Passengers

[J. Clarke]

This doesn't seem to be getting any love from
anybody and it's a shame. It's the third solid
SF movie to come along this year and movies that
are real SF and don't degenerate into horror are
rare. The story would have fit into the pages
one of the major Prozines just fine. It starts
with a (given that one has a working sleeper
starship) plausible premise and everything flows
from there. It seems to get chalked for turning
into "romantic comedy" but there's nothing funny
about the way the romance goes--I'm guessing
that that criticism comes from people who have
never gone past the Golden Age of Science
Fiction (12). Could it have been better? Yes--
IMO it's main failing is that it didn't have
time to tell the story it was telling--there
were three major stories going at the same
time--the relationship between Jim and Aurora,
their coping with being alone for the rest of
their lives, and the failing of the ship's
systems. Any of those could have made a movie
of this length in itself, but doing all three
short-changed all of them. I don't know if
another hour would have helped (I'd love to see
a director's cut that fleshes out the stories
though) or if it really needed to be a mini-
series.

I'd really like this to make enough that more
movies of this general nature get made but sadly
it looks like it's going to end up losing money.

The original script is I understand somewhat
different and not (from a genre viewpoint) in a
good way.

I can't help thinking that it should never have
been put up against Rogue One, which IMO is the
best installment in the Star Wars franchise
since Empire Strikes Back.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.32c648e2c...@news.eternal-september.org:

> I'd really like this to make enough that more
> movies of this general nature get made but sadly
> it looks like it's going to end up losing money.
>

On Rotton Tomatoes, the critics panned it at 31%, but the audience
score it a more respectable 69%. So sadly, you are likely right.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Cryptoengineer]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA6E6CDFCD8A...@69.16.179.42:

> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.32c648e2c...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> I'd really like this to make enough that more
>> movies of this general nature get made but sadly
>> it looks like it's going to end up losing money.
>>
> On Rotton Tomatoes, the critics panned it at 31%, but the audience
> score it a more respectable 69%. So sadly, you are likely right.
>

I look forward to seeing it.

pt

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA6E72CE23FF6melchizedek@
216.166.97.131>, treif...@gmail.com says...

I think it's an example of something that works
as a genre movie but not necessarily as
mainstream. Kind of the opposite of "The Road",
which won a Pulitzer but comes across to me as a
poorly conceived sidequest mod for Fallout.

Most years I'd say that Passengers had a good
shot at a Hugo, but this year there's some
pretty tough competition in that category.

[Lynn McGuire]

I have yet to see "Passengers" but I have seen "Rogue One" twice. "Rogue One" for me is the best movie of 2016 with "Deadpool" a
very close second. Or maybe "The Secret Life of Pets" is second for me. Howard Taylor does not even come close to agreeing with me
either:
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/pages/2016-movies/

Lynn

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <o4k73b$n3e$1...@dont-email.me>,

You're male, aren't you, Lynn?

It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to spend
the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone with him,
just 'cause he loooooooves her.

In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
in their cellars.

I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends with
her shoving him out the airlock.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

>
> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
>
> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
> very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
> accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to spend
> the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone with him,
> just 'cause he loooooooves her.
>
> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
> in their cellars.
>
> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends with
> her shoving him out the airlock.
>

I haven't seen the film yet but as I understand it this is actually addressed as a big issue in the film.

[Cryptoengineer]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:oJAK4...@kithrup.com:

I intend to see this film.

I'll certainly check if your description is accurate.

pt

[The Last Doctor]

That plot synopsis is technically accurate but misses out on a lot of
psychological stuff, the addressing of the issue, etc. The resolution is a
little unsatisfactory but the movie's not long enough for a satisfactory
one. The ending, while pleasant enough, misses out on a better one which
would have been entirely consistent with the limitations of the situation.

It's a much better movie than that one sentence summary sounds. My wife
watched it with me and, if anything, enjoyed it more than I did.

[J. Clarke]

In article <oJAK4...@kithrup.com>,
djh...@kithrup.com says...

He goes quit a lot nuts after essentially a year
in solitary confinement. Shortly before waking
her he seriously contemplates suicide. Whether
he "loooooooves" her is not clear. He does
become fascinated by her.

It is not treated as a morally correct choice,
it is treated as something that someone who has
been isolated long enough is likely to do.

> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
> in their cellars.

I think that's a bit unfair. The kind of person
who locks women up in his cellar has not been
isolated from _all_ human contact for a long
period of time.

> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends with
> her shoving him out the airlock.

She very nearly kills him at one point and then
decides not to.

You really should see it and decide for yourself
whether the reviews that treat him as a monster
are fair reviews.

[Dimensional Traveler]

I have seen it and it is addressed as a big issue.

--
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey.
Winter 2016 survey began Dec 01 and will end Feb 28

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <o4lqpe$587$2...@dont-email.me>,

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 1/4/2017 9:38 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
>>>
>>> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
>>> very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
>>> accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to spend
>>> the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone with him,
>>> just 'cause he loooooooves her.
>>>
>>> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
>>> in their cellars.
>>>
>>> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends with
>>> her shoving him out the airlock.
>>>
>> I haven't seen the film yet but as I understand it this is actually
>addressed as a big issue in the film.
>>
>I have seen it and it is addressed as a big issue.

DOES she shove him out the airlock? :)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:oJBJo...@kithrup.com:

SPOLER ALERT - YOU WERE WARNED













According to Wikipedia's summary, no. She rewards him by reviving
him after he's killed fixing the ship, and choosing to stay away
despite having the option of being put back under for the rest of
the trip. Because in Hollywood, the _only_ way for a woman to love
a mand is if he stalks, kidnaps, or otherwise forces her to.

It's ever bit as offensive as you suspected.

[Alan Baker]

Tell me Dorothy:

Would you be ranting on like this if it had been a female who awakened a
male?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
news:o4m499$d9g$3...@news.datemas.de:

Can you name a single movie in which a female protagonist kidnaps
or stalks a male victim, and the male victim responds by falling in
love with her? There may well be a few, but it's *normal* for the
reverse in both television and movies. A female character who falls
in love with a male character *without* some kind of abusive
character is _less common_.


Alan Baker:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/
no
/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes
/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/
yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters."
And you *can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around you any more.

[Alan Baker]

Yes, I probably could, but that's not germane.

The fact is that the act of awakening someone on the ship of the
opposite sex is a NORMAL response to the situation, and even if you
class that act as "abusive", it doesn't allow for the possibility that
she can forgive him for that act and then deal with the new situation as
it is.

>
>
> Alan Baker...

...you want to whine, yes, I know.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 1/4/2017 11:19 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

>> I have yet to see "Passengers" but I have seen "Rogue One" twice.
>> "Rogue One" for me is the best movie of 2016 with "Deadpool" a
>> very close second. Or maybe "The Secret Life of Pets" is second for me.
>> Howard Taylor does not even come close to agreeing with me
>> either:
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/pages/2016-movies/
>
> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
>
> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
> very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
> accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to spend
> the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone with him,
> just 'cause he loooooooves her.
>
> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
> in their cellars.
>
> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends with
> her shoving him out the airlock.

I was male the last time I looked. 6'1", bald, and very white goatee.

Oh my. If I locked up the wife in the basement, she would get unlocked somehow and fix me. You know, with a dull spoon. We been
married for 35 years next week and I can say this with extreme confidence.

You know, Allen Steele worked on this same premise in one of his early _Coyote_ books. The real problem with someone waking up early
in a sleeper ship is the facilities (food, water, waste, etc) are not built for someone to spend 80 years awake. At some point, the
awakened person will need to step out the airlock. And sooner rather than later since they will be consuming food and water
necessary for the sleepers at the new destination until they get food and water on the new planet.
https://www.amazon.com/Coyote-Allen-Steele/dp/0441011160/

Lynn

[David Johnston]

A realistic interstellar voyage which doesn't include copious margins
for error is going to be a voyage that never reaches its destination.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 11:09:34 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
>news:o4m499$d9g$3...@news.datemas.de:
>
>> On 2017-01-05 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <o4lqpe$587$2...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2017 9:38 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen the film yet but as I understand it this is
>>>>> actually
>>>> addressed as a big issue in the film.
>>>>>
>>>> I have seen it and it is addressed as a big issue.
>>>
>>> DOES she shove him out the airlock? :)
>>
>> Tell me Dorothy:
>>
>> Would you be ranting on like this if it had been a female who
>> awakened a male?
>>
>Can you name a single movie in which a female protagonist kidnaps
>or stalks a male victim, and the male victim responds by falling in
>love with her?

"Sleepless in Seattle." No kidnap, but definite stalking.

> There may well be a few, but it's *normal* for the
>reverse in both television and movies. A female character who falls
>in love with a male character *without* some kind of abusive
>character is _less common_.

I'm not sure it's THAT frequent, though it's much, much too common. I
think it looks like it's more common than a healthy romance because
the healthy ones don't make for much of a story and therefore often
end up in the background, rather than the foreground.

I don't see any abusive behavior among the good guys in superhero
movies, for example, but those romances are secondary.

("When Harry Met Sally" is a counter-example where it's foreground --
they're both screwed up, but not abusive.)

And of course, it didn't start with movies or TV. It's all over the
pulps, or Victorian literature. Or there's Beauty and the Beast. We
can even go back as far as the Sabine women; there are probably
examples in the Old Testament, though I can't bring any to mind right
now.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no
/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/n

o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yaes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
news:pgbt6c9poosme9lf8...@reader80.eternal-september.
org:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 11:09:34 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
>>news:o4m499$d9g$3...@news.datemas.de:
>>
>>> On 2017-01-05 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <o4lqpe$587$2...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2017 9:38 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't seen the film yet but as I understand it this is
>>>>>> actually
>>>>> addressed as a big issue in the film.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen it and it is addressed as a big issue.
>>>>
>>>> DOES she shove him out the airlock? :)
>>>
>>> Tell me Dorothy:
>>>
>>> Would you be ranting on like this if it had been a female who
>>> awakened a male?
>>>
>>Can you name a single movie in which a female protagonist
>>kidnaps or stalks a male victim, and the male victim responds by
>>falling in love with her?
>
> "Sleepless in Seattle." No kidnap, but definite stalking.

Never saw that, either, and clearly I didn't miss anything.

>
>> There may well be a few, but it's *normal* for the
>>reverse in both television and movies. A female character who
>>falls in love with a male character *without* some kind of
>>abusive character is _less common_.
>
> I'm not sure it's THAT frequent, though it's much, much too
> common.

Which is the point.

> I think it looks like it's more common than a healthy
> romance because the healthy ones don't make for much of a story
> and therefore often end up in the background, rather than the
> foreground.

Plus, Hollywood is full of creepy, abusive people who don't
understand they're creepy and abusive.

>
> I don't see any abusive behavior among the good guys in
> superhero movies, for example, but those romances are secondary.

And as nearly non-existant as female superheroes. And let's not get
into the reasons there was no action figure for Black Widow.

>
> ("When Harry Met Sally" is a counter-example where it's
> foreground -- they're both screwed up, but not abusive.)
>
> And of course, it didn't start with movies or TV. It's all over
> the pulps, or Victorian literature. Or there's Beauty and the
> Beast. We can even go back as far as the Sabine women; there
> are probably examples in the Old Testament, though I can't bring
> any to mind right now.
>

The entirety of medieval/Renaissance romance is rife with the idea
of kidnapping women for breeding purposes.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Spoilers (Obviously one hopes):
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

He almost shoves himself out the airlock before he wakes her. After she
finds out he woke her complications ensue, including her assaulting him,
him basically surrendering by not defending himself and her stopping
herself just short of killing him.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Its common enough in real life to have inspired the "Nice guys finish
last" meme.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:o4m6nt$klt$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 1/4/2017 11:19 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>>> I have yet to see "Passengers" but I have seen "Rogue One"
>>> twice. "Rogue One" for me is the best movie of 2016 with
>>> "Deadpool" a very close second. Or maybe "The Secret Life of
>>> Pets" is second for me. Howard Taylor does not even come close
>>> to agreeing with me either:
>>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/pages/2016-movies/
>>
>> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
>>
>> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
>> very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
>> accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to
>> spend the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone
>> with him, just 'cause he loooooooves her.
>>
>> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
>> in their cellars.
>>
>> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends
>> with her shoving him out the airlock.
>
> I was male the last time I looked. 6'1", bald, and very white
> goatee.
>
> Oh my. If I locked up the wife in the basement, she would get
> unlocked somehow and fix me. You know, with a dull spoon. We
> been married for 35 years next week and I can say this with
> extreme confidence.

So this movie is someting of a revenge fantasy scenario for you?

[Lynn McGuire]

There is a simple answer for someone who wakes up early in a sleeper ship. Step out the nearest airlock if you cannot get back to sleep.

To me though, why cannot the person get back to sleep ? That is the real question. Most sleeper systems that I have read of (or
seen in a SF show such as Star Trek and Alien), have the people popping in and out of long sleep.

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:o4m8il$rcs$1...@dont-email.me:

Since we do not have the technology to even begin designing such a
mission, any speculation as to its success or failure modes is
based on some mighty big unspoken assumptions, anyway.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:o4md31$d9i$2...@dont-email.me:

It's actually not, but that's one of those "perception isn't based
on reality" sort of things.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:o4md6h$e2d$1...@dont-email.me:

The only answer that matter is "because if he could, this wouldn't
be a movie so much as a three minute trailer with no movie
attached." At best, it'd be a music video, only with bad music. All
else is wankage, irrelevant to the story.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 1/5/2017 2:00 PM, David Johnston wrote:

Might I point you to the Apollo 13 incident ? There was zero room for error there and that was just a one week trip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13

Shoot, I am worried just about the trip to Mars with all of those inherent problems. Getting back from Mars is a whole another
issue. I suspect that just about all trips to Mars will be one way trips, should they make it.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

Huh ? I have yet to see "Passengers" and probably won't now. Despite Howard Taylor's glowing report of "Beautiful. Powerful.
Heartbreaking. Inspiring. Awesome.".
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/passengers/

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:o4mdlp$fsm$1...@dont-email.me:

You do realize, don't you, that Apollo 13 was not an interstellar
trip? Don't you?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:o4meuo$kb0$1...@dont-email.me:

You seemed to be complaining that your wife will kick your ass if
you don't behave. So a movie about a guy how forces a passive woman
to love him by being abusive s seemed like it might be the prefect
revenge fantasy for you.

Or maybe I was just being snarky.

> I have yet to see "Passengers" and probably won't now.
> Despite Howard Taylor's glowing report of "Beautiful. Powerful.
> Heartbreaking. Inspiring. Awesome.".
> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/passengers/
>

I do not always agree with Howard's opinion of a movie, but I
rarely get the wrong impression of whether or not I'll like a movie
based on his reviews. He's pretty good at explaing *why* he does or
doesn't like it.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 13:21:40 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

+1

[David Johnston]

I'll take that as agreement.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in

news:tvgt6c9pfapa8rdb1...@reader80.eternal-september.
org:

I should also note that consideration of the cause/effect arrow
between "perception that women like assholes" and "Hollywood only
presents women who like assholes in movies and on TV" is worth
some thought, as well. I suspect it's a self-feeding circle.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA6F4699C549...@69.16.179.42>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you; you have confirmed that my spidey-sense is still
working.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:oJBwn...@kithrup.com:

Predicting that a big budget Hollywood movie will present women as
weak, stupid and passive is like predicting that water will be
wet, and the sun will rise in the east. I'd be more impressed if
you'd predicted something that hasn't happened a million times
already.

[J. Clarke]

In article <o4m6nt$klt$1...@dont-email.me>,
lynnmc...@gmail.com says...

FWIW, in this case the facilities are intended
to keep 5000 people 4 months awake. One or two
individuals for 80 years isn't going to make a
large dent in the consumables.

[J. Clarke]

In article <o4md6h$e2d$1...@dont-email.me>,
lynnmc...@gmail.com says...

That's addressed in the movie. The reason is of
a piece with the rest of the systems on the
ship--one suspects the hand of pointy-haired
bosses.

[J. Clarke]

In article <o4mdlp$fsm$1...@dont-email.me>,
lynnmc...@gmail.com says...

(a) If there was zero room for error they would
have all died.
(b) That was not an interstellar voyage on a
commercial luxury liner.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.32d89c911...@news.eternal-september.org:

I do feel compelled to point out that not all of that margin of
error was by design. There were some very clever hacks involved.

> (b) That was not an interstellar voyage on a
> commercial luxury liner.
>

One might expect that technology would advance somewhat between
1970 and whenever we try to launch an interstellar colony ship, as
well. Crossing the Atlantic isn't nearly as dangerous today as it
was in 1492, for instance.

[Lynn McGuire]

Apollo 13 did not achieve their main goal, to land and walk on the moon. The fact that they all lived to get back home home was nice.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

5,000 people * 1/3 years = 1,667 people.years of consumables

2 people * 80 years = 160 people.years of consumables

I'll submit to you that the two people would use 10% of the consumables for the 5,000 people. That is a pretty good hit. Especially
if the consumables storage was only 20% over the required amount.

Lynn

[Alan Baker]

You forgot the last part of your analysis.

That 10% means you can keep people fed (etc.) for 108 days instead of
120... ...assuming zero austerity measures.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no
/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/n

o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/

no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters."
And you *can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around you any more.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Covered in this movie.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 6:09:36 AM UTC+11, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:o4m499$d9g$3...@news.datemas.de:
>
> > On 2017-01-05 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> >> In article <o4lqpe$587$2...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>> On 1/4/2017 9:38 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC+11, Dorothy J
> >>>> Heydt wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>

> >>>>> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from
> >>>>> the very mention of this film. According to reviews, the
> >>>>> man wakes accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and
> >>>>> dooms her to spend the rest of her life (however long that
> >>>>> may be) alone with him, just 'cause he loooooooves her.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women
> >>>>> up in their cellars.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends
> >>>>> with her shoving him out the airlock.
> >>>>>

> >>>> I haven't seen the film yet but as I understand it this is
> >>>> actually
> >>> addressed as a big issue in the film.
> >>>>
> >>> I have seen it and it is addressed as a big issue.
> >>
> >> DOES she shove him out the airlock? :)
> >>
> >

> > Tell me Dorothy:
> >
> > Would you be ranting on like this if it had been a female who
> > awakened a male?
> >
> Can you name a single movie in which a female protagonist kidnaps
> or stalks a male victim, and the male victim responds by falling in

> love with her? There may well be a few,

All Tied Up
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105442/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

It takes three women. Same with "Three in the Attic." Or "First
Wives' Club," or "Nine to Five." Why is it always three?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in

news:82du6c55tus8ptpau...@reader80.eternal-september.
org:

Storytelling-wise, three is actually a magic number. Nearly
*everything* comes in threes in most movies.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-05 3:42 PM, Gutless whined.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

[-dsr-]

On 2017-01-05, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> On 2017-01-05 3:28 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 1/5/2017 5:08 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <o4m6nt$klt$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> lynnmc...@gmail.com says...

>>> FWIW, in this case the facilities are intended
>>> to keep 5000 people 4 months awake. One or two
>>> individuals for 80 years isn't going to make a
>>> large dent in the consumables.
>>
>> 5,000 people * 1/3 years = 1,667 people.years of consumables
>>
>> 2 people * 80 years = 160 people.years of consumables
>>
>> I'll submit to you that the two people would use 10% of the consumables
>> for the 5,000 people. That is a pretty good hit. Especially if the
>> consumables storage was only 20% over the required amount.
>>
>> Lynn
>
> You forgot the last part of your analysis.
>
> That 10% means you can keep people fed (etc.) for 108 days instead of
> 120... ...assuming zero austerity measures.

Since *we* can foresee someone coming out of cold-sleep early, *they*
can do the same.

Since *they* decided that it wasn't going to happen, *we* can assume
that they shouldn't have been put in charge of this mission, since they
couldn't provide an adequate safety margin.

I would call this a second-order idiot plot: this story can only arise
if the society at large if all their engineers and project managers are
idiots.

Let's see, what would be a good cryosleep ship story to tell?

- There's a live crew taking rotating shifts; 6 awake at a time, 2 years
per shift, every four months the group dynamics shift. You can tell:

a friendship,
a romance,
a missed-opportunity,
a person-goes-crazy and has to be taken out of rotation,
a series of vignettes,
a perpetual board game,
an exciting incident (which is why there's a live crew),
a tale of workplace tension,
a comedy of mistaken identity,

or a hundred other plots that don't require anyone to be kidnapped and
imprisoned for life.

Or there's only one live caretaker at a time, and for whatever reason
one of them decides not to rotate at the end of their shift. How does
each subsequent person react?

Or we could do a big engineering event, The Martian-style: due to an
amazing combination of bad-luck happenings, the coldsleep system needs
to be shut down for repairs, then restarted. In the meantime, the crew
needs to figure out how to house and feed X thousand people for Y months,
and still have enough resources left to complete the journey.

That one sounds particularly good to me. Power shouldn't be a problem
on an interstellar ship, but setting up living quarters and food production
could be quite intricate.

-dsr-

[Dimensional Traveler]

There is dialog in the movie about this. Apparently these kinds of
ships have been doing this for a long time in the universe and this is
the first time anyone on board has ever come out of suspended animation
prematurely. So whether we agree or not that their confidence is
justified, the movie universe people have a track record that they can
point to to justify their confidence.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in

news:o4onjh$vat$1...@dont-email.me:

Arguing about an element of the premise (because if this weren't
so, there would be no movie) is rather silly. It's like arguing
about how arithmetic would work if 1 + 2 didn't equal 2.

It's not a plot element, it's a *definition*. If it breaks WSOD for
you, don't watch the movie. Otherwise, watch the movie and suspend
disbelief.

Or whine on the internet so you can feel like you matter, which has
*nothing* to do with the movie.

[Alan Baker]

You actually have no idea what the word irony means, do you?

:-)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan Baker:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no
/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/n
o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/
no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters."
And you *can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around you any more.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 5 January 2017 21:19:44 UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 1/5/2017 2:00 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 1/5/2017 12:29 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> On 1/4/2017 11:19 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I have yet to see "Passengers" but I have seen "Rogue One" twice.
> >>>> "Rogue One" for me is the best movie of 2016 with "Deadpool" a
> >>>> very close second. Or maybe "The Secret Life of Pets" is second for me.
> >>>> Howard Taylor does not even come close to agreeing with me
> >>>> either:
> >>>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/pages/2016-movies/
> >>>

> >>> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
> >>>
> >>> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
> >>> very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
> >>> accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to spend
> >>> the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone with him,
> >>> just 'cause he loooooooves her.
> >>>
> >>> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
> >>> in their cellars.
> >>>
> >>> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends with
> >>> her shoving him out the airlock.
> >>

> >> I was male the last time I looked. 6'1", bald, and very white goatee.
> >>
> >> Oh my. If I locked up the wife in the basement, she would get unlocked
> >> somehow and fix me. You know, with a dull spoon. We been married for
> >> 35 years next week and I can say this with extreme confidence.
> >>
> >> You know, Allen Steele worked on this same premise in one of his early
> >> _Coyote_ books. The real problem with someone waking up early in a
> >> sleeper ship is the facilities (food, water, waste, etc) are not built
> >> for someone to spend 80 years awake. At some point, the awakened person
> >> will need to step out the airlock. And sooner rather than later since
> >> they will be consuming food and water necessary for the sleepers at the
> >> new destination until they get food and water on the new planet.
> >> https://www.amazon.com/Coyote-Allen-Steele/dp/0441011160/
> >>
> >> Lynn
> >
> > A realistic interstellar voyage which doesn't include copious margins for error is going to be a voyage that never reaches its
> > destination.
>
> There is a simple answer for someone who wakes up early in a sleeper ship. Step out the nearest airlock if you cannot get back to sleep.
>
> To me though, why cannot the person get back to sleep ? That is the real question. Most sleeper systems that I have read of (or
> seen in a SF show such as Star Trek and Alien), have the people popping in and out of long sleep.

Maybe it takes a hospital wing of experts to
put a person /into/ cold sleep. You could find
and wake up enough people to put patient number
one back under, but then...

If no one has to wake up, and no one does, it is
not a very engaging story. Like the "people who
slept through the whole thing" sub plot in _2001_,
if you even remember they were there.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 5 January 2017 12:26:54 UTC, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <oJAK4...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com says...
> >
> > In article <o4k73b$n3e$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On 12/22/2016 7:33 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This doesn't seem to be getting any love from
> > >> anybody and it's a shame. It's the third solid
> > >> SF movie to come along this year and movies that
> > >> are real SF and don't degenerate into horror are
> > >> rare. The story would have fit into the pages
> > >> one of the major Prozines just fine. It starts
> > >> with a (given that one has a working sleeper
> > >> starship) plausible premise and everything flows
> > >> from there. It seems to get chalked for turning
> > >> into "romantic comedy" but there's nothing funny
> > >> about the way the romance goes--I'm guessing
> > >> that that criticism comes from people who have
> > >> never gone past the Golden Age of Science
> > >> Fiction (12). Could it have been better? Yes--
> > >> IMO it's main failing is that it didn't have
> > >> time to tell the story it was telling--there
> > >> were three major stories going at the same
> > >> time--the relationship between Jim and Aurora,
> > >> their coping with being alone for the rest of
> > >> their lives, and the failing of the ship's
> > >> systems. Any of those could have made a movie
> > >> of this length in itself, but doing all three
> > >> short-changed all of them. I don't know if
> > >> another hour would have helped (I'd love to see
> > >> a director's cut that fleshes out the stories
> > >> though) or if it really needed to be a mini-
> > >> series.
> > >>
> > >> I'd really like this to make enough that more
> > >> movies of this general nature get made but sadly
> > >> it looks like it's going to end up losing money.
> > >>
> > >> The original script is I understand somewhat
> > >> different and not (from a genre viewpoint) in a
> > >> good way.
> > >>
> > >> I can't help thinking that it should never have
> > >> been put up against Rogue One, which IMO is the
> > >> best installment in the Star Wars franchise
> > >> since Empire Strikes Back.

> > >
> > >I have yet to see "Passengers" but I have seen "Rogue One" twice.
> > >"Rogue One" for me is the best movie of 2016 with "Deadpool" a
> > >very close second. Or maybe "The Secret Life of Pets" is second for me.
> > >Howard Taylor does not even come close to agreeing with me
> > >either:
> > > http://www.schlockmercenary.com/pages/2016-movies/
> >
> > You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
> >
> > It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
> > very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
> > accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to spend
> > the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone with him,
> > just 'cause he loooooooves her.
>

> He goes quit a lot nuts after essentially a year
> in solitary confinement. Shortly before waking
> her he seriously contemplates suicide. Whether
> he "loooooooves" her is not clear. He does
> become fascinated by her.
>
> It is not treated as a morally correct choice,
> it is treated as something that someone who has
> been isolated long enough is likely to do.

>
> > In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
> > in their cellars.
>

> I think that's a bit unfair. The kind of person
> who locks women up in his cellar has not been
> isolated from _all_ human contact for a long
> period of time.

Some have. pretty much. I suppose. I'm not
a student of this field.

And if you make it "all human contact except for
the previous victims." And grocery store clerks
or wherever else Bluebeard goes for food.

Jeremy Clarkson got into trouble for the 473rd time
for making a joke about long distance truck drivers
who serially kill prostitutes - as I say, I'm not
in the know but I think that was mainly one
British guy. But he was pretty famous for it.
Too bad for the others that I never heard of.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 5 January 2017 19:09:36 UTC, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:o4m499$d9g$3...@news.datemas.de:
>
> > On 2017-01-05 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> In article <o4lqpe$587$2...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>> On 1/4/2017 9:38 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC+11, Dorothy J
> >>>> Heydt wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>

> >>>>> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from
> >>>>> the very mention of this film. According to reviews, the
> >>>>> man wakes accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and
> >>>>> dooms her to spend the rest of her life (however long that
> >>>>> may be) alone with him, just 'cause he loooooooves her.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women
> >>>>> up in their cellars.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends
> >>>>> with her shoving him out the airlock.
> >>>>>

> >>>> I haven't seen the film yet but as I understand it this is
> >>>> actually
> >>> addressed as a big issue in the film.
> >>>>
> >>> I have seen it and it is addressed as a big issue.
> >>
> >> DOES she shove him out the airlock? :)
> >>
> >
> > Tell me Dorothy:
> >
> > Would you be ranting on like this if it had been a female who
> > awakened a male?
> >
> Can you name a single movie in which a female protagonist kidnaps
> or stalks a male victim, and the male victim responds by falling in
> love with her?

Well, Species, Species 2, Species 3 - unless at some
stage the succubus character is made a hot guy.
I just read the synopses. And there's that other
novel and film where an alien lady drives around
picking up hitch hikers and eating them.

And then there's the Mad Scientist's Beautiful
Daughter. (Who may also be mad if it's hereditary.
Lucrezia Mongfish.)

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 5 January 2017 18:46:03 UTC, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-01-05 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > In article <o4lqpe$587$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/4/2017 9:38 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
> >>>>
> >>>> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
> >>>> very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
> >>>> accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to spend
> >>>> the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone with him,
> >>>> just 'cause he loooooooves her.
> >>>>
> >>>> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
> >>>> in their cellars.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends with
> >>>> her shoving him out the airlock.
> >>>>
> >>> I haven't seen the film yet but as I understand it this is actually
> >> addressed as a big issue in the film.
> >>>
> >> I have seen it and it is addressed as a big issue.
> >
> > DOES she shove him out the airlock? :)
> >
>
> Tell me Dorothy:
>
> Would you be ranting on like this if it had been a female who awakened a
> male?

Has she found a jar with a really tightly
screwed lid? :-)

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 5 January 2017 19:29:32 UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 1/4/2017 11:19 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>

> >> I have yet to see "Passengers" but I have seen "Rogue One" twice.
> >> "Rogue One" for me is the best movie of 2016 with "Deadpool" a
> >> very close second. Or maybe "The Secret Life of Pets" is second for me.
> >> Howard Taylor does not even come close to agreeing with me
> >> either:
> >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/pages/2016-movies/
> >

> > You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
> >
> > It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
> > very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
> > accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to spend
> > the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone with him,
> > just 'cause he loooooooves her.
> >
> > In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
> > in their cellars.
> >
> > I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends with
> > her shoving him out the airlock.
>

> I was male the last time I looked. 6'1", bald, and very white goatee.
>
> Oh my. If I locked up the wife in the basement, she would get unlocked somehow and fix me. You know, with a dull spoon. We been
> married for 35 years next week and I can say this with extreme confidence.
>
> You know, Allen Steele worked on this same premise in one of his early _Coyote_ books. The real problem with someone waking up early
> in a sleeper ship is the facilities (food, water, waste, etc) are not built for someone to spend 80 years awake. At some point, the
> awakened person will need to step out the airlock. And sooner rather than later since they will be consuming food and water
> necessary for the sleepers at the new destination until they get food and water on the new planet.
> https://www.amazon.com/Coyote-Allen-Steele/dp/0441011160/
>
> Lynn

Ah - the cold equations.

Aha - plenty of frozen pork on board. If there's
no one else around to stop you.

By the way, who rates _Red Dwarf_ - TV or books?
Original premise, a space vessel with ample resources,
but only one person alive. FSVO "person" and "alive".
But no supply of spares shelved up in the cellar.
Later, the situation varied.

[Robert Carnegie]

Also for the holidays week:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-12-26

"Breath smarter, not harder. It's called..."

(Should that line include the word "thought"?
Well, perhaps not.)

[Dimensional Traveler]

One would think a ship such as the Red Dwarf would have the facilities
to simply _make_ its own replacement parts as stock fell below a certain
point.

[Jerry Brown]

However the ship's supplies sustained an entire population of cats
which eventually evolved into cat people over the course of 3 million
years. There was originally going to be an episode which explained
what happened to them after they all (but two) departed shortly before
Lister came out of stasis but Grant&Naylor never got round to
completing it.

>But no supply of spares shelved up in the cellar.
>Later, the situation varied.

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

[hamis...@gmail.com]

The ship has been travelling for 3 million years, the computer is slightly senile and the ship had a civilisation of inhabitants descended from cats.
It's probably fair to say that the maintenance system has done extremely well to to get there without more holes than a sieve.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Details, details. :D

[Robert Carnegie]

I was too obscure - actually I meant spare people.

As originally configured, the ship can generate
only 1 holographic reincarnation of a dead crewperson.
Since all the crew of hundreds are dead in a
maintenance accident except for the guy who was
sentenced to three weeks in stasis for smuggling
a (pregnant) cat on board, it isn't going to be
crowded.

So there's a humanoid cat and also an obsessively
servile android. And later, various encounters.

In a recent episode of season eleven, they get hold
of a machine that can 3-D print additional people.
Spoiler: it isn't used wisely.

[Anthony Nance]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> On 2017-01-05 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <o4lqpe$587$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2017 9:38 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
>>>>> very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
>>>>> accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to spend
>>>>> the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone with him,
>>>>> just 'cause he loooooooves her.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
>>>>> in their cellars.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends with
>>>>> her shoving him out the airlock.
>>>>>

>>>> I haven't seen the film yet but as I understand it this is actually
>>> addressed as a big issue in the film.
>>>>
>>> I have seen it and it is addressed as a big issue.
>>
>> DOES she shove him out the airlock? :)
>>
>
> Tell me Dorothy:
>
> Would you be ranting on like this if it had been a female who awakened a
> male?

Tell me Alan:

Would you believe her if she said "yes"?

[Alan Baker]

I might. But if the situation had been presented the other way around, I
truly believe she'd be totally fine with it.

I'm sorry, but her thesis that this is the same as men who lock women in
cellars is pure bullshit.

[Dimensional Traveler]

I'm familiar with the show. I haven't seen the last few seasons yet
(have the discs though) but "it isn't used wisely" isn't much of a
spoiler if you've seen any of the show. :)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

We're back to the original question, Alan:

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-07 10:42 AM, Gutless...


...for no reason anyone can see other than his severe butthurt...

...whined.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

[michae...@gmail.com]

Making more friends, Shit Stain?

You make it seem so easy.

[Robert Carnegie]

The guy in the story basically abducts the lady's
entire remaining life from how she intended to spend
it, because he wanted to and could. Also because
he was going crazy, which is mitigation. But the
crime is analogous to unlawful imprisonment, and
the victims of that are very usually women and/or
children, at the hands of men or of parents of
either sex. One of very few exceptions:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_sex_in_chains_case>

Simply because, at least most of the time, most
women haven't had the tools required.

Coercion as fantasy exists for women, and not only
for women, but fantasy is a long way from the real
experience.

I already hinted that a story where a lonely
spacewoman has to wake up one of the men is liable to offend women in other ways - Alison Bechdel
for instance probably would skip it.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

It's red dwarf, nothing is ever used wisely.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

michae...@gmail.com wrote in
news:809ed3c6-c145-48ee...@googlegroups.com:

Don't pick on Alan. He can't help himself. I genuinely believe he is
mentally ill, and not interacting with reality.

We're back to the original question, Alan:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests,
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no
/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/n
o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/
no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you've been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more
prone to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters."
And you *can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around you any more.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-07 4:00 PM, Gutless whined

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:4cf49704-2e3b-46f0...@googlegroups.com:

> Coercion as fantasy exists for women, and not only
> for women, but fantasy is a long way from the real
> experience.
>

One should note that in a true dom/sub relationship, it is the *sub*
who is in control, at all times, not the dom.

Fantasy is completely disconnected from the reality being discussed
here.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

[Titus G]

On 08/01/17 13:12, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 January 2017 16:16:34 UTC, Alan Baker wrote:

snip

>> I'm sorry, but her thesis that this is the same as men who lock
>> women in cellars is pure bullshit.

> The guy in the story basically abducts the lady's entire remaining
> life from how she intended to spend it, because he wanted to and
> could. Also because he was going crazy, which is mitigation. But
> the crime is analogous to unlawful imprisonment, and the victims of
> that are very usually women and/or children, at the hands of men or

> of parents of either sex. snip

Excerpt from review at:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11778421

"...... symbolic of a bursting, septic boil of male entitlement to
women's bodies, lives and stories. Jim selfishly decides to wake Aurora
up, essentially sentencing her to death on the ship before they come
even close to her destination. Instead of deploring Jim's choices and
examining that level of desperation and depravity, Passengers palms this
plot point off as the beginning of a classic Hollywood love story.
Aurora falls for Jim, finds out the truth, and falls back in love with
him. When given the choice to return to sleep, she insists on staying
with him. The woman abandons her hopes, plans and future all for a
schlub in a boiler suit.

In another universe, the genuinely disgusting premise might have been
made more palatable by charismatic performances and a smart, self-aware
script that raised questions of morality, ethics and gender.
Unfortunately, ................."

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-07 4:02 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:4cf49704-2e3b-46f0...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Coercion as fantasy exists for women, and not only
>> for women, but fantasy is a long way from the real
>> experience.
>>
> One should note that in a true dom/sub relationship, it is the *sub*
> who is in control, at all times, not the dom.
>
> Fantasy is completely disconnected from the reality being discussed
> here.
>

There is no reality being discussed here, Terry.

There are discussion about the plots of an unreal situation: a movie.

[Alan Baker]

Did you read this response to the review:

'On the basis of your plot synopsis I have no issue with your one star
rating, but " the most disturbing premise", "physical reaction of
repulsion", "symbolic of a bursting, septic boil of male entitlement to
women's bodies, lives and stories", "desperation and depravity" ...
really?. Sounds as if you are closer to the mark with "the writing is
abysmal and the script sets out mostly to rehash the plot every few
minutes to the point where it becomes insulting".

Would the movie have just as disturbing a premise and depraved content
if Aurora was first awake?'

I completely agree that the reviewer would have had ZERO issues if it
was a woman who woke first and facing the prospect of living alone for
the rest of her life chose to wake someone to spend it with her.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 1/7/2017 5:41 PM, Titus G wrote:
> On 08/01/17 13:12, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Saturday, 7 January 2017 16:16:34 UTC, Alan Baker wrote:
> snip
>
>>> I'm sorry, but her thesis that this is the same as men who lock
>>> women in cellars is pure bullshit.
>
>> The guy in the story basically abducts the lady's entire remaining
>> life from how she intended to spend it, because he wanted to and
>> could. Also because he was going crazy, which is mitigation. But
>> the crime is analogous to unlawful imprisonment, and the victims of
>> that are very usually women and/or children, at the hands of men or
>> of parents of either sex. snip
>
> Excerpt from review at:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11778421
>
>
> "...... symbolic of a bursting, septic boil of male entitlement to
> women's bodies, lives and stories.

I'm sorry but at this point the sound of the axe grinding drowned out
whatever else they were saying.

And no, I'm not saying it was a good choice on the character's part.
But it was an understandable choice for any HUMAN in that position.
People also don't seem to have heard of Stockholm Syndrome.

[Alan Baker]

Exactly.

This was a human--forget "man" or "woman"; just a human being--face with
the psychological torture of living out his/her life alone while knowing
that the means to change that were literally just a couple of keystrokes
away.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

and what did that solution do to the other person?

[Alan Baker]

Agreed. The solution wasn't good for the other person.

But equating it with men who abuse women...

...WHEN THEY AREN'T UNDERGOING A FORM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE...

...is bullshit.

This is the standard "man bad, women good" nonsense we're hearing far
too much of these days.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Again, NOT A GOOD CHOICE. But in that situation there WERE no good
choices for him. (And no, suicide is not a good choice.)

ROT13 spoiler protection
Naq nf vg ghearq bhg fur arire jbhyq unir jbxra ng nyy vs ur unqa'g
jbxra fbzrbar orpnhfr gur fuvc jbhyqa'g unir ernpurq vgf qrfgvangvba.

[Joe Bernstein]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 5:02:05 PM UTC-8, Gutless Umbrella

Carrying Sissy wrote:

> One should note that in a true dom/sub relationship, it is the *sub*
> who is in control, at all times, not the dom.

Um? In most relationships, that kind of thing is pretty hard to infer
from the outside, and fairly similar relationships can differ quite a
bit in this area. I'd hesitate to say either of those things about
abusive relationships, so there can be exceptions, but what makes a
"true dom/sub relationship", as you define it, automatically such an
exception?

-- JLB

[Cryptoengineer]

Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in news:402cee87-80aa-44f1-8b71-
b981cd...@googlegroups.com:

I think GUCS is referring to the subset of dom/sub relationships where
the partners are actually roleplaying for their mutual entertainment,
and either one can call it off at any time.

This is not a *actual* dom/sub situation, such as that of a kidnapper
and his/her victim, or a prison guard and an inmate.

pt

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 8 January 2017 18:00:40 UTC, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in news:402cee87-80aa-44f1-8b71-
> b981cd...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 5:02:05 PM UTC-8, Gutless Umbrella
> > Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >
> >> One should note that in a true dom/sub relationship, it is the *sub*
> >> who is in control, at all times, not the dom.
> >
> > Um? In most relationships, that kind of thing is pretty hard to infer
> > from the outside, and fairly similar relationships can differ quite a
> > bit in this area. I'd hesitate to say either of those things about
> > abusive relationships, so there can be exceptions, but what makes a
> > "true dom/sub relationship", as you define it, automatically such an
> > exception?
>
> I think GUCS is referring to the subset of dom/sub relationships where
> the partners are actually roleplaying for their mutual entertainment,
> and either one can call it off at any time.

I still dunno. Also if money is involved.
The cliche is of some public official who
pays a prostitute to "enslave" or spank him,
or maybe that scenario is /my/ fantasy
concerning certain public officials...

> This is not a *actual* dom/sub situation, such as that of a kidnapper
> and his/her victim, or a prison guard and an inmate.

Or husband and wife - sometimes.

I gather that Mr. Hedyt often lets his wife
out of the basement...... I'm almost sure
it's not like that at all.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 6 January 2017 21:37:14 UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 January 2017 19:09:36 UTC, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> > Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
> > news:o4m499$d9g$3...@news.datemas.de:

> >
> > > On 2017-01-05 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > >> In article <o4lqpe$587$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > >> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >>> On 1/4/2017 9:38 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC+11, Dorothy J
> > >>>> Heydt wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from
> > >>>>> the very mention of this film. According to reviews, the
> > >>>>> man wakes accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and
> > >>>>> dooms her to spend the rest of her life (however long that
> > >>>>> may be) alone with him, just 'cause he loooooooves her.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women
> > >>>>> up in their cellars.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends
> > >>>>> with her shoving him out the airlock.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> I haven't seen the film yet but as I understand it this is
> > >>>> actually
> > >>> addressed as a big issue in the film.
> > >>>>
> > >>> I have seen it and it is addressed as a big issue.
> > >>
> > >> DOES she shove him out the airlock? :)
> > >>
> > >
> > > Tell me Dorothy:
> > >
> > > Would you be ranting on like this if it had been a female who
> > > awakened a male?
> > >

> > Can you name a single movie in which a female protagonist kidnaps
> > or stalks a male victim, and the male victim responds by falling in
> > love with her?
>
> Well, Species, Species 2, Species 3 - unless at some
> stage the succubus character is made a hot guy.
> I just read the synopses. And there's that other
> novel and film where an alien lady drives around
> picking up hitch hikers and eating them.
>
> And then there's the Mad Scientist's Beautiful
> Daughter. (Who may also be mad if it's hereditary.
> Lucrezia Mongfish.)

Oh - and probably _Housesitter_.

It occurs to me belatedly that almost certainly,
the film makers and their backers considered making
two, or more suspended-animation troughs go wrong
accidentally (only two people make it, probably),
and they /preferred/ to give us what they did.

Many of us disagree with the decision. Maybe the
DVD will come with an alternate middle...

[Dimensional Traveler]

If you have already said I've forgotten but have you seen the movie?

[Quadibloc]

The problem isn't whether or not the character in the movie is a monster. The problem is that it is being watched by an audience that is on Earth, not in a sleeper ship. So while the movie may be valid as art, exploring an aspect of the human condition in an unusual circumstance, it can also be considered pernicious because here on Earth at this time, what we need is for movies to bolster and reinforce respect for the sexual autonomy of women, not erode it.

[Don Kuenz]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <o4lqpe$587$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>On 1/4/2017 9:38 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:30:03 PM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're male, aren't you, Lynn?
>>>>
>>>> It is possible that if you were female you'd turn away from the
>>>> very mention of this film. According to reviews, the man wakes
>>>> accidentally, gets lonely, wakes the woman and dooms her to spend
>>>> the rest of her life (however long that may be) alone with him,
>>>> just 'cause he loooooooves her.
>>>>
>>>> In this pre-sleepers-ship age, men like that just lock women up
>>>> in their cellars.
>>>>
>>>> I have no intention of seeing this film, and I hope it ends with
>>>> her shoving him out the airlock.
>>>>
>>> I haven't seen the film yet but as I understand it this is actually
>>addressed as a big issue in the film.
>>>
>>I have seen it and it is addressed as a big issue.
>
> DOES she shove him out the airlock? :)

A Lynn-RAH association may have triggered your subconscious into
instinctively reaching for the RAH solution to the problem. Remember
that there's also a perfectly acceptable Cordwainer Smith solution that
can be applied to the problem at hand.

Lady if a man
Tries to bother you, you can
Think blue,
Count two,
And look for a read shoe.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU

Mony a one for him maks mane,
But nane sall ken where he is gone:
O'er his white banes, when they are bare,
The wind sall blaw for evermair.
- Anonymous

[Robert Carnegie]

I have not, and now I'm not sure I'm allowed to?

Have I got the plot wrong? I'm not sure I'd watch
any of the alternate versions I suggested, e.g.
solving the lack of lifetime food supply by eating
as many sleeping passengers as it took to balance
the figures. Anyway, _Doctor Who_ used a story
like that in 1975.

[Dimensional Traveler]

What you considered about multiple failures is covered in the movie. I
think every "but what about this?" that people who have not seen the
movie have suggested _was_ addressed in it.

And if it what you need, I give you permission to see it. ;)

[Kevrob]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:

> Would the movie have just as disturbing a premise and depraved content
> if Aurora was first awake?'

Aurora? Princess Aurora, the Sleeping Beauty?

That's a little on the nose, isn't it?

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

In article <986f8a49-b01f-483b-bc47-9fedf8236078
@googlegroups.com>, rja.ca...@excite.com
says...

The sub does have a lot of power, in the US
anyway, and especially if the sub is female.
Much of that sort of play is the dom engaging in
actions toward the sub that are unlawful, often
in major ways. All the sub has to do is call
the cops and the dom's life is pretty much
ruined. The law in the US does not make
provisions for consent to such activities.

[Quadibloc]

Oh, and I should also mention EC Comics' take on this sort of thing...

50 Girls 50

'way back when.

John Savard