read the book, forget the movie
William B. Dennis 2nd
Read the book. It doesn't have all the inserted fascist imagery.
--
William B. Dennis 2nd
http://billscontent.tripod.com and
http://heinlein-libertarian.tripod.com
Rick
"William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwill...@home.com> wrote in message
news:DuxX6.62418$mG4.30...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
William B. Dennis 2nd
Rick <Rick...@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:vpAX6.315395$oc7.28...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> Better yet, play the AH game and be part of the plot!
To what AH are you refering? "Alternate History"?
George Weinberg
<dwill...@home.com> wrote:
>
>Rick <Rick...@Spam.com> wrote in message
>news:vpAX6.315395$oc7.28...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>> Better yet, play the AH game and be part of the plot!
>
>To what AH are you refering? "Alternate History"?
>
Avalon Hill.
George
George Weinberg
<dwill...@home.com> wrote:
>Who in their right mind would love the Starship Troopers movie.
>Read the book. It doesn't have all the inserted fascist imagery.
>
You're kidding, right? Starship troopers
should have been titled Mein Spacekampf.
George
William B. Dennis 2nd
George Weinberg <geor...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:3b2f7d3f....@news.speakeasy.net...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:00:19 GMT, "William B. Dennis 2nd"
> <dwill...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Who in their right mind would love the Starship Troopers movie.
> >Read the book. It doesn't have all the inserted fascist imagery.
> >
>
> You're kidding, right? Starship troopers
> should have been titled Mein Spacekampf.
Do you really understand the definition of fascism, or is the word "fascist"
a word you apply to anything right of center that you fail to understand?
Mac
<dwill...@home.com> wrote:
>Who in their right mind would love the Starship Troopers
movie.
>Read the book. It doesn't have all the inserted fascist
imagery.
You're kidding, right? Starship troopers
should have been titled Mein Spacekampf.
George
Would you kindly state why you have made the above
statement?
Hitler's little piece had a whole lot of prejudice and
insanity ---and led to a military, fascist State.
Please elucidate as to how you equate Starship Troopers
((the Book)) with such.
Or, are you referring to Verhoaxer's nightmare from his
youth that he produces over and over and over again?
I look forward to your explanation.
---Mac
George Weinberg
<dwill...@home.com> wrote:
>
>George Weinberg <geor...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:3b2f7d3f....@news.speakeasy.net...
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:00:19 GMT, "William B. Dennis 2nd"
>> <dwill...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Who in their right mind would love the Starship Troopers movie.
>> >Read the book. It doesn't have all the inserted fascist imagery.
>> >
>>
>> You're kidding, right? Starship troopers
>> should have been titled Mein Spacekampf.
>
>Do you really understand the definition of fascism, or is the word "fascist"
>a word you apply to anything right of center that you fail to understand?
Do you have any clue how to make a decent argument, or do
you believe "argumnent" consists of insulting people you
disagree with?
Let me remind you how the political system in the book worked: in
order to "earn" your "citizenship" (and get a right to vote, etc) you
had to be a vetran of a "service" designed explicitly to crush the
indvidual and reduce him to the status of a cog in the great
machine.
And the women were bald.
George
Ed Reppert
geor...@speakeasy.net (George Weinberg) wrote:
> in
> order to "earn" your "citizenship" (and get a right to vote, etc) you
> had to be a vetran of a "service" designed explicitly to crush the
> indvidual and reduce him to the status of a cog in the great
> machine.
False.
> And the women were bald.
Not to mention silly.
Bill Williams
See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf (The Nature of
"Federal Service" in Robert A. Heinlein's *Starship Troopers* by James
Gifford) for a detailed discussion of "how the political system in the
book worked." Your characterization of the polity Heinlein described
is grossly in error. See http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm for
further discussion of Paul Verhoeven's cinematic misrepresentation of
Heinlein's novel.
What's more, baldness is the result of apoptotic changes in scalp hair
follicles, either transient (as in many cases of chemotherapy) or
permanent (as in male pattern baldness). Heinlein's description of
female Naval ratings and officers cropping their hair close (or
shaving their scalps completely) to make for easier personal hygiene
and safety in microgravity doesn't mean that "the women were bald."
The above statements are valid arguments, advanced as such. This
description of your presentation and manner, you simpering shitwad, is
an insult. Consider it lagniappe.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Seven Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
William B. Dennis 2nd
I suggest you read the book.
The veterans depicted in the book were all highly individualistic with
strong personalities.
Perhaps as you sit in your living room, watching cable television with the
air conditioning blowing, you might take a moment to reflect on the liberty
and prosperity bought with the blood of people you describe as "cogs in a
great machine."
Mac
George Weinberg wrote in message
<3b30c84b....@news.speakeasy.net>...
SNIP SNIP
Let me remind you how the political system in the book
worked: in
order to "earn" your "citizenship" (and get a right to vote,
etc) you
had to be a vetran of a "service" designed explicitly to
crush the
indvidual and reduce him to the status of a cog in the great
machine.
And the women were bald.
George
With all due respect, but there is no support for your
opinion above that any individual was "crushed" or that he
became a "cog".
You are ignoring many of the other options, aside from M.I.
The other options were mentioned but, for the book, MR.
Heinlein did focus upon the M.I. and yet, nowhere does he
indicate that any of the Troopers are "crushed". On the
contrary, simply reading about their intereactions while on
duty and on leave, that is very much in doubt.
There is a large difference between Basic Training to bring
individuals to operating as a Group and "crushing".
AND, again, you ignore the other options.
IN ADDITION, how can you say the women were bald?
I believe Heinlein clearly mentioned that the hair was
cropped close (or shaved) for a very specific
eason --------as such, this would be temporary, not
permanent.
FINALLY, if you must indulge by labelling the book as
"fascist" as another asked, are you really familiar with
that term? I notice that you have replied to that person
but you did not answer that question.
---Mac
Ed Reppert
<John_L...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> The above statements are valid arguments, advanced as such. This
> description of your presentation and manner, you simpering shitwad, is
> an insult. Consider it lagniappe.
Ooh. I like that. it's a keeper! :-)
George Weinberg
The book is 1) fiction 2) told as a first person narrative
with a narrorator highly enthusiastic about the
"character building" he had received.
>IN ADDITION, how can you say the women were bald?
>I believe Heinlein clearly mentioned that the hair was
>cropped close (or shaved) for a very specific
>eason --------as such, this would be temporary, not
>permanent.
Since nobody got it, this was my way of indicating
that the book is too silly to deserve serious discussion.
>
>FINALLY, if you must indulge by labelling the book as
>"fascist" as another asked, are you really familiar with
>that term? I notice that you have replied to that person
>but you did not answer that question.
>---Mac
>
Hmm, since answers more than 1 syllabal lomg apparently
confuse you, "yes." Happy?
I don't think it's THAT big a stretch to refer to a society where
the vast majority of people are not considered citizens.
It's been I think about 15 years since I read this book
I really don't feel like discussing it any more.
George
>
>
waxxez
proving how Heinlein we all are. I would suggest that most of the Grand
Masters works had several levels that people recognise much more easily as
they progress through life. I personally enjoy re-reading his novels as I
( hope I) have gained both the intellect and experience to derive my own
interpretations which suit and accomodate my foibles and predelictions as I
see fit. Boring and a cop out I agree but it works for me.
"George Weinberg" <geor...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:3b321018....@news.speakeasy.net...
Mac
George Weinberg wrote in message
GEORGE:
The book is 1) fiction 2) told as a first person narrative
with a narrorator highly enthusiastic about the
"character building" he had received.
REPLY:
Yes. The character of Rico is altered.
However, you have stated that the service "crushed" the
individual to make him a cog int he macine. I do not
believe you have sustained this premise. AND, in addition,
you neglect the many other "Federal Service Options" ----
the M.I. was not the only game in town. You did not
address that.
--------------------------------------
>IN ADDITION, how can you say the women were bald?
>I believe Heinlein clearly mentioned that the hair was
>cropped close (or shaved) for a very specific
>eason --------as such, this would be temporary, not
>permanent.
GEORGE:
Since nobody got it, this was my way of indicating
that the book is too silly to deserve serious discussion.
REPLY:
Obviously you were far too subtle.
And I disagree with you: however, I find that the "movie"
is far too silly and full of the director's fears and
prejudices and is not worthy of discussion ---- although it
was a pleasure to discover that several local video stores
have been trying to get rid of this travesty by putting the
video in the DUMP bin and marking it down to less than $9.00
----------------
>FINALLY, if you must indulge by labelling the book as
>"fascist" as another asked, are you really familiar with
>that term? I notice that you have replied to that person
>but you did not answer that question.
>---Mac
GEORGE:
Hmm, since answers more than 1 syllabal lomg apparently
confuse you, "yes." Happy?
REPLY:
Sorry, that was surely uncalled for.
You made a charge; you labelled the book and were asked for
specifics about that charge and were also asked if you
really understood the term.
However, since you claim you understand the term then that
term does not apply to the book.
*******************************
GEORGE:
I don't think it's THAT big a stretch to refer to a society
where
the vast majority of people are not considered citizens.
REPLY:
Not necessarily so.
Within the past couple of centuries there have been several
governments with the vast majority of people not considered
"citizens" as you define it: i.e., they can not vote.
One such society was the early United States.
Probably Great Britain as a further example.
No where in the book is not being able to vote considered a
deteriment nor is one not considered a "citizen".
Rico's own father, who is doing quite well, does not vote,
as he had not qualified by performing Federal Service. Yet,
he has all the rights and protections of any other member of
that society ------- again, except voting.
As such, that society is not fascist.
**************************************
It's been I think about 15 years since I read this book
I really don't feel like discussing it any more.
George
REPLY: Given the thrust of your statements and the apparent
errors, may I suggest that you might well have chosen to
have re-read the book a bit more recently before issuing
your comments?
George Weinberg
<nur99-NoGreenEgg...@teleport.com> wrote:
Last I'm going to say on this topic.
> AND, in addition,
>you neglect the many other "Federal Service Options" ----
>the M.I. was not the only game in town. You did not
>address that.
And didn't address them because they didn't exist.
It's absurd to think I'd waste time speculating
as to what these breifly alluded to, fictitious
other options might have been like, I'd doubt if
Heinlien himself gave the matter any thought.
>GEORGE:
>Since nobody got it, this was my way of indicating
>that the book is too silly to deserve serious discussion.
>REPLY:
>Obviously you were far too subtle.
I don't think so. I think most reasonably intelligent,
literate people would have understood the implication.
>You made a charge; you labelled the book and were asked for
>specifics about that charge and were also asked if you
>really understood the term.
>However, since you claim you understand the term then that
>term does not apply to the book.
Actually, I didn't. Someone else called the movie
fascist (can't comment, didn't see it) and declared that no
similar element existed in the book.
>*******************************
>GEORGE:
>I don't think it's THAT big a stretch to refer to a society
>where
>the vast majority of people are not considered citizens.
>REPLY:
>Not necessarily so.
>Within the past couple of centuries there have been several
>governments with the vast majority of people not considered
>"citizens" as you define it: i.e., they can not vote.
Not how _I_ define it, how HEINLIEN defined it.
HIS words. NOT mine. HIS. Non vetrans
were not citizens. In. HIS. Words.
>One such society was the early United States.
>Probably Great Britain as a further example.
>No where in the book is not being able to vote considered a
>deteriment nor is one not considered a "citizen".
Reread the fucking thing. Ye gods, if you're such
a fan you ought to remember it better.
>Rico's own father, who is doing quite well, does not vote,
>as he had not qualified by performing Federal Service. Yet,
>he has all the rights and protections of any other member of
>that society ------- again, except voting.
You know, I think the part where Rico's father decides
to join the Army and become a citizen
(reread it. Heinlien's words, not mine)
just as Rico has finished training is some of the worst
writing I've evr read. It's like, "my attitudes are changing,
and the whole world is warping around me to refelect
my new attitudes". I'm amazed the publisher
didn't tell him, "you've got to take that out, it's
just too fucking stupid".
>As such, that society is not fascist.
> **************************************
>It's been I think about 15 years since I read this book
>I really don't feel like discussing it any more.
>George
>REPLY: Given the thrust of your statements and the apparent
>errors, may I suggest that you might well have chosen to
>have re-read the book a bit more recently before issuing
>your comments?
>
You can suggest whatever you like, it's a free country. The
only "errors" anyone has suggested I've made is
having different value judgements for theirs, i.e.
viewing the personality changes that the training is designed to
instill in the recruits as being more damage than growth.
I didn't care much for the book the first time,
and it's not really worth my while to reread just so
I can be more precise about why it's crap. Since you
apparently enjoyed it, you might enjoy reading it again.
If you're going to, I suggest reading Haldeman's
_Forever War_ first, and asking yourself as you
read wherher there's any difference in the societies
or if it's just a question of attitude of the protagonist.
George
Bill Williams
Weinberg) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:12:06 -0700, "Mac"
><nur99-NoGreenEgg...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Last I'm going to say on this topic.
>
>> AND, in addition,
>>you neglect the many other "Federal Service Options" ----
>>the M.I. was not the only game in town. You did not
>>address that.
>
>And didn't address them because they didn't exist.
>It's absurd to think I'd waste time speculating
>as to what these breifly alluded to, fictitious
>other options might have been like, I'd doubt if
>Heinlien himself gave the matter any thought.
See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf (The Nature of
"Federal Service" in Robert A. Heinlein's *Starship Troopers* by James
Gifford) for a discussion of the other "Federal Service Options"
you've been too lazy to consider, George. You don't have to re-read
the novel; just click the hotlink.