Transformers movie sucks!!!!(Leonard Maltin Says So!)
Planet 13
Hey wait a minute! Isn't Leonard Maltin that little guy with the beard?
(In the spirit of " Q " ) He wasn't like that before the beard.
Moral: Lose the beard Leo.
Soundwave
Okay it does not suck and it is the best movie ever to me! But I saw a
post saying that a blockbuster review said the movie was horrible and I
looked in my leonard maltin guide to movies and here is what it said:
His rating of it was BOMB
Transformers The Movie
Obnoxious animated feature about the title good guys who defend the
universe against an evil planet(which has a voice of it's own...provided
by Orson Welles). That deafening rock score certainly doesn't help.
Little more than a feature-length toy commercial.
I think this is just as bad as that blockbuster review. Looks like he
looked at the cover, what music was in it and then gave a review based
on that. Leonard Maltin is a jerk!
--
A Message Brought To You By
ROB SMITH
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| | | | | | | _ _|
|_ _ _ _| | |__| | | |_ _
| | | __ | | _ _|
| | | | | | | |_ _
|__| |_| |_| |_ _ _|
_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/ _ _ _ _| | | | | | | | \ /\
/ / | | | | | _ _ | | _ \ / \
| | | |_ _| | | | | | | | | | / /\ \
| | | _ _ | | | | | | | | | / __ \
| | | | | | | |_ _| | | |_| | / / \ \
\ \_ _ _ _ | | | | | | | / / / \ \
\_ _ _ _ _| |__| |__| |_ _ _ _ _| |_ _ _/ /__/ \__\
"Dude...I Just Don't Know"
"Hey Man, Nice Choda!"
Lewis M. Brooks, III
> I think this is just as bad as that blockbuster review. Looks like he
> looked at the cover, what music was in it and then gave a review based
> on that. Leonard Maltin is a jerk!
Well, no one ever said that people who review movies are intellignet.
Lewis
Ray Miller
Soundwave <smi...@gte.net> wrote
> I
> looked in my leonard maltin guide to movies and here is what it said:
> His rating of it was BOMB
I dunno if Maltin's over-rated guide is worth much, anyway. I've always
felt that the opinions of reviewers are slanted. You know the old addage:
*Those who can't - Teach. Those who can't teach - become critics.*
Ray
Video Producer & over-aged Transfan
He-Man
Soundwave <smi...@gte.net> wrote in article
<5m04of$cei$1...@news7.gte.net>...
> Okay it does not suck and it is the best movie ever to me! But I saw a
> looked in my leonard maltin guide to movies and here is what it said:
>
>
> His rating of it was BOMB
>
> Obnoxious animated feature about the title good guys who defend the
> universe against an evil planet(which has a voice of it's own...provided
> by Orson Welles). That deafening rock score certainly doesn't help.
> Little more than a feature-length toy commercial.
>
>
> looked at the cover, what music was in it and then gave a review based
> on that. Leonard Maltin is a jerk!
Leonard Maltin is one of the country's finest critics. In my top 5 list, I
put him in 5th. (1=Roger Ebert, 2=Michael Wilmington, 3=Bruce Williamson,
4=Gene Siskel).
He knows more about movies than anyone in this newsgroup. I agree with
most of his reviews. But I don't agree with the TFTM review. No matter
how you look at it, the movies are an art form. He's saying that TFTM is
bad art. As many errors as there are in TFTM, you can certainly see his
point.
BK
--
"Don't call me Generation X, call me a Child of the Eighties."
- Bryant Adkins, http://www.80s.com
"The best thing about the 90's is that it's almost over."
__________________________________________________________
Check out my new nostalgiac 80s page at
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/h/e/m/heman1984.html
Check out Adam Tyner's He-Man page at
http://edisto.awod.com/gallery/rwav/ctyner/he-man.html
__________________________________________________________
WCW SUCKS!!!!! LONG LIVE WWF!!!!!!
Christopher Bucci
VictoryShot wrote:
>
> Soundwave wrote:
> >
> > Okay it does not suck and it is the best movie ever to me! But I saw a
> > post saying that a blockbuster review said the movie was horrible and I
> > looked in my leonard maltin guide to movies and here is what it said:
> >
> > His rating of it was BOMB
> >
> > Transformers The Movie
> > Obnoxious animated feature about the title good guys who defend the
> > universe against an evil planet(which has a voice of it's own...provided
> > by Orson Welles). That deafening rock score certainly doesn't help.
> > Little more than a feature-length toy commercial.
> >
> > I think this is just as bad as that blockbuster review. Looks like he
> > looked at the cover, what music was in it and then gave a review based
> > on that. Leonard Maltin is a jerk!
> > A Message Brought To You By
> >
> > ROB SMITH
> >
>
> confused about all of the non-mainstream films. According to him
> beloved movies such as TF:TM aren't very good and horribly bad "B"
> movies such as "Laserblast" and "Outlaw" are worth 2 1/2 or 3 stars. I
> can't think this guy watches half the movies he claims to review.
>
> I have to say that TF:TM isn't the best movie ever made but isn't a
> screw-up movie like "Toxic Avenger/Crusader"(Anyone want to look that
> up).
>
> - VictoryShot
Want a real review of the movie?? Check out my web site!!
Chris
THE TRANSFORMERS COLLECTOR
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/6215/
The Nixtr
QUOTING:
Leonard Maltin is one of the country's finest critics. In my top 5 list,
I put him in 5th. (1=Roger Ebert, 2=Michael Wilmington, 3=Bruce
Williamson,
4=Gene Siskel).
RESPONSE: I put them all last!
Now off-topic:
Remember in Gremlins 2 when Leonard gave gremlins 1 a bad review, then the
Gremlins did short werk of him? Well maybe the Transformers can pay
Leonard a personal visit (here's one for you fanfic writers...)
--
The Nixtr *** Transformer Fan *** VISIT MY WEB PAGE (BELOW)
IN THE NEWS: Susan Smith & Brian Peterson to host "abortion rights" rally!
>>> WORLD's WEIRDEST SITE: *** http://www.acy.digex.net/~thenixtr ***<<<
Don't Deal w/ Michael Lehman! (joe...@dwx.com)
Wonko the Sane
He-Man (ki...@aiinc.com) wrote:
: He knows more about movies than anyone in this newsgroup. I agree with
: most of his reviews. But I don't agree with the TFTM review. No matter
: how you look at it, the movies are an art form. He's saying that TFTM is
: bad art. As many errors as there are in TFTM, you can certainly see his
: point.
I don't think Leonard was thinking about Ironhide appearing at the
battle of Autobot city or the appearance of Shrapnel on Junkion after he
was supposedly destroyed (I know, clones...) on Earth when he wrote that
review. I don't see how TF: The Movie is bad art. From an animation
standpoint, I'm still razzled and dazzled by it, especially when one
considers how long ago it was made. Sure there may have been some
animation flubs, but overall, I think the reason every other week a post
goes up on this group looking for a copy of the movie is because most fans
who saw it or have heard about it generally saw or have heard things they
liked. The recent Canadian re-release also shows that the movie obviously
has some kind of lasting value.
**********************************************
*Name: Benson "Ironfire" Yee *
*a.k.a. Wonko the Sane *
*e-mail: ye...@is2.nyu.edu *
******************************************
*Check out Wonko's World, it's neat! *
*http://acweb.com/ben/ *
***************************************
"...what sheer ruthlessness, what disregard for
sentient life! I rather like these aliens."
-Megatron "Other Voices"
Jonathan McDougall and/or Melissa Andrews
>
> Remember in Gremlins 2 when Leonard gave gremlins 1 a bad review, then the
> Gremlins did short werk of him? Well maybe the Transformers can pay
> Leonard a personal visit (here's one for you fanfic writers...)
I remember that . . . that was hilarious. I can still hear Leonard
screaming "I was just kidding! It's a 10! A 10!!!"
--
"Liberty is a bitch who must be bedded on a mattress of corpses."
- Sandman #29
Jonathan McDougall
614...@ican.net
He-Man
The Nixtr <then...@acy1.digex.net> wrote in article
<5m3s85$a...@acy1.digex.net>...
>
> QUOTING:
>
> Leonard Maltin is one of the country's finest critics. In my top 5 list,
> I put him in 5th. (1=Roger Ebert, 2=Michael Wilmington, 3=Bruce
> Williamson,
> 4=Gene Siskel).
>
> RESPONSE: I put them all last!
And for what reason? I disagree with them too at times, but these guys do
what that David Hiltbrand can't, they tell you what's wrong, and why.
David just gave out a bunch of cheap shots at BW. When Ebert gives a bad
review, I always see his point. I think "that's understandable" or "that
makes sense". I think Day of the Dead is one of the best horror films ever
made. He gave it * ½. I read his review, and I understand his point of
view. These guys give an informed opinion, and you have to respect them
for that. I met Roger Ebert a few years ago at the Hawaii Film Festival,
and he's a really nice and interesting guy. Siskel & Ebert is the smartest
show on T.V.
He-Man
> I don't think Leonard was thinking about Ironhide appearing at the
> battle of Autobot city or the appearance of Shrapnel on Junkion after he
> was supposedly destroyed (I know, clones...) on Earth when he wrote that
> review. I don't see how TF: The Movie is bad art. From an animation
> standpoint, I'm still razzled and dazzled by it, especially when one
> considers how long ago it was made. Sure there may have been some
> animation flubs, but overall, I think the reason every other week a post
> goes up on this group looking for a copy of the movie is because most
fans
> who saw it or have heard about it generally saw or have heard things they
> liked. The recent Canadian re-release also shows that the movie
obviously
> has some kind of lasting value.
I wish I could better defend Leonard, but I can't since he writes capsule
comments, not reviews. BTW, he doesn't write all the comments, his editors
contribute them too. But his main area of expertise is a film historian,
not reviewer.
PFunkPearl
<ki...@aiinc.com> writes
<<Leonard Maltin is one of the country's finest critics. In my top 5
list, I
put him in 5th. (1=Roger Ebert, 2=Michael Wilmington, 3=Bruce Williamson,
4=Gene Siskel).>>
Finest critic????? he is a human being giving an opinion...they are all
the same...ebert and a high school student doing a movie review...what is
a review but someone's opinion...i listen to someone's opionion and take
it into consideration...but i realize that it is an opinion but people's
tastes vary....so don't go listing critics and kissing there butts...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PFUNK...@AOL.COM
"You who have no mercy, now plead for it?!? I thought you were made of sterner stuff!"~Optimus Prime
Robert A. Jung
In article <5m4ds4$ph8$1...@news.nyu.edu> ye...@is2.nyu.edu (Wonko the Sane) writes:
>I don't see how TF: The Movie is bad art.
You're not thinking like a mainstream movie critic. For them, "Disney" is
the epyx of the art; anything that doesn't match a Disney toon -- whether
in animation quality or in family-friendly storylines -- gets dinged. TFTM
is not the first animated movie to fall victim to the myopic attitudes of
most critics.
(The thing I find amusing are the people who complain about stuff like TFTM
as commercialization and "blatant attempts to sell toys." Geez, how come
you never hear terms like that used when folks are staring at a toy rack full
of HERCULES or POCAHONTAS goodies?)
I know I'm in the minority here, but I really don't care what the critics
want to say about TFTM. I like it, and that's good enough for me.
--R.J.
B-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I write because I am personally amused by what I do, and if other people are
amused by it, then it's fine. If they're not, then that's also fine."
Send mail to rj...@netcom.com --Frank Zappa
------- Visit Rob on the web! ------ http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/ -------
NeoTrent
>Leonard Maltin is one of the country's finest critics. In my top 5 list,
I
>put him in 5th. (1=Roger Ebert, 2=Michael Wilmington, 3=Bruce
Williamson,
>4=Gene Siskel).
Five idiots who routinely miss the point of any work they see.
>He knows more about movies than anyone in this newsgroup. I agree with
>most of his reviews. But I don't agree with the TFTM review. No matter
>how you look at it, the movies are an art form. He's saying that TFTM is
>bad art. As many errors as there are in TFTM, you can certainly see his
>point.
First off, I doubt he knows more about movies than everyone in this
newsgroup, secondly, most movie critics become movie critics because they
want to be in the movie industry, but lack the ability. This person, if
he cannot do a superior review to such a work, is a hack. He serves no
purpose but to nitpick that which he does not understand.
-Trent
He-Man
PFunkPearl <pfunk...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970524040...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> <ki...@aiinc.com> writes
> Finest critic????? he is a human being giving an opinion...they are all
> the same...ebert and a high school student doing a movie review...what is
> a review but someone's opinion...i listen to someone's opionion and take
> it into consideration...but i realize that it is an opinion but people's
> tastes vary....so don't go listing critics and kissing there butts...
All the same? Try listening to Michael Medved and Jeffrey Lyons on their
cloned S&E show, Sneak Previews. They mostly give cheap shots and make fun
of a movie's title. "We'll sink our teeth into 'Dracula: Dead and Loving
It' in a moment." But S&E and the other "good" critics not only watch a
movie and give an opinion, but examine and study the movie, trying to
understand the director's message, and whether it is delivered. They're
points are perfectly valid. A high school student doing a movie review
will say something like "Tommy Boy rocks! This movie rules!!" Tommy Boy
is a very bad movie (cows don't sleep standing up) and critics recommend
against such junk. They attempt to steer us towards great movies like Dead
Man Walking and Natural Born Killers. You've got a lot to learn if you
think a critic's opinion is just an opinion. Their reviews are so much
more.
BK
He-Man
NeoTrent <neot...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970524091...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Five idiots who routinely miss the point of any work they see.
Like what?
Movies you like: Ace Ventura, Tommy Boy, North, Baby's Day Out, Billy
Madison, The Doom Generation, and Little Indian,Big City.
Movies they like: Dead Man Walking, Natural Born Killers, Pulp Fiction,
Forrest Gump, Leaving Las Vegas, Fargo.
I'll listen to them.
> First off, I doubt he knows more about movies than everyone in this
> newsgroup, secondly, most movie critics become movie critics because they
> want to be in the movie industry, but lack the ability. This person, if
> he cannot do a superior review to such a work, is a hack. He serves no
> purpose but to nitpick that which he does not understand.
I don't know how most of them get their start, but I know Mr. Ebert started
working for the Chicago Sun-Times as a sports reporter. The film critic
there was retiring, and Ebert was asked to take his place.
But critics are in the industry because they love watching movies. Don't
we all? I'd love to be paid to watch movies. In fact, it would be biased
if they made movies and criticized other people's movies. A critic stands
on the outside, looking in. And I've said it before, Leonard's main area
of expertise is a Film Historian.
Darzonique
In article <19970524040...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
pfunk...@aol.com (PFunkPearl) writes:
>Finest critic????? he is a human being giving an opinion...they are all
>the same...ebert and a high school student doing a movie review...what is
>a review but someone's opinion...i listen to someone's opionion and take
>it into consideration...but i realize that it is an opinion but people's
>tastes vary....so don't go listing critics and kissing there butts...
>
>
NEVER LISTEN TO THE CRITICS. Always ask other people who've seen the
movie what they thought of it. (yeah, like there's anybody here that
doesn't have a strong opinion of TF:TM?)
> I know I'm in the minority here, but I really don't care what the
critics
>want to say about TFTM. I like it, and that's good enough for me.
>
> --R.J.
> B-)
This is exactly the kind of thing you want to do. If you like the movie,
then it really doesn't matter what the Critics say.
-Darzoni the Blue
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Waspinator have headache in his wholle bodeee." -Waspinator, Possession
"When will you rage?"- W:TA
NeoTrent
>>
All the same? Try listening to Michael Medved and Jeffrey Lyons on their
cloned S&E show, Sneak Previews. They mostly give cheap shots and make
fun
of a movie's title. "We'll sink our teeth into 'Dracula: Dead and Loving
It' in a moment." But S&E and the other "good" critics not only watch a
movie and give an opinion, but examine and study the movie, trying to
understand the director's message, and whether it is delivered. They're
points are perfectly valid. A high school student doing a movie review
will say something like "Tommy Boy rocks! This movie rules!!"<<
You're making assumptions, as someone who did movie reviews for my high
school paper, I can tell you that an intelligent writer, regaurdless of
age, is able to print a concise and legitimate review.
>> Tommy Boy
is a very bad movie (cows don't sleep standing up) and critics recommend
against such junk. They attempt to steer us towards great movies like
Dead
Man Walking and Natural Born Killers. You've got a lot to learn if you
think a critic's opinion is just an opinion. Their reviews are so much
more.<<
Criitics often take their job so seriously they forget that some movies
are ment to be fun distractions, not cinimatic masterpeices. If every
movie were a Dead Man Walking or Natural Born Killers, lots of cult
favorites would fall by the wayside. The majority of critics hated Star
Wars... and yet... now its considered a classic work, and a modern myth.
I've noticed that far too many of them have forgotten that movies are
supposed to be fun, and thus nickpick and miss the point of things.
-Trent
NeoTrent
> "He-Man" <ki...@aiinc.com> Wrote
NeoTrent <neot...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970524091...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> Five idiots who routinely miss the point of any work they see.
>Movies you like: Ace Ventura, Tommy Boy, North, Baby's Day Out, Billy
>Madison, The Doom Generation, and Little Indian,Big City.
Considering I liked none of those movies your opinion has shown itself to
mean nothing. I like a vast number of movies, including, but not limited
to: Pulp Fiction, Star Wars, Independence Day (Because it was fun, not
because its a masterpeice), The Prophecy (as an interesting take on old
testiment myth), The Wings of Honneamise, Akira, Apollo 13, Buckaroo
Banzai, Airplane, The first two Batman movies, Edward Scissorhands, Urusei
Yatsura 2: Beautiful Dreamer, and a long list of other films. I happen to
like Transformers the movie... And while I admit it is not the best, their
reviews showed an obvious lack of effort, proper background in the medium,
and an obvious prejudgement.
>Movies they like: Dead Man Walking, Natural Born Killers, Pulp Fiction,
>Forrest Gump, Leaving Las Vegas, Fargo.
I was unimpressed by Forrest Gump. It was an obvious heart-tugger movie,
filled with the antics of an annoying, simplistic moron. It was a movie
that was engineered to manipulate people's senses' of sympathy, and
instead of the "wisdom of a simple man" I saw the genius of a manipulative
writer. It also goes along the trend that, in order for a male character
to be truely kind and respectful, he must be an abject moron.
>>I'll listen to them.
Easier than making decisions for yourself, isn't it? :)
>> First off, I doubt he knows more about movies than everyone in this
>> newsgroup, secondly, most movie critics become movie critics because
they
>> want to be in the movie industry, but lack the ability. This person,
if
>> he cannot do a superior review to such a work, is a hack. He serves no
>> purpose but to nitpick that which he does not understand.
>
>I don't know how most of them get their start, but I know Mr. Ebert
started
>working for the Chicago Sun-Times as a sports reporter. The film critic
>there was retiring, and Ebert was asked to take his place.
>But critics are in the industry because they love watching movies. Don't
>we all? I'd love to be paid to watch movies. In fact, it would be
biased
>if they made movies and criticized other people's movies. A critic
stands
>on the outside, looking in. And I've said it before, Leonard's main area
>of expertise is a Film Historian.
The way that act, the ciritics haven't enjoyed a movie in decades. And
Leonard obviously made up his mind before he reviewed the movie. This
isn't the first time this has happened, a critic reviews a movie, and
can't even properlly identify the names of the characters or factions,
much less what's going on (Remember the guy reviewing beast wars?)
-Trent.
BK
The Nixtr
QUOTING: The Prophecy (as an interesting take on old
testiment myth),
RESPONSE: You don't have a clue, do you? Revelation is from the New
Testament!
And the movie was fatally flawed from the start. The fundamentalist
Christians I knew had a blast mocking the 23rd book of Revelations being
added to the prophecy. For, they said, if the writers had the brains to
do some research & read book 1, they would have read that anyone who adds
to the book adds to his own condemnation in the afterlife.
Queermax films: We killed Brandon Lee.
The Nixtr
QUOTING: Siskel & Ebert is the smartest
show on T.V.
RESPONSE: If that's true, we're REALLY in trouble!
He-Man
> Considering I liked none of those movies your opinion has shown itself to
> mean nothing.
Just trying to be sarcastic. Didn't work I guess.
I like a vast number of movies, including, but not limited
> to: Pulp Fiction, Star Wars, Independence Day (Because it was fun, not
> because its a masterpeice), The Prophecy (as an interesting take on old
> testiment myth), The Wings of Honneamise, Akira, Apollo 13, Buckaroo
> Banzai, Airplane, The first two Batman movies, Edward Scissorhands,
Urusei
> Yatsura 2: Beautiful Dreamer, and a long list of other films.
Whoa, could thing you didn't mention them all. :D
>I happen to
> like Transformers the movie... And while I admit it is not the best,
their
> reviews showed an obvious lack of effort, proper background in the
medium,
> and an obvious prejudgement.
So do I. To tell you the truth, I don't refer to Leonard's guide because I
prefer full-length reviews. His guide is good for looking for a quick
comment on a potential movie to rent.
> I was unimpressed by Forrest Gump. It was an obvious heart-tugger movie,
> filled with the antics of an annoying, simplistic moron. It was a movie
> that was engineered to manipulate people's senses' of sympathy, and
> instead of the "wisdom of a simple man" I saw the genius of a
manipulative
> writer. It also goes along the trend that, in order for a male character
> to be truely kind and respectful, he must be an abject moron.
Well, since Leonard gave it * * ˝, you two must have thought the same
thing.
> Easier than making decisions for yourself, isn't it? :)
I can make them for myself. Before, I thought the same way about critics
as you. But then I met Roger Ebert. Nice guy, very interesting to talk
with. I read his book and the reviews are very interesting reading. Even
if you don't agree with a review, you really understand what he's saying,
and get the point. You say "Yeah, I can see that."
I've mentioned Day of the Dead several times before, so I'll not mention it
again. I liked Die Hard. Here's a quote from Ebert's review: "...the
deputy chief is in the movie...to be consistently wrong...and to provide a
phony counterpoint to Willis's progress. The character is so willyfully
usless, so dumb...that all by himself he...undermines the last half of the
movie."
Now, can you see the point? The insight is there. You may love the movie,
but this observation is clearly something to be considered. Mr. TV Guide
provided no insight into what he thought was wrong with BW. He resorted to
cheap shots and lies.
> The way that act, the ciritics haven't enjoyed a movie in decades.
To whom are you referring too? As far as critics go, S&E are very generous
with their four star ratings.
BK
--
"Don't call me Generation X, call me a Child of the Eighties."
- Bryant Adkins, http://www.80s.com
"The best thing about the 90's is that it's almost over."
__________________________________________________________
Check out my new nostalgiac 80s page at
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/h/e/m/heman1984.html
Coming soon: a complete list of all the films I've ever seen,
including star ratings.
He-Man
> >>
> You're making assumptions, as someone who did movie reviews for my high
> school paper, I can tell you that an intelligent writer, regaurdless of
> age, is able to print a concise and legitimate review.
Well, I wish someone like you wrote for my school paper. Everybody ran
around school saying Ace Ventura: Pet Detective was great. I saw it, and
didn't laugh at all.
> Criitics often take their job so seriously they forget that some movies
> are ment to be fun distractions, not cinimatic masterpeices. If every
> movie were a Dead Man Walking or Natural Born Killers, lots of cult
> favorites would fall by the wayside. The majority of critics hated Star
> Wars... and yet... now its considered a classic work, and a modern myth.
> I've noticed that far too many of them have forgotten that movies are
> supposed to be fun, and thus nickpick and miss the point of things.
I've noticed that other than Leonard, you haven't been specific as to what
"critics" you're talking about. There's lots of 'em out there. I've named
names already, and often use S&E in my examples. So, which critics forget
that movies can be fun? I saw the S&E show where they praised Kingpin.
"This movie isn't about bowling, it's about laughing." (You can tell I
love that show, I wish that the Reno station didn't remove it from its
lineup).
I'd better mention it now. I don't listen to almost all the critics. Only
the 5 I mentioned. Most do indeed miss the point of a movie, especially
Jeffrey and Michael. They both hated Pulp Fiction and NBK, but I stopped
watching their show altogether when they said Leaving Las Vegas was bad.
(I suspect PBS is influencing them, because they praised Baby's Day Out).
He-Man
>
> QUOTING: Siskel & Ebert is the smartest
> show on T.V.
>
> RESPONSE: If that's true, we're REALLY in trouble!
So by that logic, if you think S&E is a bad show, then a show that is the
complete opposite would be a good show, right? Let's see. Uh oh, you like
Family Matters!!!! LOL
The Nixtr
QUOTING: So by that logic, if you think S&E is a bad show, then a show
that is the complete opposite would be a good show, right? Let's see. Uh
oh, you like
Family Matters!!!!
RESPONSE: That's not logic. There is no logic in stating that, "if A is
true, than not A is false."
The Nixtr
QUOTING:
Well, I wish someone like you wrote for my school paper. Everybody ran
around school saying Ace Ventura: Pet Detective was great. I saw it, and
didn't laugh at all.
RESPONSE: Neither did I. I stopped watching in the middle!
Darzonique
In article <01bc6858$b3d012e0$396388d0@home>, "He-Man" <ki...@aiinc.com>
writes:
>And I've said it before, Leonard's main area
>of expertise is a Film Historian.
Yep, that's true. I saw his special on that one animation studio,
umm..the name is lost around in my head somewhere, but they did the old
superman cartoons.
SILVERBOLT
David Willis <wil...@adsnet.com> wrote in article
<01bc6972$82379440$3551...@alice.adsnet.com>...
>
> Funny, I figured out this a very long time ago....
Well, ain't you the smart one...
SILVERBOLT
Air Raid:
--------------------
How come they made *you* Aerialbot leader, Silverbolt? You've got no sense
of adventure!
Silverbolt:
---------------------------
Exactly.
He-Man
> RESPONSE: That's not logic. There is no logic in stating that, "if A is
> true, than not A is false."
That's not what I said.
Let A = A show has the ingredients to make it a good show.
Let B = A show is good
A --> B
~A --> ~B
B = S&E
~B = Family Matters
The Nixtr
QUOTING: Hey Nix... ask any programmer about the following. :)
bool A = true;
if (!A == false) printf("See, told ya so!\n");
RESPONSE:
Okay, mister C programmer.
If 3 is greater than zero,
Than that means any number that is not 3 is less than zero.
crash.
SITYS
He-Man
> RESPONSE: If that was what you said, there wouldn't have been a need for
> my response.
>
> If you made a logical statement that were true in all cases, and I don't
> respond, than if you make a logical statement that is not true in all
> cases, then it MUST MEAN that I will respond.
>
> (Of course, this is logically flawed, but I was just playing the Devil's
> advocate. ":)
Uh, okay, ya lost me :(
BK
Neale Davidson
(Remind me to buy Nix a sense of humor for Bot Con ;) )
>RESPONSE:
>Okay, mister C programmer.
>
>If 3 is greater than zero,
>Than that means any number that is not 3 is less than zero.
Not true... in C, not 3 happens to equal zero. Ya see, any nonzero
number in C is considered 'true', and zero is considered 'false'.
Therefore
(!3 == 0) would be true... :)
short A==3;
if (!A == short(false)) printf("Told ya so.");
The Nixtr
QUOTING: > >If 3 is greater than zero, >Than that means any number that
is not 3 is less than zero.
Not true... in C, not 3 happens to equal zero. Ya see, any nonzero number
in C is considered 'true', and zero is considered 'false'. Therefore
(!3 == 0) would be true... :)
RESPONSE: I'm talking real logic, not C.
ANd I made a mistake anyway (a kid was bugging me while I was trying to
think logicly). Actually, The second part of hte argument is, any number
that is not 3 is less than OR EQUAL TO zero.
But in C (though real men use Pascal), not 3 = 0,
while in real logic, not 3 is the set of all numbers less than or greater
than 3.
The Nixtr
QUOTING: >If 3 is greater than zero, >Than that means any number that is
not 3 is less than zero.
So, taking 5 as an example
if ((3>0) && (5!=3) && (5>0)) printf("I am an arse, and will never
again doubt the power of C \n");
RESPONSE: First of all, that statement does not match the equivalent
sentence. (Maybe that's why you use C, so as to avoid real logic.)
B,
The equation in question was, if 3 > 0 and a not = 3, then a <=0.
Subsituting 5 for a, you get:
if 3>0 and 5 not = 3, then 5<0.
FALSE.
Your c equation barely resembles this statement.
The Nixtr
QUOTING:
Not true... in C, not 3 happens to equal zero. Ya see, any nonzero number
in C is considered 'true', and zero is considered 'false'. Therefore (!3
== 0) would be true... :)
short A==3;
if (!A == short(false)) printf("Told ya so.");
RESPONSE: Well, in Pascal, 'true' means true and 'false' means false, just
like in the real world.
Sam.
then...@acy1.digex.net (The Nixtr) wrote:
>if (!A == false) printf("See, told ya so!\n");
>If 3 is greater than zero,
>Than that means any number that is not 3 is less than zero.
So, taking 5 as an example
if ((3>0) && (5!=3) && (5>0)) printf("I am an arse, and will never
again doubt the power of C \n");
Stick that up yer pipe and link it.
Next month I'll show you the creation matrix in COBOL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where am I" - Charlie Chuck. s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk
http://www.greenaum.demon.co.uk/
MSipher
Okay. My eight bits.
CRITICS : I take ANY review from ANY critic with at LEAST a grain of salt.
(Many times, with the ones here in the local paper, I use a ten-pound
bag.) Yes, they ARE just people with an opinion. Some may have more
INFORMED opinions than we do, I grant, but they are just opinions. I don't
need someone else to justify my tastes.
TFTM : NOT a great movie... when compared to most other mainstream movies.
Hey, I love it, myself (my rerelease copy came in last week... thanks,
Diana!), but upon given a choice between TFTM and DR. STRANGELOVE, then
dammit man, I'm gonna watch the Doc.
LEONARD MALTIN : Remember, this guy liked LASERBLAST and Roger Corman's
THE UNDEAD... two movies to grace the greenscreen of MST3K, and two of the
most painful peices of celluloid crapola I've ever witnessed. (I can't
imagine watching some of those movies without the comments. How do they DO
it?)
M "Animals Will Be BRED AND _*SLAUGHTERED!!!!!*_" Sipher
Joona I Palaste
He-Man <ki...@aiinc.com> wrote:
: > RESPONSE: That's not logic. There is no logic in stating that, "if A is
: > true, than not A is false."
: That's not what I said.
: Let A = A show has the ingredients to make it a good show.
: Let B = A show is good
: A --> B
:
: ~A --> ~B
This is exactly the kind of logical fallacy I warned Robert Jung of.
Neale Davidson knows this, but the Nixtr and you obviously do not. If
we state that
A --> B
that does not necessarily mean that
~A -->~B.
However, it DOES mean that
~B -->~A.
I would like the two of you to go over your high school mathematics
books again. It certainly helps to be a computer programmer, right
Neale?
: B = S&E
: ~B = Family Matters
I haven't seen either of these shows, so no comment.
--
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Joona Palaste | | | |
| pal...@cc.helsinki.fi | | | |
| G++ FR FW+ M- #20 D+ ADA N+++ W++ B OP+ |------- -----------------|
| |------- -----------------|
| | | | |
| Finland rules! => | | | |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Cyclonus: What is this place?
Daniel: An ice cream factory?
Cyclonus: You are insolent, Earth boy!
Daniel: Thanks!
--- from "Surprise Party"
The Nixtr
QUOTING: : B = S&E : ~B = Family Matters
RESPONSE: no, if B is Siskel and Ebert, than Not B would be the set
containing all shows other than Siskel and Ebert. But that si not the
point. The point in question is, if a show was the complete opposite of
S&E, it had to be good, which is not necessarily true.
Sam.
then...@acy1.digex.net (The Nixtr) wrote:
>>So, taking 5 as an example
>>
>>if ((3>0) && (5!=3) && (5>0)) printf("I am an arse, and will never
>>again doubt the power of C \n");
>RESPONSE: First of all, that statement does not match the equivalent
>sentence. (Maybe that's why you use C, so as to avoid real logic.)
Yes, I fixed your obviously flawed logic. You see this -
>The equation in question was, if 3 > 0 and a not = 3,
Does not have to imply this.
>then a <=0.
You see? Bit of a jump in your "logic" there. In fact this isn't even
logic in any simple way, it's simple algebra. I had hoped you would
spot this.
>Subsituting 5 for a, you get:
>if 3>0 and 5 not = 3, then 5<0.
>FALSE.
Damn straight you do, C isn't stupid. Who are you accusing of being
wrong, and what, exactly are you accusing it of?
ObTransformers: Er um ah. Anyone remember "Meanwhile on Cybertron" in
the UK comic? And poor Scrounge. Grud I was devastated. Anyone want to
sell me those issues at a reasonable price? Or I'll swap for an
annual.
Sam.
then...@acy1.digex.net (The Nixtr) wrote:
>RESPONSE: I'm talking real logic, not C.
Ah well then. In any particular comparison FALSE may be 0, but one is
strictly prohibited from assuming FALSE is any particular constant
value. Of course FALSE isn't a constant number, that's the use of it.
>But in C (though real men use Pascal)
er no. Name me 5 games (ie for performance) written in Pascal. Or 5
big apps. In fact they don't even teach it on (sensible) courses now.
>while in real logic, not 3 is the set of all numbers less than or greater
>than 3.
No, in real logic, not 3 is not 3. It can be NAN if you know what that
means. Go dig George Boole up and ask him. And quote properly.
He-Man
> This is exactly the kind of logical fallacy I warned Robert Jung of.
> Neale Davidson knows this, but the Nixtr and you obviously do not. If
> we state that
> A --> B
> that does not necessarily mean that
> ~A -->~B.
> However, it DOES mean that
> ~B -->~A.
> I would like the two of you to go over your high school mathematics
> books again. It certainly helps to be a computer programmer, right
> Neale?
I was just saying that if you negate A, you negate B also. Believe me, I
understand my tautologies (got an A.S. in Math, working for M.S.), I was
just twisting the facts to get my point across (and I can't even remember
what the heck it was), much like Oliver Stone twisting the facts for Nixon
(still a great movie though).
I'm minoring in Computer Science, but I haven't taken any C yet, so I'll
leave you folks to talk it over. Besides, it's summer vacation, and why
should I hurt my brain? :)
--
"Don't call me Generation X, call me a Child of the Eighties."
- Bryant Adkins, http://www.80s.com
"The best thing about the 90's is that it's almost over."
__________________________________________________________
Movie list page is up. Check it out
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/h/e/m/heman1984.html
Neale Davidson
The Nixtr <then...@acy1.digex.net> wrote in article
<5mg7sv$q...@acy1.digex.net>...
>
> QUOTING:
>
> Not true... in C, not 3 happens to equal zero. Ya see, any nonzero number
> in C is considered 'true', and zero is considered 'false'. Therefore (!3
> == 0) would be true... :)
>
> short A==3;
> if (!A == short(false)) printf("Told ya so.");
>
> RESPONSE: Well, in Pascal, 'true' means true and 'false' means false,
just
> like in the real world.
Even though I KNOW you like to debate Nix, we'll cease here since it WAS
originally meant to be a joke, and it's gotten way off topic.
Neale
Joona I Palaste
The Nixtr <then...@acy1.digex.net> wrote:
: QUOTING: > >If 3 is greater than zero, >Than that means any number that
: is not 3 is less than zero.
: Not true... in C, not 3 happens to equal zero. Ya see, any nonzero number
: in C is considered 'true', and zero is considered 'false'. Therefore
: (!3 == 0) would be true... :)
: RESPONSE: I'm talking real logic, not C.
Well, it doesn't work in real logic either, Nixtr. As we soon shall see.
: ANd I made a mistake anyway (a kid was bugging me while I was trying to
: think logicly). Actually, The second part of hte argument is, any number
: that is not 3 is less than OR EQUAL TO zero.
: But in C (though real men use Pascal), not 3 = 0,
: while in real logic, not 3 is the set of all numbers less than or greater
: than 3.
So you say that 3 = {3} and "not 3" = R\{3}. That is true. However, you
claim that because 3 > 0 then A xeR\{3}: x<=0 (A here meaning the
logical "all" quantor, and e meaning inclusion). I have never found any
proof of this being so, and you constantly keep saying that your claim
is true, however you don't supply any proof. How hard is it for you to
realise that even though A-->B, that doesn't necessarily mean that
~A-->~B? If a number is not 3, it may still be greater than zero. If one
is Joona Palaste, then one is a human. The Nixtr is not Joona Palaste.
Is he therefore not a human? I rest my case.
The Nixtr
QUOTING: Well, it doesn't work in real logic either, Nixtr. As we soon
shall see.
RESPONSE: We put this thread to rest (see the agreement post on this
thread.)
The Weeter
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD NIGHT every body!
Darzonique
No, You see the statement: 3>0 is true mathmatically and logically.
The Nixtr
QUOTING: o, You see the statement: 3>0 is true mathmatically and
logically.
-Darzoni the Blue
RESPONSE: This argument was settled as a truce.
-The nixtr (who is currently writing ORIGINAL sci-fi, in a world where
0=1.