their
ways. She also provides good lay-person insights and sensitivies that
many of us more technical people lose sight of. I can provide more than
one example of instances when her sensibilities prevented or lessened
the effects of another's insensitivity or plain meanness.
In short, I like her and the group needs more people like that. YMMV.
But if you plonk her I doubt she'll really care.
OM
Trash Moron" <Joh...@johnson.com> wrote:
>Aside from joining in mob style tactics and being labeled as some type of
>net bully or net cop on your regular group inquiring minds want to know more
>about your background. A common courtesy one should be able to give when
>they are so vocal on such a hot topic.
...This coming from an obvious Maxson sock puppet. Then again, where's
*your* background?
>You have seemingly come out of nowhere to involve yourself in a very serious
>investigation with worldwide implications and can only contribute technical
>contributions about skydiving. Other than that it has been me too's and what
>I consider chat room type tactics. Your numerous references to Google
>archives should make it clear you know your way around Usenet but Usenet is
>not a chat room and this disaster is not a joke. Please try and keep in mind
>that thousands of people are reading this group from all around the world.
...Like your opinion counts.
>With phrases such as "<examines statement closely, notes implied,
>left-handed ad hominem>" We cannot see you examine the statement we are on
>computers miles away from you. Or when you say looks around the room or nods
>at OM etc. We the readers cannot see you do these things; we are miles away
>from you.
...And regretfully you are miles away from me. Because if you weren't,
I'd make damn sure you couldn't troll again without someone doing the
typing for you. Fingers like yours deserve to be severed.
>Also when you say the following
>"JJ, you're a top-posting putz to begin with, which is what really
>started your troubles here. What's irritating to me is that I first
>tried sending you a friendly-toned e-mail with some very basic
>information on posting standards, as well as a tool for your
>newsreader to make it easier to follow those standards."
...Her statement is accurate. Live with it.
>Didn't the word "putz" start some type of flame thread? Why are you
>privately emailing people without their permission and why are you using
>bullying type tactics to take over a group you just joined? Just to chat or
>do you have something to contribute to the investigation other than your sky
>diving background? It would be nice to get more meat out these posts on such
>a serious incident and you are not helping, but that's my opinion.
...And your opinion is like your asshole, and the excrement is the
same in level of pungent content.
>This is why I lurk, to find out who is who but even then I don't jump in to
>areas I know nothing about just to add to the signal to noise ratio.
...And since you lurk and don't participate, you've no right to
complain. Besides, when you *do* contribute, it's only to complain.
Ergo, shut the fuck up and get lost.
>So the question remains. Just who are you Rhonda Lea Kirk and what is your
>engineering and/or space shuttle background? I will base my kill filter
>decision on you and your posts based on your answer. My silence to your
>reply will make my decision obvious unless you have something more to
>contribute background wise.
...And just who are *you*, "Johnson"? Put up or shut up on this one,
you pedantic misanthrope.
<PLONK>
Message-ID: <Ou%ka.390007$F1.59386@sccrnsc04>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.246.71.212
Complaints-To: ab...@attbi.com
Trace: sccrnsc04 1049920558 12.246.71.212 (Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:35:58
GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:35:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:35:58 GMT
...Anyone care to verify if this dickwad's ATTrash for real, or if
this is just another forged header?
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Dan "The Man" Goldin
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.246.71.212
> Complaints-To: ab...@attbi.com
> Trace: sccrnsc04 1049920558 12.246.71.212 (Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:35:58
> GMT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:35:58 GMT
> Organization: AT&T Broadband
> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:35:58 GMT
>
> ...Anyone care to verify if this dickwad's ATTrash for real, or if
> this is just another forged header?
>
>
> OM
What exactly will you do if it is a real address?
Bruce Palmer
Agree 100%
bp
Alan Erskine
X-Complaints-To: ab...@attbi.com
Organization: AT&T Broadband
False claims not worth commenting on.
Who are *you*, "Johnson"?
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
The Coalition of the Willing,
against the Axis of Evil,
In a War of the Damned
"Johnson" <Joh...@johnson.com> wrote in message
news:Ou%ka.390007$F1.59386@sccrnsc04...
> http://tinyurl.com/967q
>
Alan Erskine
news:XI1la.30374$Q27.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
lacking in courage to use a genuine name or sign it.
Danny Goldin
"Alan Erskine" <alane...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3e94df9b$0$12822$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
"I don't agree with his opinion, so let's kill/hack him!"
Doug...
C2F1C8.160...@enews.newsguy.com>, herb-No-SpAm-
Schal...@thomashendersonpate.com says...
Agreed on all points, Herb. Rhonda (like many of us here) responds to
idiocy by puncturing the idiotic comments or behavior with logic, and by
presenting a mirror of the idiots' own behaviors. It's an effective
technique, one that I use myself.
It obviously requires *no* credentials to post to this newsgroup, or any
other newsgroup in Usenet. Killfiles, and the simple expedient of
passing over posts and threads that either don't interest you or that are
authored by people with whom you have issues, are the *only* way to
navigate through Usenet without danger to your heart rate and blood
pressure. I suggest the original poster handle his/her/its problems
within his/her/own Usenet habits and not by questioning someone's right
to post here.
Doug Van Dorn
dvan...@mn.rr.com
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Good grief! What do I look like, a tarpon?
But since coup is counted by individual response, even if the response
is only to call "troll," I'm going to get my mileage from it.
I would point out that over the years, I've on occasion posted some
really stupid things. I cannot fathom how you missed them in your
Googling for me. If you'd like me to point them out, do let me know.
I've not forgotten my mistakes. The post you cite above, however, was
not one of them.
> Aside from joining in mob style tactics and being labeled as some
> type of net bully or net cop on your regular group inquiring minds
> want to know more about your background. A common courtesy one
> should be able to give when they are so vocal on such a hot topic.
You're not paying attention, John. I'm a liberal arts major, remember?
Philosophy with a minor in <puts hand in front of OM's eyes> French.
I'm 45-years old, and a long-time reader of science fiction with a
burning desire to see mankind break free of the bounds of this planet
in a meaningful way. I'm a former skydiver--a single mother who
skydived when her daughter was small, so I know something of personal
risk assessment. I am a former legal assistant of almost 20
years--experienced in many areas of law--who blew the whistle on her
thieving boss and deep-sixed her career thereby. I am a former
skydiving manifestor who kept the aircraft flying even as a close
friend took his last breaths not 30 feet away.
Take careful note of all that, John, and be sure to pass it on to
Daniel too. k?
> You have seemingly come out of nowhere to involve yourself in a
> very serious investigation with worldwide implications and can only
See, this is how I know it's you, John. This is not a "very serious
investigation." This is usenet. Here there be opinions.
The very serious investigation is being conducted by CAIB.
> contribute technical contributions about skydiving. Other than that
> it has been me too's and what I consider chat room type tactics.
> Your numerous references to Google archives should make it clear
> you know your way around Usenet but Usenet is not a chat room and
> this disaster is not a joke. Please try and keep in mind that
> thousands of people are reading this group from all around the
> world.
Indeed. And they all have killfiles, and I don't do periodic morphs or
make use of sockpuppets to get around those killfiles.
> With phrases such as "<examines statement closely, notes implied,
> left-handed ad hominem>" We cannot see you examine the statement we
> are on computers miles away from you. Or when you say looks around
> the room or nods at OM etc. We the readers cannot see you do these
> things; we are miles away from you. Also when you say the following
You need to get a clue about the conventions of the medium, John. In
all the years I've been here, there's still a lot I don't know. I
learned something new just the other day.
But you know a lot less than I do. After all, you think *this* is an
investigation.
> "JJ, you're a top-posting putz to begin with, which is what really
> started your troubles here. What's irritating to me is that I first
> tried sending you a friendly-toned e-mail with some very basic
> information on posting standards, as well as a tool for your
> newsreader to make it easier to follow those standards."
> Didn't the word "putz" start some type of flame thread? Why are you
I suppose it might have. It is my ex-husband's favorite word. Married
people tend to take on each other's attributes. I didn't keep him, but
I did keep the word.
Really, John, it's just a word.
> privately emailing people without their permission and why are you
People who do not wish to be e-mailed munge their address accordingly
or download Mailwasher. People who receive unwanted e-mail are free to
delete it unread. One does not require permission to e-mail another.
One can only hope that when one does send a friendly e-mail, one will
receive the courtesy of a reply.
> using bullying type tactics to take over a group you just joined?
Take over? How on earth did I do that? It would take far more power
than I will ever have to take over anything, John. I am subject to the
same criticisms and killfiles as anyone else.
But if it is actually true that I've somehow taken this group over,
how did you dare make this post to me?
<lightbulb> Actually, you're absolutely right, John. I have taken this
group over. Go away, go away now.
> Just to chat or do you have something to contribute to the
> investigation other than your sky diving background? It would be
> nice to get more meat out these posts on such a serious incident
> and you are not helping, but that's my opinion.
Again we have "investigation."
I am here to learn. One of the precepts of usenet is that one gives
back. I have no technical knowledge to offer, but what I have to
contribute, I give freely. For some, my contribution is not meaningful
or entertaining, and they take appropriate measures to remove me from
their world. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
> This is why I lurk, to find out who is who but even then I don't
> jump in to areas I know nothing about just to add to the signal to
> noise ratio.
You have only jumped in to be critical of other posters here, notably
OM and myself. Is this the only area where you know something?
> So the question remains. Just who are you Rhonda Lea Kirk and what
> is your engineering and/or space shuttle background? I will base my
> kill filter decision on you and your posts based on your answer. My
> silence to your reply will make my decision obvious unless you have
> something more to contribute background wise.
<listens for the faint sound of a plonk making it's way across the
backbone> Have at me, John. This is usenet. You can do whatever you
want.
rl
Johnson
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b72vsq$af7fv$1...@ID-181658.news.dfncis.de...
This appears to be some game to you while others reading may be family
members of those who have paid with their lives in the space shuttle
program. Once again you use this chat room type verbiage too as if we are
all together in one room watching each other. Thankfully we are not.
You do not think there is an investigation going on right now concerning the
topic and name of this newsgroup? This seems odd to me but opinions vary.
Mine does not.
Something about you and your posts here, just isn’t right, it’s like a
disruption of some sort.
You refer to me as John, my name is not John. You tell me to tell Daniel, I
do not know a Daniel to tell. You have proven enough to me in this one post
your reason for being here, and then you went on and told me who you were. I
thank you for that, you didn’t have to.
Although it sounds like you are a very interesting person who has done many
great things, I am not here for that. I did Google and I did learn who you
are, I just wanted others reading to hear it from you and you obliged.
Question asked and answered.
You did not mention anything in your background about engineering and space
shuttles as I suspected. That is all I really wanted to know. It’s not a
prerequisite for the group but for very verbal posters who clutter the group
and force others to impose filters it should be. Now you know why I lurk.
This is enough info from you for me to filter you. No need for me to say
“plonk” as is this group’s tradition, my silence to your posts will be good
enough. Nothing personal towards you, I just wanted to know if you were
going to contribute data I may want on space shuttles and your answer
implies you will not. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one interested in this
question so your answer is appreciated.
Goodbye,
JJ
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Johnson wrote:
<much snipped>
> [...] my silence to your posts will be good enough. [...]
> Goodbye,
And with that, "JJ" a/k/a "Johnson" (and, I'm quite sure, a/k/a
Maxson) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God.
rl
Richard Smith
So very true. He talks about bandwidth and noise but really seemed to know
how to use both most effectively.
Maybe he should tilt against the windmill of all those silly prophecy loons
who post their mindless drivel here.
Herb Schaltegger
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> <lightbulb> Actually, you're absolutely right, John. I have taken this
> group over. Go away, go away now.
Rhonda, did you learn NOTHING from "Ghostbusters"?
Paraphrasing:
"Rhon', when somebody asks you if you're a goddess . . . say 'YES!'"
;-)
--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
http://www.crank.net/conspiracy
"JTM is the CRANKIEST!"
john_thomas_maxson
news:zM6la.7898$g27.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> It obviously requires *no* credentials to post to this
> newsgroup,
How else would *you* qualify to defecate here?
john_thomas_maxson
>
> Good grief! What do I look like, a tarpon?
To reply, replace 'r' with 'm' in 'tarpon' and precede with
'Quark's.'
Dosco Jones
Amen.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> Johnson wrote:
>> <much snipped>
>>> [...] my silence to your posts will be good enough. [...]
>>> Goodbye,
>> And with that, "JJ" a/k/a "Johnson" (and, I'm quite sure, a/k/a
>> Maxson) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God.
> Amen.
And...
"...all my dreams do come true." Dejah Thoris Burroughs Carter.
rl
Herb Schaltegger
<Ppgla.21143$cO3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
GREAT CEASAR'S GHOST! She quotes HEINLEIN, too! Any woman who's read
"The Number of the Beast" must be damned near perfect . . . Can you help
your dad design that time-space twister now so we can blow this
popsicle-stand universe? ;-)
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>> Amen.
>> And...
>> "...all my dreams do come true." Dejah Thoris Burroughs Carter.
> GREAT CEASAR'S GHOST! She quotes HEINLEIN, too! Any woman who's
> read "The Number of the Beast" must be damned near perfect . . .
> Can you help your dad design that time-space twister now so we can
> blow this popsicle-stand universe? ;-)
<rummages through wallet> Card carrying member. Committee for
Aesthetic Deletions, Interuniversal Society for Eschatological
Pantheistic Multiple-Ego Solipsism[*].
Only fantasy I ever read that I really liked. But if I had my pick of
the litter, I'd be Minerva.
[*] SMPS is my personal metaphor for usenet. And the theme song is
Jerry
Jeff Walker's "Pissin' in the Wind."
rl
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> <rummages through wallet> Card carrying member. Committee for
> Aesthetic Deletions, Interuniversal Society for Eschatological
> Pantheistic Multiple-Ego Solipsism[*].
> [*] SMPS is my personal metaphor for usenet. And the theme song is
> Jerry Jeff Walker's "Pissin' in the Wind."
Arghhh! In the review copy I had, Heinlein called it "The Society for
Multiversal Pantheistic Solipsism," i.e., SMPS. When I checked just
now, though, I came up with not so much as a googlewhack. What did
come up was ISEPMES, but I wasn't paying attention when I did the
edit. Authors! Gah! Almost as bad as Critics!
rl
dave schneider
<b72vsq$af7fv$1...@ID-181658.news.dfncis.de>...
[...]
> Good grief! What do I look like, a tarpon?
Silvery? Tall? Don't tell Patrick!
[...]
>
> > With phrases such as "<examines statement closely, notes implied,
> > left-handed ad hominem>" We cannot see you examine the statement we
> > are on computers miles away from you. Or when you say looks around
> > the room or nods at OM etc. We the readers cannot see you do these
> > things; we are miles away from you. Also when you say the following
>
> You need to get a clue about the conventions of the medium, John. In
> all the years I've been here, there's still a lot I don't know. I
> learned something new just the other day.
And I find the technique to be quite effective in invoking an image --
exactly like a radio play might use the foley guy (do they call them
that in radio - if only I could ask Tom Keith) for sound effects of
footsteps on a foggy night.
/dps
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> <lightbulb> Actually, you're absolutely right, John. I have taken
>> this group over. Go away, go away now.
> Rhonda, did you learn NOTHING from "Ghostbusters"?
> Paraphrasing:
> "Rhon', when somebody asks you if you're a goddess . . . say 'YES!'"
> ;-)
There's only one goddess here, Herb. I'm just her acolyte.
On the other hand, were it really possible to rid the group of Maxson,
I 'spect she'd not mind me borrowing her attribute for a moment or
two.
<meekly> I'll do better next time an opportunity arises. Promise.
rl
Richard Smith
"rl" is an AI construct running on thousands of consumer PCs across the US
via Distributed Computing.
Paul Blay
>
> "rl" is an AI construct running on thousands of consumer PCs across the US
> via Distributed Computing.
If just you're going to make a weak joke. _Please_ trim the message you're replying
to.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Paul Blay" <ra...@saotome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b76d91$ljp$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Even if you're NOT trying to make a weak joke. Please trim the message.
GCGassaway
>>>To reply, replace 'r' with 'm' <<<<
Naah, how about replace “m” with “R”?
[mode on]
John-Thoras Raxson - Rentally unstable, unsound of Rind.
Trying to Rake Rore Ruck out of the ColuRbia disaster, as he atteRpted and
failed to Rake with Challenger’s.
Boycott HoRestead Books!
[replace “m” with “R’” mode off]
- George Gassaway
GCGassaway
>>>>->>>>It obviously requires *no* credentials to post to this
newsgroup<<<<-<<<<
John-Thomas Maxson replied:
>>>>How else would *you* qualify to defecate here?<<<<<
Obviously it never entered your Rind, aah, mind, that you just described the
essence of many of your posts here?
That your posts are often “Defecation”, since you might not get it if I didn’t
expressly say it for you.
Sometimes a huge steaming pile of it. Other times, severe diarrhea.
Anyway, to see you comment on the credentials of anyone else who posts here is
just ludicrous.
- George Gassaway
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"GCGassaway" <gcgas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030411113637...@mb-fv.aol.com...
> John-Thomas Maxson wrote:
>
> >>>To reply, replace 'r' with 'm' <<<<
>
> Naah, how about replace "m" with "R"?
> [mode on]
>
> John-Thoras Raxson - Rentally unstable, unsound of Rind.
>
> Trying to Rake Rore Ruck out of the ColuRbia disaster, as he atteRpted and
> failed to Rake with Challenger's.
You know. I used to go to the restaurant with this Swedis chef....
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Boycott HoRestead Books!
See, John? Not a potty joke in the whole thing, but still effective.
<wonders> What's up with the bodily function obsession anyway? Seems
like JTM makes a reference to one or another of them in every other
post, if not more frequently. Am I to be terrorized by tampons?
Should Bob be bothered by bowel movements?
Seriously.
If he ever gets over the RCS thing, I'm fully expecting him to claim
mutant E. coli multiplied exponentially and took over the shuttle.
On the other hand, maybe he does have a point. We've compared him to
cancer and AIDS, but his assaults on this ng are more like Toxic Shock
Syndrome.
rl
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Paul Blay wrote:
>> "Richard Smith" wrote ...
>>> "rl" is an AI construct running on thousands of consumer PCs
>>> across the US via Distributed Computing.
>> If just you're going to make a weak joke. _Please_ trim the
>> message you're replying to.
> Even if you're NOT trying to make a weak joke. Please trim the
> message.
Different group, different customs, Richard. No Bertie here. But even
if you were chastised for it, it still made *me* laugh.
rl
OM
<rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Should Bob be bothered by bowel movements?
...I am. Every time we take a shit, we leave behind a new Maxson
family member.
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
OM
>
>How else would *you* qualify to defecate here?<<<<<
...Your posts, for one.
Richard Smith
> Different group, different customs, Richard. No Bertie here. But even
> if you were chastised for it, it still made *me* laugh.
>
> rl
>
..and that was my poing *smile*.
(I should've snipped though. At least I didn't top post <g>)
Richard Smith
"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote
in message news:iu9e9v0skips45446...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:02:05 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
> <rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Should Bob be bothered by bowel movements?
>
> ...I am. Every time we take a shit, we leave behind a new Maxson
> family member.
>
>
Save the orphans!!! Just $.50 a day can a make a difference!
Richard
Mary Shafer
Why is she here? Because she feels like being here.
Now, then, who are you and why are you here?
Mary
--
Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.com
Retired aerospace engineer
"The guy you don't see will kill you." BGEN Robin Olds, USAF
Mary Shafer
<rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Herb Schaltegger wrote:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
>>> <lightbulb> Actually, you're absolutely right, John. I have taken
>>> this group over. Go away, go away now.
>
>> Rhonda, did you learn NOTHING from "Ghostbusters"?
>
>> Paraphrasing:
>> "Rhon', when somebody asks you if you're a goddess . . . say 'YES!'"
>> ;-)
>
>There's only one goddess here, Herb. I'm just her acolyte.
You're promoted from acolyte to full-blown junior goddess (I get to be
senior goddess because I'm a decade older than you) retroactive to
0001, 9 Apr 03.
You may exchange your blue thunderbolts for war loads immediately.
Remember to live up to the obligations of a junior goddess or I'll
take the thunderbolts away..
>On the other hand, were it really possible to rid the group of Maxson,
>I 'spect she'd not mind me borrowing her attribute for a moment or
>two.
No need to borrow now that you've got your own, rl.
><meekly> I'll do better next time an opportunity arises. Promise.
<snappishly> Well, you'd better. Is this the thanks I get for giving
you those nice thunderbolts? I thought you knew better. Young lady,
"meek" NEVER refers to a goddess.
Doug...
gcgas...@aol.com says...
> Doug... <dvan...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>->>>>It obviously requires *no* credentials to post to this
> newsgroup<<<<-<<<<
>
> John-Thomas Maxson replied:
>
> >>>>How else would *you* qualify to defecate here?<<<<<
Thanks for passing this along, George. I think this ought to qualify me
for at least an honorary HORS membership, dont'cha think?
Doug Van Dorn
dvan...@mn.rr.com
Doug...
says...
>
> <snip>
>
> ...Young lady, "meek" NEVER refers to a goddess.
>
> Mary
Words to live by...
Doug Van Dorn
dvan...@mn.rr.com
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s"
>Who is "rl"? No one in particular. A friend of mine.
>
>Why is she here? Because she feels like being here.
>
>Now, then, who are you and why are you here?
Two questions you never want to ask a Vorlon....
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>> "Rhon', when somebody asks you if you're a goddess . . . say
>>> 'YES!'" ;-)
>> There's only one goddess here, Herb. I'm just her acolyte.
> You're promoted from acolyte to full-blown junior goddess (I get to
> be senior goddess because I'm a decade older than you) retroactive
> to 0001, 9 Apr 03.
<keeps eyes to ground, quietly dares to contradict> That's *not* the
reason you're *senior* goddess.
> You may exchange your blue thunderbolts for war loads immediately.
> Remember to live up to the obligations of a junior goddess or I'll
> take the thunderbolts away..
<lovingly examines new armament, beams beatifically>
>> On the other hand, were it really possible to rid the group of
>> Maxson, I 'spect she'd not mind me borrowing her attribute for a
>> moment or two.
> No need to borrow now that you've got your own, rl.
<surreptitiously blinks, swallows hard> Um...moment please. I'll be
right back. I...uh...need to fix my sig.
>> <meekly> I'll do better next time an opportunity arises. Promise.
> <snappishly> Well, you'd better. Is this the thanks I get for
> giving you those nice thunderbolts? I thought you knew better.
> Young lady, "meek" NEVER refers to a goddess.
<straightens spine, dares to look Senior Goddess in eye> Ma'am. Yes,
ma'am.
<evil grin> Look out, OM. You're outnumbered.
rl
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Shuttle Techno-Peasant
and Junior Goddess, Human O-Ring Society
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation
for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. Soren Kierkegaard
OM
<rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
><evil grin> Look out, OM. You're outnumbered.
Q: How does one beat Hell?
A: With hope.
Q: How does one beat a god?
A: With unwaivering disbelief.
Q: How does one beat their mea...no, wait, let's not go there.
A: Just ask the Phony Dan Goldin, He's a pro at it.
OM
"*KLICK*-tweedly:cHirP-$whistle$/blipityblip*And so it begins..."
VorlOM
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to o...@io.com, as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.
Pat Flannery
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>And...
>
> "...all my dreams do come true." Dejah Thoris Burroughs Carter.
>
>rl
>
>
I thought that was Muad'dib....you know, the Stopwatch Haberdasher.
Pat
StarFurie
<dvan...@mn.rr.com> writes:
>n article <lljh9vkndqoaoeb8u...@4ax.com>, mil...@qnet.com
>says...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> ...Young lady, "meek" NEVER refers to a goddess.
>>
>> Mary
>
>Words to live by...
...or else!
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>>
>>
>
>"*KLICK*-tweedly:cHirP-$whistle$/blipityblip*And so it begins..."
>
> VorlOM
>
>
>
You can't fool me! Your not a Vorlon.... you're Omni-Mind in a fake
Vorlon encounter suit! Now get out of that silly thing, and back into
your spandex uniform and cape, or I'll have on report! You're still on
probationary status with this august organization, and it wouldn't take
much to get your rear kicked right back into Texas, buckaroo....you
don't want to end up with a bunch of second stringers like Chihuahua Boy
did, do you? Yeah, "Dos Equis Hombres"...what a joke....
Fr. Dr. Rev. Ernesto Cajones
Justice League Of Mexico
Rhonda Lea Kirk
<crosses eyes, cradles cranium> I get scared--really, really
scared--when I think understand you, Pat.
But that couldn't be possible. Could it?
<lips move soundlessly>
rl
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mindkiller. Fear is the little death that
brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to
pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past me I will turn
to see fear's path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain. Bene Gesserit Litany
Doug...
rhonda...@worldnet.att.net says...
> Pat Flannery wrote:
> > Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> >> And...
> >> "...all my dreams do come true." Dejah Thoris Burroughs Carter.
> >> rl
>
> > I thought that was Muad'dib....you know, the Stopwatch Haberdasher.
>
> <crosses eyes, cradles cranium> I get scared--really, really
> scared--when I think understand you, Pat.
>
> But that couldn't be possible. Could it?
>
> <lips move soundlessly>
Gee -- I almost always understand Pat perfectly. He's one of my favorite
posters here. You just have to let your *sanity* pass through you, and
then look behind you to see sanity's path. Then all that is left is you,
and the voices in your head (you know, the ones that tell you when to
clean your guns)... *grin*...
Isn't that right, Pat?
Doug Van Dorn
dvan...@mn.rr.com
David Ball
<rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>If he ever gets over the RCS thing, I'm fully expecting him to claim
>mutant E. coli multiplied exponentially and took over the shuttle.
Oops. Now Hollywood is going to have to pay you royalties on their
next blockbuster after The Core :-)
-- David
OM
>Gee -- I almost always understand Pat perfectly. He's one of my favorite
>posters here. You just have to let your *sanity* pass through you, and
>then look behind you to see sanity's path. Then all that is left is you,
>and the voices in your head (you know, the ones that tell you when to
>clean your guns)... *grin*...
...Pat is me if I hadn't done so much LDS at Berkeley in the 60's.
Pat Flannery
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>I must not fear. Fear is the mindkiller. Fear is the little death that
>brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to
>pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past me I will turn
>to see fear's path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
>Only I will remain. Bene Gesserit Litany
>
>
>
Did you see the fun they had with that in Sci-Fi channel's "Children of
Dune"? Leto flies a thopter straight into a sandworm's maw....with
Irulan on board- Irulan is scared shitless, and Ghanima turns to Leto
and quips:
"I think she is about to let her fear pass through her".
Pat
Derek Lyons
>You may exchange your blue thunderbolts for war loads immediately.
A statement I always found amusing because the nose fairing of our war
loads *were* blue. (A particularly embarrassing shade of baby blue
too...) OTOH we used the same fairing for test and inert birds as
well.
"From out of the deep, to target.... perfect"
D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
Corrections, comments, and additions should be
Pat Flannery
Doug... wrote:
>Gee -- I almost always understand Pat perfectly. He's one of my favorite
>posters here. You just have to let your *sanity* pass through you, and
>then look behind you to see sanity's path. Then all that is left is you,
>and the voices in your head (you know, the ones that tell you when to
>clean your guns)... *grin*...
>
>Isn't that right, Pat?
>
>
That's right! I haven't cleaned the Radium Rifle in months! What will I
do if a thoat attacks the apartment? Thanks, and a doff of the ol'
aluminum foil hat for the heads-up on this little matter...
Pat
Salvador Dali once said: "The only difference between Dali and a madman
is that Dali is not insane!"
The only difference between myself and a madman is that I do not speak
about myself in the third person.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>...Pat is me if I hadn't done so much LDS at Berkeley in the 60's.
>
>
> OM
>
>
>
And here I thought it was due to having gotten your head caught in a
mechanical rice picker....
Pat
OM
wrote:
>Did you see the fun they had with that in Sci-Fi channel's "Children of
>Dune"? Leto flies a thopter straight into a sandworm's maw....with
>Irulan on board- Irulan is scared shitless, and Ghanima turns to Leto
>and quips:
>"I think she is about to let her fear pass through her".
...Yes, but you'd think the thing they *would* have let pass was
bringing back the guy who played Baron Vladimir Harkonnen(*). The
Baron was a diseased slimeball, not TV's Frank.
(*) Pronounced "Har-KOH-nen", not "Harken-en", dammit!
Chuck Stewart
> ...Yes, but you'd think the thing they *would* have let pass was
> bringing back the guy who played Baron Vladimir Harkonnen(*). The
> Baron was a diseased slimeball, not TV's Frank.
Errrrrrr... no.
The Baron was a perverted self-indulgent Uber-glutton
who otherwise was in excellent health.
> (*) Pronounced "Har-KOH-nen", not "Harken-en", dammit!
The movie was not a good adaptation, but had its own
merits and a few high points.
Both SF Channel series were utterly wretched.
> OM
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
OM
<zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 04:12:42 +0000, OM wrote:
>
>> ...Yes, but you'd think the thing they *would* have let pass was
>> bringing back the guy who played Baron Vladimir Harkonnen(*). The
>> Baron was a diseased slimeball, not TV's Frank.
>
>Errrrrrr... no.
>
>The Baron was a perverted self-indulgent Uber-glutton
>who otherwise was in excellent health.
...I actually preferred the DeLaurentis interpretation, especially
when you consider that Giedi Prime was essentially Pasadena Texas to
just shy of the nth power. With that much pollution in the air, it
made sense to have the Baron suffering from all sorts of
cancerous-looking ailments.
>The movie was not a good adaptation, but had its own
>merits and a few high points.
...I actually preferred the Movie sandworms over the TV ones. The way
the TV ones dove under the surface reminded me too much of the big
worm from "Beetlejuice". On the other hand, the TV 'thopters were far
superior to the Movie ones, even if both designs don't match the way
Herbert described them in the books. And while we're going pros and
cons, the costume designs for the TV series actually looked a bit
better than the movie with the exception of the House Atreides
military uniforms and the Sardukar uniforms - the TV Sardukar dress
uniforms looked like they'd been stolen from a bunch of French pastry
chefs who ran a bakery that doubled as a goth bondage club.
And yeah, I still preferred the movie shieldsuits over the TV ones,
and at least the movie -had- stillsuits....
>Both SF Channel series were utterly wretched.
...Not utterly wretched, but not totally the best effort that could
have been put forth. The decision to recast Jessica was really a blow,
as Alice Krige just isn't that attractive as Saskia (draws blank).
She'd had made a better choice for Wensicia than Susan "I Wanna Be
Jane Fonda Circa 1968!" Sarandon. And totally ignoring the wierding
modules still escapes me, especially since I could see someone at
Sci-Fi channel's marketing division going "hey! What about the toy
spinoffs!?!?"
Then again, Sci-Fi under Bonnie "Fuck the fanboys, *I* am in charge
here!" Hamner isn't known for their logical decisions. Starbuck as a
girl, anyone?
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s"
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 04:08:17 GMT, Doug... <dvan...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Gee -- I almost always understand Pat perfectly. He's one of my favorite
>>posters here. You just have to let your *sanity* pass through you, and
>>then look behind you to see sanity's path. Then all that is left is you,
>>and the voices in your head (you know, the ones that tell you when to
>>clean your guns)... *grin*...
>
>...Pat is me if I hadn't done so much LDS at Berkeley in the 60's.
You did some Mormons when you were in school?
Jon S. Berndt
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 01:13:10 -0600, OM wrote:
> >
> >...Pat is me if I hadn't done so much LDS at Berkeley in the 60's.
>
> You did some Mormons when you were in school?
That's what I was wondering. Either that or he wanted to sound "hip" by
inferring that he did <insert psychedelic drug here> in school, and really
doesn't have a clue. [ "... and I smoked some mariwanna, too." ]
;-) ;-)
JSB
Chris Jones
> Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> wrote:
> >You may exchange your blue thunderbolts for war loads immediately.
>
> A statement I always found amusing because the nose fairing of our war
> loads *were* blue. (A particularly embarrassing shade of baby blue
> too...) OTOH we used the same fairing for test and inert birds as
> well.
Couldn't that lead to some confusion at a time when you don't want any?
Or was there another readily visible way to tell the difference (or is
is only the Air Force that could have this problem)?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Jon S. Berndt" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:3e9ac064$0$1970$a726...@news.hal-pc.org...
Or both of you are missing the obvious movie tie-in.
(or I'm missing your sarcasm in regards to the movie tie-in.)
>
> ;-) ;-)
>
> JSB
>
>
Derek Lyons
>derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) writes:
>
>> Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> wrote:
>> >You may exchange your blue thunderbolts for war loads immediately.
>>
>> A statement I always found amusing because the nose fairing of our war
>> loads *were* blue. (A particularly embarrassing shade of baby blue
>> too...) OTOH we used the same fairing for test and inert birds as
>> well.
>
>Couldn't that lead to some confusion at a time when you don't want any?
Do keep in mind what the warloads I worked with were....
[http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/c-4.htm] They weren't handled
on the daily/ mass basis that conventional tactical birds are.
We relied on paranoiac paperwork and some other stuff (don't ask) to
keep birds fitted with live RV's separate from birds with dummies, as
well as to keep the live and dummy RV's separate when not mounted on a
bird. (You think NASA is paranoiac and rigid about paperwork and
procedures? NASA is a redneck under a shade tree compared to 'special
weapons'.)
>Or was there another readily visible way to tell the difference (or is
>is only the Air Force that could have this problem)?
The Navy uses the same convention as the USAF for AAM's, SAM's, etc.
It's only the strategic birds that don't follow this convention, since
they aren't normally visible anyhow, color is less of an issue.
The issue is however *further* confused by tossing USN underwater
weapons in the mix... Torpedoes are normally painted green, but
non-warshots have the non-tactical portions painted orange. Missiles
(SUBROC, ASROC) are white, and non-warshots have the non-tactical
portions also painted orange. For both, completely inert rounds used
as trainers are painted as if they were tactical units....
Chris Jones
> Chris Jones <c...@acme.com> wrote:
> >derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) writes:
> >
> >> Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> wrote:
> >> >You may exchange your blue thunderbolts for war loads immediately.
> >>
> >> A statement I always found amusing because the nose fairing of our war
> >> loads *were* blue. (A particularly embarrassing shade of baby blue
> >> too...) OTOH we used the same fairing for test and inert birds as
> >> well.
> >
> >Couldn't that lead to some confusion at a time when you don't want any?
>
> Do keep in mind what the warloads I worked with were....
> [http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/c-4.htm] They weren't handled
> on the daily/ mass basis that conventional tactical birds are.
>
> We relied on paranoiac paperwork and some other stuff (don't ask) to
> keep birds fitted with live RV's separate from birds with dummies, as
> well as to keep the live and dummy RV's separate when not mounted on a
> bird. (You think NASA is paranoiac and rigid about paperwork and
> procedures? NASA is a redneck under a shade tree compared to 'special
> weapons'.)
I like paint schemes much more than I like paperwork, and I can see that
the unasked other stuff has done its job well enough (no accidental
nuclear explosions happening from this side that I'm aware of).
Derek Lyons
>derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) writes:
>
>> Chris Jones <c...@acme.com> wrote:
>> >derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) writes:
>> >
>> >> Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> wrote:
>> >> >You may exchange your blue thunderbolts for war loads immediately.
>> >>
>> >> A statement I always found amusing because the nose fairing of our war
>> >> loads *were* blue. (A particularly embarrassing shade of baby blue
>> >> too...) OTOH we used the same fairing for test and inert birds as
>> >> well.
>> >
>> >Couldn't that lead to some confusion at a time when you don't want any?
>>
>> We relied on paranoiac paperwork and some other stuff (don't ask) to
>> keep birds fitted with live RV's separate from birds with dummies, as
>> well as to keep the live and dummy RV's separate when not mounted on a
>> bird. (You think NASA is paranoiac and rigid about paperwork and
>> procedures? NASA is a redneck under a shade tree compared to 'special
>> weapons'.)
>
>I like paint schemes much more than I like paperwork, and I can see that
>the unasked other stuff has done its job well enough (no accidental
>nuclear explosions happening from this side that I'm aware of).
Two points I failed to make clear;
Paint schemes work fine when the warhead is a unitary load. For a
strategic bird a variety of things can be hidden beneath the nose
fairing, so a simple color code is difficult to make work. Also, the
fairings are subject to aerodynamic heating, so changing the color of
the fairing isn't a simple task. (Among other things it introduces
differences between test birds and operational birds, something that
we tried to avoid.) For example the scheme used for gun ammunition
was fairly complex because of the multiple types of basic rounds plus
the variations possible on the basic rounds.
Secondly, unlike a tactical weapon, strategic birds *simply aren't
visible* when in storage (they're inside handling containers), or when
tube/silo loaded. You still need paperwork or alternate methods to
tell you what's inside a given container or tube at a given time. I
can't speak to the USAF birds, but ours might not see daylight again
for a year or more after the tube is loaded and the launch tube
closure put in place.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>...Yes, but you'd think the thing they *would* have let pass was
>bringing back the guy who played Baron Vladimir Harkonnen(*). The
>Baron was a diseased slimeball, not TV's Frank.
>
I liked the TV one better than the movie one...you could tell that this
guy had some brains inside his perverted little head, and just might be
a formidable opponent in the political arena, as opposed to the Captain
Acne out of the movie. But my favorite scene in the C.O.D. miniseries
was that final fight scene in the throne room- Leto could make a Jedi
Knight look like a rank amateur in the hand-to-hand combat department.
The Twisted Men-Pat
Chris Jones
> Two points I failed to make clear;
>
> Paint schemes work fine when the warhead is a unitary load. For a
> strategic bird a variety of things can be hidden beneath the nose
> fairing, so a simple color code is difficult to make work. Also, the
> fairings are subject to aerodynamic heating, so changing the color of
> the fairing isn't a simple task. (Among other things it introduces
> differences between test birds and operational birds, something that
> we tried to avoid.) For example the scheme used for gun ammunition
> was fairly complex because of the multiple types of basic rounds plus
> the variations possible on the basic rounds.
>
> Secondly, unlike a tactical weapon, strategic birds *simply aren't
> visible* when in storage (they're inside handling containers), or when
> tube/silo loaded. You still need paperwork or alternate methods to
> tell you what's inside a given container or tube at a given time. I
> can't speak to the USAF birds, but ours might not see daylight again
> for a year or more after the tube is loaded and the launch tube
> closure put in place.
Thank-you, this makes perfect sense.
OM
wrote:
>OM wrote:
>
>>...Yes, but you'd think the thing they *would* have let pass was
>>bringing back the guy who played Baron Vladimir Harkonnen(*). The
>>Baron was a diseased slimeball, not TV's Frank.
>
>I liked the TV one better than the movie one...you could tell that this
>guy had some brains inside his perverted little head, and just might be
>a formidable opponent in the political arena, as opposed to the Captain
>Acne out of the movie.
...Had the Movie been the TV series, we'd have seen that Captain Acne
would have been far more cunning and ruthless than what's seen in the
film. And for that matter, maybe we'd have seen a bit more of Nefud.
The movie shortchanged him, and the TV series ignored him altogether.
...But again, both versions are guilty of mischaracterizations. Jurgen
Prochnow as the Movie Leto was a waste, and while Freddie Jones was
perfect in appearance as Thufir, in the editing he comes across more
as Fluffy Halfwit. He's even denied his honor-saving suicide in both
the movie and the TV series.
>But my favorite scene in the C.O.D. miniseries
>was that final fight scene in the throne room- Leto could make a Jedi
>Knight look like a rank amateur in the hand-to-hand combat department.
...And considering that there's been this theory for years that Lucas
ripped off Herbert, that's a dangerous statement :-P
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>
>...I actually preferred the Movie sandworms over the TV ones.
>
The movie ones were huge and impressive in the way that Blue Whales
are...but the TV ones looked like something that came straight out of
hell, and you could see why anyone would have to be very brave indeed to
willingly get anywhere near one.
> The way
>the TV ones dove under the surface reminded me too much of the big
>worm from "Beetlejuice". On the other hand, the TV 'thopters were far
>superior to the Movie ones, even if both designs don't match the way
>Herbert described them in the books.
>
The Harkonnen ones were quite close to the book description- the
Atriedes ones were interesting, but a little too normal in design- I
drove myself batty trying to figure out how you could make something
like that work, and finally settled on a dragonfly-like design where the
four wings work somewhat like rotor blades during take-off and landing,
then swing into forward and rear swept fixed wings for flight there are
photos of my take on one here:
http://starshipmodeler.net/contest4/v_s06.htm
This was one of two 'thopters in the contest; the other one looks
similar to the Atriedes one from the Sci-Fi miniseries, minus the wing
lift fans:
http://starshipmodeler.net/contest4/v_s02.htm
> And while we're going pros and
>cons, the costume designs for the TV series actually looked a bit
>better than the movie with the exception of the House Atreides
>military uniforms and the Sardukar uniforms - the TV Sardukar dress
>uniforms looked like they'd been stolen from a bunch of French pastry
>chefs who ran a bakery that doubled as a goth bondage club.
>
The giant berets were a bit much, weren't they? And what's this
butterfly fixation of House Corrino? Irulan shy a spice-cigar box to
keep her bug collection in, so she glues them to her dress?
Susan Sarandon with antennas?!
>
>And yeah, I still preferred the movie shieldsuits over the TV ones,
>and at least the movie -had- stillsuits....
>
The shield effect in the movie was a very cool and original one, and one
of the most memorable things in the movie.
>
>
>
>>Both SF Channel series were utterly wretched.
>>
>>
>
>...Not utterly wretched, but not totally the best effort that could
>have been put forth. The decision to recast Jessica was really a blow,
>as Alice Krige just isn't that attractive as Saskia (draws blank).
>
Saskia has a huge honking nose on her...that nose could scare a sandworm
into full retreat.....it's as lethal looking as a Crysknife; now
Francisca Annis from the movie... that is a drop-dead gorgeous woman!
And she even has red hair...just like daddy.
>She'd had made a better choice for Wensicia than Susan "I Wanna Be
>Jane Fonda Circa 1968!" Sarandon. And totally ignoring the wierding
>modules still escapes me, especially since I could see someone at
>Sci-Fi channel's marketing division going "hey! What about the toy
>spinoffs!?!?"
>
Yeah...but toys that can burst people's organs and start fires?
Siech Wizard
Pat Flannery
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
>"Michael R. Gra
>
>That's what I was wondering. Either that or he wanted to sound "hip" by
>inferring that he did <insert psychedelic drug here> in school, and really
>doesn't have a clue. [ "... and I smoked some mariwanna, too." ]
>
You don't watch Star Trek movies, do you? It was a sly reference....
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:3E9B1167...@daktel.com...
My thoughts were:
The TV one was "truer" to the book in terms of dialog, etc.
The Movie was "truer" to the idea.
In both cases, they fell far short of the mark.
>
> The Twisted Men-Pat
>