M. Night Shyamalan directs... POKEMON!
Oliver
parodies!) courtesy of imdb.com:
Would love to see his take on this [POKEMON] franchise after he just
finished THE LAST AIRBENDER. Some of the monsters could be made into
real kick a$$ CGI creatures. Probably will never happen though... :(
..........
I agree. M. Nights directing is superb. Airbender totally revitalized
the fantasy franchise, instead of that crappy movie Lord of the Rings.
I'd love to see Ash and Misty in a movie. Hopefully, Ash will be an
indian actor because that worked out very well for the Fire Nation.
All of the Pokemon could actually be real people in costumes and it
would be awesome. Ash could be pronounced "Awsh." If this happened
then I know Pokefans all over the world would scream with rejoice.
..........
And the twist ending would be that Pikachu ( who would be played by
Nicholas Cage in Pikachu suit) is the mastermind behind Team Rocket.
..........
I can't wait for the epic trailer:
dun dun dun!
Awsh looks at pokeball
*cut to big tidal wave*
Awsh looking at pokeball
*cut to a dragon figure shooting flames*
Awsh enlarging pokeball
*cut to Team RaKuI (correct way of saying Rocket)*
Awsh throwing pokeball! BULBASAUR LEAPS OUT
Black out
*M NIGHT SHYAMALAN appears in BIG LETTERS*
*COMING SOON*
PS: Pikachu will be called Pi Ke Hu It's more Asian
..........
I'm all up for Nic Cage in a pikachu suit,anyday. It will be like this
giant 6 foot tall pikachu who bursts into schizophrenic yelling
tirades every two seconds... "PIKACHU!!!" , "PIKKKAACHHUUU!!!",
"YAAAARRGGHHPIKKKKAACHHHHUUU!!!", "HOW'D IT BURRRRNNNN!!!
PIKKACHHUUU!!!"
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0796117/board/nest/167512764?d=167512764&p=1#167512764
Your Name
"Oliver" <oaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b835116d-1a90-471c...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> Some very amusing, cut-and-pasted parodies (at least, I *hope* they're
> parodies!) courtesy of imdb.com:
>
>
<http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0796117/board/nest/167512764?d=167512764&p=1#167
512764>
Simply further proves the worthlessness of IMDB (and Wikipedia) as useful
sources of actual information. :-(
Oliver
> Simply further proves the worthlessness of IMDB (and Wikipedia) as useful
> sources of actual information. :-(
Ten years on, Time Magazine's declaration that Shyamalan was "the next
Steven Spielberg" seems equally worthless. Or maybe they were
referring to the Spielberg of 'Hook' and '1941'? ;-)
Relic
I actually liked 1941 (didn't care for Hook, however).
But then, I have newspapers in my collection from the
days after Pearl Harbor that would suggest that, while
the mayhem in 1941 was a little extreme, the paranoia
may have been somewhat accurate.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Invid Fan
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Oliver wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 10:38 pm, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Simply further proves the worthlessness of IMDB (and Wikipedia) as useful
> >> sources of actual information. :-(
> >
> > Ten years on, Time Magazine's declaration that Shyamalan was "the next
> > Steven Spielberg" seems equally worthless. Or maybe they were
> > referring to the Spielberg of 'Hook' and '1941'? ;-)
>
> Hook was brilliant.
It's main flaw was it hit you over the head with the message. Good
concept, but it could have been better.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <i3i2js$rnm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Ryk E. Spoor
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Oliver wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 10:38 pm, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Simply further proves the worthlessness of IMDB (and Wikipedia) as useful
>>>> sources of actual information. :-(
>>> Ten years on, Time Magazine's declaration that Shyamalan was "the next
>>> Steven Spielberg" seems equally worthless. Or maybe they were
>>> referring to the Spielberg of 'Hook' and '1941'? ;-)
>> Hook was brilliant.
>
> It's main flaw was it hit you over the head with the message. Good
> concept, but it could have been better.
>
What message? "Keep a sense of childhood"? or "wake up and smell the
roses"?
The original (which "Hook" is playing straight from) was just about as
Anvilicious. Being anything else wouldn't be a proper follow-up, really.
Galen
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>Oliver wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 10:38 pm, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Simply further proves the worthlessness of IMDB (and Wikipedia) as useful
>>> sources of actual information. :-(
>>
>> Ten years on, Time Magazine's declaration that Shyamalan was "the next
>> Steven Spielberg" seems equally worthless. Or maybe they were
>> referring to the Spielberg of 'Hook' and '1941'? ;-)
>
> Hook was brilliant.
I thought Hook suffered from pacing issues, and
it would have played better as a series of OAVs.
-Galen
Galen
http://galensattic.nekomimicon.net/pokes/
-Galen
Invid Fan
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Invid Fan wrote:
> > In article <i3i2js$rnm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Ryk E. Spoor
> > <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Oliver wrote:
> >>> On Aug 6, 10:38 pm, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Simply further proves the worthlessness of IMDB (and Wikipedia) as useful
> >>>> sources of actual information. :-(
> >>> Ten years on, Time Magazine's declaration that Shyamalan was "the next
> >>> Steven Spielberg" seems equally worthless. Or maybe they were
> >>> referring to the Spielberg of 'Hook' and '1941'? ;-)
> >> Hook was brilliant.
> >
> > It's main flaw was it hit you over the head with the message. Good
> > concept, but it could have been better.
> >
>
> What message? "Keep a sense of childhood"? or "wake up and smell the
> roses"?
>
"My kids are important!" The entire movie is Williams having to learn
to actually be a dad, and I just thought that was dealt with clearly
enough without Williams having to come out and say it a couple times at
the end.
> The original (which "Hook" is playing straight from) was just about as
> Anvilicious. Being anything else wouldn't be a proper follow-up, really.
The book Peter Pan has a real nasty streak, what with Tinkerbell
wishing death on all the babies who didn't help heal her and all. I
think at the time I was just comparing Hook to the FOX animated Peter
Pan show, and thought that captured the feel of the stories better.
Invid Fan
<ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote:
It could have used more planning at the very least, what with them
building a full size pirate ship they were then unable to film properly
(it completely fills the sound stage, so the camera is unable to get
far enough away from it to really do much).
Your Name
"Invid Fan" <in...@loclanet.com> wrote in message
news:070820101419106799%in...@loclanet.com...
>
> "My kids are important!" The entire movie is Williams having to learn
> to actually be a dad, and I just thought that was dealt with clearly
> enough without Williams having to come out and say it a couple times at
> the end.
That's sounds like William's destiny for a brief time - the same message to
some degree as in Mrs Doubtfire and Jumanji. :-)
> The book Peter Pan has a real nasty streak, what with Tinkerbell
> wishing death on all the babies who didn't help heal her and all. I
> think at the time I was just comparing Hook to the FOX animated Peter
> Pan show, and thought that captured the feel of the stories better.
Like many stories, the real Peter Pan story has been obsucred by
Hollyweird's / Disney's often barely recognisable versions. :-(
Goro
> In article <i3i2js$rn...@news.eternal-september.org>, Ryk E. Spoor
>
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > Oliver wrote:
> > > On Aug 6, 10:38 pm, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Simply further proves the worthlessness of IMDB (and Wikipedia) as useful
> > >> sources of actual information. :-(
>
> > > Ten years on, Time Magazine's declaration that Shyamalan was "the next
> > > Steven Spielberg" seems equally worthless. Or maybe they were
> > > referring to the Spielberg of 'Hook' and '1941'? ;-)
>
> > Hook was brilliant.
>
> It's main flaw was it hit you over the head with the message. Good
> concept, but it could have been better.
>
Rufio. Rufio. ROO. FEE. Oohhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I've got an apostrophe!
It's 'epiphany', you idiot!
-goro-
JoeStrike
>
> I actually liked 1941 (didn't care for Hook, however).
> But then, I have newspapers in my collection from the
> days after Pearl Harbor that would suggest that, while
> the mayhem in 1941 was a little extreme, the paranoia
> may have been somewhat accurate.
"1941" and its poetic minimalism (hint: sarcasm) is a highlight of
Spielberg's 'coked-up out of his mind' period. I can just see him and
Belushi snorting it up big time in Steve's trailer between takes...
B Sellers
The Japanese facists in the 1930s completely
misread American character and believed that Pearl
and a few threatening gestures at the West Coast would
intimidated American whom they believed to be a nation
of businessmen intent on profits and unwilling to fight.
But the Japanese Navy was at the limit of its effective
range when they got to Pearl Harbor. Things could
have been worse as seen in a Harry Turtledove novel or
two about an actual invasion of the Hawaiian Islands.
We on the other hand got scared and worked
very hard on the war effort casting aside many shibboleths
to do so. When the coal miners refused to produce the
mines were nationalized and troops went in and the
UMW president was removed. To enable war production
private auto plants were converted to the building
of tanks, armored cars and jeeps of all things.
Shipyards were built up and my mothers friends worked
in them building ships so fast it seems incredible.
We had food and fuel rationing and the coastal cities
had blackout drills.
We also made severe mistakes about our own
citizens, the Japanese-Americans, due to paronoia
and after the war got under way, German-Americans
were not treated much better. Hot dog. anyone?
But we didn't lock up German-Americans
in the same way we did to the Japanese-Americans.
In WW I by the way the German-Americans suffered
even worse discrimination and threats from the
public.
Still Japanese-Americans got into the
American Military and did great things to show
their allegiance had been to the USA all along.
later
bliss
Relic
1933 and my dad in 1929). She primarily talked from the perspective
of what they did for the war effort and what they went through
while her father did war work (and she told me how she and the
rest of the kids learned how to make nunchucks to defend themselves
from bigger kids who preyed on the smaller ones). I was born about
17 years after the war ended, however.
I perhaps made a mistake about how I suggested the paranoia, but
I do have two newspapers from 12/09/1941, both of which described
"enemy planes" off the west coast and off the coast of Panama.
Relic
You ought to have read (if you haven't) the graphic novel based
on that movie, which was done largely by Rick Veitch and
Steven Bissette (both pretty new from the Joe Kubert school at
the time). Compared to that, the movie could have been done
by church ladies ^_^.
I bought that back in the mid-80s, and still have it. Drugged-out
insanity at it's finest.
B Sellers
Yes well I was born in 1937 and remember the announcement
of the bombing of Pearl Harbor and of the Declaration of War as
well as the famous "a day that will live in infamy forever" but
December the 6th was a bad day too because that is the day that
Roosevelt finally got the Manhattan Project started. I didn't
learn about what had happened to the Japanese-Americans until
much later. We recycled tin cans and bought War Bonds with
spare change in elementary school which I started in about
1943. We studied little cards with silhouettes of various
enemy planes and Captain Midnight was popular on the radio
with the Secret Squadron as were other heroic figures such
as Jack Armstrong the All American Boy, Frank Merriwell
was occasionally a subject of kids afternoon radio shows.
Tom Mix had a radio show too for a while.
What broke my mindset loose from the wartime
propaganda was the abrupt peace treaty with Japan during
the Korean War. Since then I have read the history and
seen how the anti-communists (who were largely anti-labor)
in the Occupation forces betrayed the real movement of the
Japanese people toward a true democracy, for the sake of
control of production needed for the Korean War.
The Cold War with the Soviet Union and the
attendant propaganda really messed up our minds for
a long time. When the USSR finally broke up due to
its internal stresses and the pressure to keep up
with the armament race, we thought happy days are
here again but the damn government had spread its
poison around the world and here came the terrorists.
Meantime the debentures traders broke the world's
economy. Too bad we cannot show a clear link to
Osama bin Laiden to the debenture terrorists.
Thank goodness for anime and manga.
later
bliss
sanjian
> Yes well I was born in 1937 and remember the announcement
> of the bombing of Pearl Harbor and of the Declaration of War as
> well as the famous "a day that will live in infamy forever" but
> December the 6th was a bad day too because that is the day that
> Roosevelt finally got the Manhattan Project started. I didn't
You say it was a bad thing. I say it was a good one.
B Sellers
And you have read "Barefoot Gen" sometimes called
"Gen of Hiroshima"?
Did you know thousands of American POWs died at
Hiroshima?
Did you know the delivery of the Nagasaki bomb
was so off center it missed the targeted area and took
out a residential area with the oldest Catholic Church
in Japan?
Well I guess it was the Japanese Imperial Army's
fault. They scared us so bad, and made us so crazy-mad
that we bombed them with the brand-new hell-on-earth bomb.
And what kind of people would volunteer to fly kamikaze
planes into battleships. (Sounds bad but was very
ineffective).
Thank heavens the Hydrogen bomb was not ready yet.
But you cannot un-make an omelet without burning
the eggs so I guess it was a good idea. Plus the American
people were not up to fighting on and on with being
deprived of food and fuel and tires for the cars and
trucks.
Or we could have put a blockade on the sea
all around Japan and the same end might have been
realized in 6 months or a year instead of a few weeks.
later
bliss
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On 08/13/2010 04:47 PM, sanjian wrote:
>> B Sellers wrote:
>>
>>> Yes well I was born in 1937 and remember the announcement
>>> of the bombing of Pearl Harbor and of the Declaration of War as
>>> well as the famous "a day that will live in infamy forever" but
>>> December the 6th was a bad day too because that is the day that
>>> Roosevelt finally got the Manhattan Project started. I didn't
>>
>> You say it was a bad thing. I say it was a good one.
>
> And you have read "Barefoot Gen" sometimes called
> "Gen of Hiroshima"?
>
> Did you know thousands of American POWs died at
> Hiroshima?
> Did you know the delivery of the Nagasaki bomb
> was so off center it missed the targeted area and took
> out a residential area with the oldest Catholic Church
> in Japan?
>
> Well I guess it was the Japanese Imperial Army's
> fault. They scared us so bad, and made us so crazy-mad
> that we bombed them with the brand-new hell-on-earth bomb.
No, it was a perfectly calmly reasoned decision, and pretty much the
only one that made sense at the time.
If we didn't put a stop to the war fast, we were going to have to take
the Japanese islands one foot at a time. The evidence to hand gave us
good reason to believe that this would result in possibly hundreds of
thousands of our own people dead, and possibly TEN TIMES that many Japanese.
You're the President. You're handed knowledge that you have a working
weapon that can wipe an entire city off the face of the Earth.
You have maybe two or three such bombs and it'll be a bit before any
more are in the pipeline.
If you don't use it, you'll be killing a million or more of them, and
losing a hundred thousand or more of your own people, not to mention
grinding those losses on and on over months or even a couple of years
depending on how desperately fanatical the defenders are.
If you DO use it, you have a good chance of breaking their will to
fight through sheer awe and fear at a level that ordinary weapons
haven't a chance of managing to evoke. And you'll kill far fewer of
them, and lose almost none of our people.
You COULD drop one off the coast as a warning... but your scientists
can't guarantee that every version of the bomb will WORK, so if you make
a big dramatic threat and get nothing... well, it won't be good for you
in ANY way. Even if it detonates, your reluctance to drop it on a city
may convince the Japanese that you WON'T drop it on their cities. And
with only a couple bombs, you really can't afford to waste them.
So Truman made pretty much the only rational decision he could, and
dropped the bomb. And did it again, to hammer home the idea that not
only could we do this once, we could do it again, and again, and again,
until there wasn't a Japanese city left standing.
Of course, that part was partly bluff; we'd have had to take our sweet
time putting together the next few, but within a year we could start
cranking them out.
He was gambling that the use of those weapons would break the
resistance of those who were still driving the war in Japan. He was right.
You should also realize that at the time the scope and effect of atomic
weapons was simply not grasped -- even by those who had TESTED them. You
couldn't really do that until you saw a real living city hit by one.
But it was politically pretty much the only decision Truman could make,
and practically speaking, it was ALSO pretty much the only reasonable
decision he could make. He never really regretted it, and neither
(contrary to urban legend) did those who did the drops.
Inu-Yasha
resorting to histrionics. from this article and confirmation is several
others, the number of American POWs who were killed in the two atomic
bombings is given as between 10 and 23, hardly thousands. It appears
that Korean slave labor used by the Japanese who perished in the attacks
were numbered a about 20,000, quite a number of people lost. The attack
on Nagasaki was dropped and detonated almost exactly mid-way between two
Mitsubishi armament factories, though this was listed as being about 3Km
northwest of the intended target. While the dropping of the bombs
caused considerable loss of life, it seems from all that I have read
that the loss of life if an invasion had to be done would have been
magnitudes greater.Hind sight almost always allows better finger
pointing of blame that that data available at the time of the decision.
There are many factors involved at the time which have changed over
the years, including racial tolerance/intolerance, approval/disapproval
of internment or imprisonment of both military and civilians in the war,
as well as the actual and not so actual brutalities done in the name of
both sides of the conflict. I'm not going to continue to blame the
Japanese people for the Bataan march, or beheading of POW's or slave
labor of POWs or conquered civilians, and would request the same in
reference to the dropping of the atomic bombs.
Inu-Yasha
Feh!! ^_^
And no I have not read Gen of Hiroshima, I watched Grave of the
Fireflies, which was related to the heavy fire bombing of Japan.
Inu-Yasha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Inu-Yasha
Feh!! ^_^
Miles Bader
> It appears that Korean slave labor used by the Japanese who perished
> in the attacks were numbered a about 20,000, quite a number of people
> lost.
Yeah, a significant number of those killed in the Hiroshima bombing were
Korean, like 15% I think (there's a memorial in the "peace memorial
park" dedicated to them, which I found very moving for some reason).
> While the dropping of the bombs caused considerable loss of life, it
> seems from all that I have read that the loss of life if an invasion
> had to be done would have been magnitudes greater. Hind sight almost
> always allows better finger pointing of blame that that data available
> at the time of the decision. There are many factors involved at the
> time which have changed over the years, including racial
> tolerance/intolerance, approval/disapproval of internment or
> imprisonment of both military and civilians in the war, as well as the
> actual and not so actual brutalities done in the name of both sides of
> the conflict.
Well said.
For all that people argue, much of it is based on conjecture, as well as
information that may not have been known at the time the decision was
made. We'll really never know what would have happened if we didn't
drop one or both of the bombs -- and we can't undo it. What we _can_ do
is work to reduce the danger of it happening again.
[One argument I've found particularly disturbing is the suggestion that
a significant factor behind the decision was "to send a message" to the
Soviet Union... now _that's_ scary...!]
-Miles
--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
n
Invid Fan
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> He was gambling that the use of those weapons would break the
> resistance of those who were still driving the war in Japan. He was right.
>
> You should also realize that at the time the scope and effect of atomic
> weapons was simply not grasped -- even by those who had TESTED them. You
> couldn't really do that until you saw a real living city hit by one.
>
> But it was politically pretty much the only decision Truman could make,
> and practically speaking, it was ALSO pretty much the only reasonable
> decision he could make. He never really regretted it, and neither
> (contrary to urban legend) did those who did the drops.
It should also be remembered that the use of the atom bombs came after
years of a "logical" escalation. Destroying cities and killing a
hundred thousand civilians at once was by then NORMAL. Sure, it now
took one plane instead of a hundred, but at least with the early nukes
it actually caused less damage then firebombing.
(it's interesting that Grave of the Fireflies, about the firebombing of
Tokyo, is actually much more depressing then Barefoot Gen which is
about surviving a nuclear bomb)
What would have been much worse for humanity would have been for the
war to end without their use, and the next war to have started with
everyone already having a large stockpile and no reason not to use them
the first day.
sanjian
<snip rest>
I think you've said it better than I would. So, in the intest of time (both
mine, and the readers'), I'll let this stand as my response to B Sellers.
Though I'll add one bit in response to B Sellers:
"Well I guess it was the Japanese Imperial Army's fault. They scared us so
bad, and made us so crazy-mad that we bombed them with the brand-new
hell-on-earth bomb."
Dude, did you not pay attention to that whole island-hopping campaign? The
Imperial Army wasn't exactly the Iraqi Republican Guard. We would have won
the invasion of the mainland (does that term really have any meaning when
applied to Japan???), our air superiority ensured that, but there probably
wouldn't be much of a Japan left afterwards. And, frankly, I'm rather fond
of Japan, so I'm kind of glad we picked the least-destructive option.
B Sellers
The JIA was almost gone from Japan by the time the bombs were dropped.
Old women and children were being trained with bamboo spears. So many
of the capable men had been sent abroad that this is what they were
reduced to. Of course we had no reliable intelligence on the matter at
the time.
First let me say I don't know how I conflated the number of
American POW in Japan with the relatively small numbers killed at
Hiroshima. I read a lot and sometimes I miss things.
Second I would have chosen the interdiction of Japan so that
they got no external supplies. That is why the kids in Grave of the
Fireflies died was because the Japanese were unable to produce enough
food for the population. That would have been extended to a wider
area of the population. Instead of going for Japan a entry to Korea
to secure that from the Soviet state might have prevented the formation
of North Korea and would have again cut the flow of material into
Japan.
As for the invasion of Japan that would have been held off
for a while. Until they were eager to have the presence of troops
of any nation with food.
That said I go right along with Truman whose opinion after
the fact was that dropping what we would now consider "toy bombs"
was simply murder.
Remember I lived through those years as child and was very
happy the war had come to an end. I did not much care for the
means at the time but find that use of weapons of mass destruction
mostly against civilian populations is reprehensible. But in
WW II we did that all the time and if Germany had not been
beaten before the bomb was ready I am sure we would have used
it there. So I guess all in all I approve of the bombings
but I don't have to like them. Maybe something to do with
my nuclear attack triage training.
Once it was used though through one means and another
it was much simpler for other nations to build their own
devices. So we ended up not only having used the bomb which
is what we do with bombs by and large but began the Nuclear
Club and escalated into the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine
of the Cold War years.
We finished off the Cold War but so far Nuclear Disarmament
is far from a reality. The motives of the interventions in
countless states from South America to the Middle East are
unclear but as soon as the USSR was no longer a threat we
had terrorists to deal with. Now Iran a nation where our agents
assassinated the head of the democratically elected government
to install a Shah as leader is working on joining the Nuclear
Club and the members don't get a vote unless of course the
Israelis decide to do a preemptive strike.
Grave of the Fireflies is good showing a personal tragedy
but Gen of Hiroshima is somewhat better at depicting the milieu of
wartime Japan where pacifist elements were suppressed and the
military took power away from the civil populace. But you have
to read about Meji and the transition to Showa and early Showa
government changes from plutocracy to militarism to see how it
happened. There is a slim very hard to handle volume on Thought
Control in Pre-WW II Japan that details how the category of
thought crimes which were based on suppression of speech and
action not on thought came about.
Gen of Hiroshima/Barefoot Gen recommendation is based
on the manga not on any anime derivation. Also good though
not as gritty is Message to Adolph by Tezuka Osamu and for
the Post War years, try "Goodby 1971-1972", is a manga from
before the economic recovery of Japan by Yoshihiro Tatsumi
and is an adult manga depicting the lowest in society.
Yoshihiro Tatsumi has a couple of others and merges nicely with
his "Drifting Life" semi-autobigraphical manga. These do not
use bishonen or bishojo styling in the drawing but a different
sort of cartoon realism. This to offset the latest trend in
stuff like "Rumi Fujoshi", "Dojin Work" and even the more serious
"Bakuman" which has a similar plot to "Comic Party" but aimed at
professional success.
I am glad too that Japan survived and that the Allies
won the WW II even though the victory was flawed by the USSR's
incursions into Korea.
later
bliss
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> We finished off the Cold War but so far Nuclear Disarmament
> is far from a reality.
Barring a transformation of human beings to angels, there will never be
disarmament. Well, if our whole civilization collapses there'll be
nuclear disarmament, but that's a cure worse than the disease.
That said, there's a hell of a lot fewer nukes in the world now than
there were when I was younger. DRASTICALLY fewer (and most, if not all,
of those currently credited to Russia or other former Soviet states are,
in all likelihood, actually nothing but annoyingly radioactive lumps. It
takes a lot of picky maintenance to make sure a nuke will do its thing
when fired).
I'm not particularly afraid of nukes. No one's used them since we did,
in the most completely conclusive demonstration of "why you don't want
to continue this war" ever staged. I don't expect to see them used
again, except possibly by terrorists (who aren't likely to succeed
anyway because they don't generally have the technical competence
necessary).
§ñühw¤£f
G00gle "dirty bomb" sometime to understand the risk of having
unsupervised nuke material laying about, eh?
:)
--
www.skepticalscience.com|www.youtube.com/officialpeta
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> B Sellers wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We finished off the Cold War but so far Nuclear Disarmament
>>> is far from a reality.
>>
>> Barring a transformation of human beings to angels, there will
>> never be disarmament. Well, if our whole civilization collapses
>> there'll be nuclear disarmament, but that's a cure worse than the
>> disease.
>>
>> That said, there's a hell of a lot fewer nukes in the world now
>> than there were when I was younger. DRASTICALLY fewer (and most, if
>> not all, of those currently credited to Russia or other former Soviet
>> states are, in all likelihood, actually nothing but annoyingly
>> radioactive lumps. It takes a lot of picky maintenance to make sure a
>> nuke will do its thing when fired).
>>
>> I'm not particularly afraid of nukes. No one's used them since we
>> did, in the most completely conclusive demonstration of "why you don't
>> want to continue this war" ever staged. I don't expect to see them
>> used again, except possibly by terrorists (who aren't likely to
>> succeed anyway because they don't generally have the technical
>> competence necessary).
>>
>
> G00gle "dirty bomb" sometime to understand the risk of having
> unsupervised nuke material laying about, eh?
No worse than any other toxic material, and requires technical
competence (though not quite as much) to assemble and deploy with
reasonable safety.
If you're not very careful, your people also become easily-followed
beacons.
§ñühw¤£f
So its the perfect weapon to be deployed by suicidal fundamentalists.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
Gods, no. There's a lot better weapons if you really want to do DAMAGE.
Miles Bader
>> So its the perfect weapon to be deployed by suicidal fundamentalists.
>
> Gods, no. There's a lot better weapons if you really want to do DAMAGE.
I don't think they'd be all that picky, given the chance...
-Miles
--
Freebooter, n. A conqueror in a small way of business, whose annexations lack
of the sanctifying merit of magnitude.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>> So its the perfect weapon to be deployed by suicidal fundamentalists.
>> Gods, no. There's a lot better weapons if you really want to do DAMAGE.
>
> I don't think they'd be all that picky, given the chance...
And this is another reason I don't worry about terrorists. Amateurs,
all of them.
sanjian
> Miles Bader wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>>> So its the perfect weapon to be deployed by suicidal
>>>> fundamentalists.
>>> Gods, no. There's a lot better weapons if you really want to do
>>> DAMAGE.
>>
>> I don't think they'd be all that picky, given the chance...
>
> And this is another reason I don't worry about terrorists. Amateurs,
> all of them.
Which, of course, means that they can't do any real damage or take real
lives.
§ñühw¤£f
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If the terrorists are on Usenet, they have already lost.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Sure they CAN. And so can the local drug dealers. So can any guy with a
grudge and a gun. I'm not scared of them particularly either. The latter
two at least are local. Most of the terrorists are on the other side of
an ocean, and the REAL help to the terrorists is being given by our own
government anyway.
Miles Bader
>>>>>> So its the perfect weapon to be deployed by suicidal
>>>>>> fundamentalists.
>>>>> Gods, no. There's a lot better weapons if you really want to do
>>>>> DAMAGE.
>>>> I don't think they'd be all that picky, given the chance...
>>> And this is another reason I don't worry about terrorists. Amateurs,
>>> all of them.
>>
>> Which, of course, means that they can't do any real damage or take
>> real lives.
>
> Sure they CAN. And so can the local drug dealers. So can any guy with
> a grudge and a gun.
But of course drug dealers and gun guys have a typically very different
set of tradeoffs in their pursuit of carnage, so they're not really so
relevant to a discussion of nuclear (or biological or ...) weapons.
> I'm not scared of them particularly either.
Why am I not surprised... :]
-Miles
--
Liberty, n. One of imagination's most precious possessions.
Rick Pikul
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> And this is another reason I don't worry about terrorists. Amateurs,
>> all of them.
>
> Which, of course, means that they can't do any real damage or take real
> lives.
Most of the time that's exactly right.
Look at suicide bombers in Afghanistan: Here the two, by far, most likely
outcomes of an attack.
The bomber blows himself up, nothing else of note.
The bomber blows himself up along with several of his buddies, nothing
else of note.[1]
The _skilled_ terrorists are notable for their ineffectiveness and very
few are skilled, (the FLQ is more the norm[2]).
[1] They have this habit of hugging each other before one goes out on his
final journey.
[2] Canadian group from c1970, to fight for Quebec independence they blew
up a significant number of mailboxes and planned to destroy the Statue of
Liberty.[3][4][5]
[3] Yes, that's in the US.
[4] Yes, she's from France.
[5] To their credit, they did figure out that this was the wrong target
before actually doing anything.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Skytech
sanjian
> So what does this all have to do with Pokemon?
It's called topic drift. Welcome to usenet. Play the ball where it lies.
§ñühw¤£f
> So what does this all have to do with Pokemon?
Pokemon is just a metaphor for the human tendency to resolve conflict
via violence.
Discuss.
§ñühw¤£f
chemically created flashes. Its *your* turn to bring the C-4 Thermite
sandwitch...
sanjian
> Skytech wrote:
>> So what does this all have to do with Pokemon?
>
> Pokemon is just a metaphor for the human tendency to resolve conflict
> via violence.
Actually, it's a child's first introduction to harem games. "Gotta catch
'em all" eventually gets replaced with "gotta get all their endings."
Dave Watson
Or, depending on the game, "gotta shag 'em all."
Watson
Singing a silly juvenile "Pokeawoman" jingle.
sanjian
>>> Skytech wrote:
>>>> So what does this all have to do with Pokemon?
>>
>>> Pokemon is just a metaphor for the human tendency to resolve
>>> conflict via violence.
>>
>> Actually, it's a child's first introduction to harem games. "Gotta
>> catch 'em all" eventually gets replaced with "gotta get all their
>> endings."
>
> Or, depending on the game, "gotta shag 'em all."
It's a harem game. Isn't that what I just said?
§ñühw¤£f
>>>> Skytech wrote:
>>>>> So what does this all have to do with Pokemon?
>>>> Pokemon is just a metaphor for the human tendency to resolve
>>>> conflict via violence.
>>> Actually, it's a child's first introduction to harem games. "Gotta
>>> catch 'em all" eventually gets replaced with "gotta get all their
>>> endings."
>> Or, depending on the game, "gotta shag 'em all."
>
> It's a harem game. Isn't that what I just said?
>
>
Ever see "Requiem for Darkness"?
I like the artwork but the storyline is a bit hard to follow...
Dave Watson
> Dave Watson wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 10:18 am, "sanjian" <mille...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>> Skytech wrote:
> >>>> So what does this all have to do with Pokemon?
>
> >>> Pokemon is just a metaphor for the human tendency to resolve
> >>> conflict via violence.
>
> >> Actually, it's a child's first introduction to harem games. "Gotta
> >> catch 'em all" eventually gets replaced with "gotta get all their
> >> endings."
>
> > Or, depending on the game, "gotta shag 'em all."
>
> It's a harem game. Isn't that what I just said?
No, you said, "get all their endings." Including the one in School
Days where your character get killed by a saw blade in the neck?
Watson
A 4channer might get off on that shit, but he doesn't.
sanjian
> On Aug 18, 3:50 pm, "sanjian" <mille...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Dave Watson wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 10:18 am, "sanjian" <mille...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>>> Skytech wrote:
>>>>>> So what does this all have to do with Pokemon?
>>
>>>>> Pokemon is just a metaphor for the human tendency to resolve
>>>>> conflict via violence.
>>
>>>> Actually, it's a child's first introduction to harem games. "Gotta
>>>> catch 'em all" eventually gets replaced with "gotta get all their
>>>> endings."
>>
>>> Or, depending on the game, "gotta shag 'em all."
>>
>> It's a harem game. Isn't that what I just said?
>
> No, you said, "get all their endings." Including the one in School
> Days where your character get killed by a saw blade in the neck?
Well, it's not my kink, but who am I to judge?
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>Skytech wrote:
>> So what does this all have to do with Pokemon?
>
>It's called topic drift. Welcome to usenet. Play the ball where it lies.
>
It won't be long before the puns begin . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
Here I thought it was just glorified cockfighting; I mean, they
pretty much stopped pretending with the introduction of Torchic . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Captain Nerd
Amazingly enough, I got nothin'...
Cap.
--
Since 1989, recycling old jokes, cliches, and bad puns, one Usenet
post at a time!
Operation: Nerdwatch http://www.nerdwatch.com
Only email with "TO_CAP" somewhere in the subject has a chance of being read
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <liip66913gj6erm7t...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:28:59 -0400, "sanjian" <mill...@airmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Skytech wrote:
>>>> So what does this all have to do with Pokemon?
>>> It's called topic drift. Welcome to usenet. Play the ball where it lies.
>>>
>> It won't be long before the puns begin . . .
>
> Amazingly enough, I got nothin'...
>
> Cap.
>
In Soviet Union, nothin' got YOU!