...another shocking case of conservative media bias
O Deus
Ideology: Now You See It, Now You Don't
In May 2000, the Associated Press published a dispatch about a
Judicial Watch lawsuit against Bill Clinton. The dispatch twice
referred to Judicial Watch as a "conservative group."
http://www.nctimes.net/news/052700/ll.html
Yesterday the AP published a dispatch on a threatened Judicial Watch
lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The dispatch makes no reference to the
group's ideology, calling it only "a Washington-based watchdog group."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020710/ap_on_bi_ge/cheney_lawsuit_2
Dan Kimmel
"O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:c6784f8f.0207...@posting.google.com...
To be fair, I think everyone was quite surprised that a group that so
relentlessly hounded the Clintons would turn around and do the same thing to
Bush and Cheney. Consider this a promotion from part of the "vast
right-wing conspiracy" to non-partisan kvetch.
Elisabeth Riba
> Ideology: Now You See It, Now You Don't
> In May 2000, the Associated Press published a dispatch about a
> Judicial Watch lawsuit against Bill Clinton. The dispatch twice
> referred to Judicial Watch as a "conservative group."
> Yesterday the AP published a dispatch on a threatened Judicial Watch
> lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The dispatch makes no reference to the
> group's ideology, calling it only "a Washington-based watchdog group."
Take a look at this profile of Klayman & Judicial Watch from Tuesday's
Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8394-2002Jul15.html
When they began, Judicial Watch *was* considered a conservative group.
They began during the Clinton administration, *only* went after Clinton
and his staff, and were largely supported by conservative groups.
It was quite reasonable at this time to think of them as a conservative
group, since they were closely allied with other conservatives in their
allegiances and their aims.
*AFTER* Bush took office, Klayman switched the organization's focus and
started going after Bush and Cheney. He surprised a hell of a lot of
people and lost a lot of his former supporters (financial and friends).
This is why Judicial Watch is no longer labelled a conservative organization.
Make sense?
--
--------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <--------------
Looking for work in the Boston area. Dynamic professional with over
10 years experience with software interface design, library science,
documentation and end-user support. See http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis
A.C.
news:ah9aed$qv8$1...@reader3.panix.com...
> O Deus <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > Ideology: Now You See It, Now You Don't
> > In May 2000, the Associated Press published a dispatch about a
> > Judicial Watch lawsuit against Bill Clinton. The dispatch twice
> > referred to Judicial Watch as a "conservative group."
>
> > Yesterday the AP published a dispatch on a threatened Judicial Watch
> > lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The dispatch makes no reference to the
> > group's ideology, calling it only "a Washington-based watchdog group."
>
> Take a look at this profile of Klayman & Judicial Watch from Tuesday's
> Washington Post:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8394-2002Jul15.html
>
> When they began, Judicial Watch *was* considered a conservative group.
> They began during the Clinton administration, *only* went after Clinton
> and his staff, and were largely supported by conservative groups.
> It was quite reasonable at this time to think of them as a conservative
> group, since they were closely allied with other conservatives in their
> allegiances and their aims.
>
> *AFTER* Bush took office, Klayman switched the organization's focus and
> started going after Bush and Cheney. He surprised a hell of a lot of
> people and lost a lot of his former supporters (financial and friends).
> This is why Judicial Watch is no longer labelled a conservative
organization.
>
> Make sense?
Not to him. With him, you're either part of the liberal media conspiracy,
or you're Ann Coulter.
--
nomadi...@hotmail.com | http://nomadic.simspace.net
"Thus let me live, unheard, unknown/thus unlamented let me dye;/Steal from
the world, and not a stone/Tell where I lye." -- Alexander Pope
David Dyer-Bennet
> O Deus <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > Ideology: Now You See It, Now You Don't
> > In May 2000, the Associated Press published a dispatch about a
> > Judicial Watch lawsuit against Bill Clinton. The dispatch twice
> > referred to Judicial Watch as a "conservative group."
>
> > Yesterday the AP published a dispatch on a threatened Judicial Watch
> > lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The dispatch makes no reference to the
> > group's ideology, calling it only "a Washington-based watchdog group."
>
> Take a look at this profile of Klayman & Judicial Watch from Tuesday's
> Washington Post:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8394-2002Jul15.html
>
> When they began, Judicial Watch *was* considered a conservative group.
> They began during the Clinton administration, *only* went after Clinton
> and his staff, and were largely supported by conservative groups.
> It was quite reasonable at this time to think of them as a conservative
> group, since they were closely allied with other conservatives in their
> allegiances and their aims.
>
> *AFTER* Bush took office, Klayman switched the organization's focus and
> started going after Bush and Cheney. He surprised a hell of a lot of
> people and lost a lot of his former supporters (financial and friends).
> This is why Judicial Watch is no longer labelled a conservative organization.
>
> Make sense?
Yes and know. Yes, it explains the confusion over their political
orientation.
But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
motive, what the hell was it?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Priscilla H. Ballou
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
> Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
> orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
> motive, what the hell was it?
Maybe they just want to make trouble and don't particularly care who's
the target.
I've known people who do that in microcosm. They're just fractious and
critical.
Priscilla
--
"Love is not something wonderful that you feel; it is something
difficult that you do." -- Elizabeth Goudge
Elisabeth Riba
> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes:
>> Take a look at this profile of Klayman & Judicial Watch from Tuesday's
>> Washington Post:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8394-2002Jul15.html
>> Make sense?
> But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
> Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
> orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
> motive, what the hell was it?
My interpretation of their motive is that
They believe that the Federal government is "our" government; in other
words, it's accountable to us -- the general public.
Therefore, they seem to be against government secrecy of any kind (except
perhaps national safety/security) so their lawsuits seem to be about
opening up confidential government records to the public, whether it's
the minutes of Cheney's energy taskforce or documents about Vince Foster's
death. Their website talks about investigating "misconduct and violations
of the public trust"
As the Washington Post article says, partisanship generally is about
predictability over consistency (like the way attitudes over Bush's Harken
mess are generally the opposite of those on Whitewater (Democrats
generally opposed investigating Whitewater, but want more on Harken,
Republicans the reverse)). So, I'll give Klayman credit for consistency.
Their website is www.judicialwatch.org if you want to read more.
Does that make things any clearer?
Dan Kimmel
"Priscilla H. Ballou" <phba...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:phballou-1F47FB...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> In article <m2y9c7e...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
> > Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
> > orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
> > motive, what the hell was it?
>
> Maybe they just want to make trouble and don't particularly care who's
> the target.
>
> I've known people who do that in microcosm. They're just fractious and
> critical.
And I've caught some of them posting here. :)
mike weber
typed
>But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
>Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
>orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
>motive, what the hell was it?
Who pays the piper calls the tune?
--
"He had long ago come to the conclusion that there
were no 'Things Man Was Not Meant To Know'. He was willing
to believe that there were things Man was Too Dumb To
Figure Out." - Mike Kurland
<mike weber> <mike....@electronictiger.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
O Deus
Except that long before this JW had investigated Senator Hatch over
BCCI, filed FEC complaints against Tom DeLay, sued Governor Davis,
filed FOI's to get a look at Guliani's fundraising, etc...
Obviously a Presidential administration is always going to be the
biggest target for any interest group, especially one as excessively
corrupt as the Clinton administration was.
Priscilla H. Ballou
<FL_Z8.40062$Iu6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Uh... no, never mind. How ya doin' there, Dan?
Dan Kimmel
If you're looking for excessive corruption, we need look no further than
Bush and Cheney, two people who are part of the problem, not of the
solution. There was little "corruption" in the Clinton Administration,
certainly not in the traditional sense of personal aggrandizement at the
expense of public business.
Dan Kimmel
> In article
> <FL_Z8.40062$Iu6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > "Priscilla H. Ballou" <phba...@bu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:phballou-1F47FB...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> > > In article <m2y9c7e...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> > > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
> > > > Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
> > > > orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
> > > > motive, what the hell was it?
> > >
> > > Maybe they just want to make trouble and don't particularly care who's
> > > the target.
> > >
> > > I've known people who do that in microcosm. They're just fractious
and
> > > critical.
> >
> > And I've caught some of them posting here. :)
>
> Uh... no, never mind. How ya doin' there, Dan?
Just fine. I'm now resident essayist for a new website
(www.cinemasmith.net ) a video store I would patronize even if they didn't
have the good taste to make me their in-house film critic, and I'm summer
substitute for Jay Carr on New England Cable News. You can catch my first
review tonight on the 9 p.m. newscast (repeated at 10), as well as my
co-hosting the "Screening Room" show next Saturday at 7 p.m.
ObSF: And I got to meet Octavia Butler last week at Readercon!
Joshua Hesse
:solution. There was little "corruption" in the Clinton Administration,
:certainly not in the traditional sense of personal aggrandizement at the
:expense of public business.
Oooookaaaaaay....
Who landed on the moon in your timeline?
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
"You scream at them at the top of your lungs and then hit them over the head
with an immense wooden mallet? You're weird, sir." -Dave Brown on girls.
Priscilla Ballou
<ww0_8.111204$UT.71...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Priscilla H. Ballou" <phba...@bu.edu> wrote in message
> > Uh... no, never mind. How ya doin' there, Dan?
>
> Just fine. I'm now resident essayist for a new website
> (www.cinemasmith.net ) a video store I would patronize even if they didn't
> have the good taste to make me their in-house film critic, and I'm summer
> substitute for Jay Carr on New England Cable News. You can catch my first
> review tonight on the 9 p.m. newscast (repeated at 10), as well as my
> co-hosting the "Screening Room" show next Saturday at 7 p.m.
Hey, cool! I'll be watching "Star Gate" tonight from 9-10 but I'll
catch the repeat on NECN.
> ObSF: And I got to meet Octavia Butler last week at Readercon!
*sigh* You lucky xyz.
I've just been too busy lately, what with my health, my nextdoor
neighbor's health, and my mother (whose health is fine, luckily), to be
able to take the weekend. Otherwise, I would have, too. Except that I
would have been too shy to do more than adore from afar and call my
mother to tell her what OB looks like person, sounds like on a panel,
etc. etc.
Dan Kimmel
"Joshua Hesse" <0009...@bigred.unl.edu> wrote in message
news:aha7b7$t8o$1...@unlnews.unl.edu...
> Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> :solution. There was little "corruption" in the Clinton Administration,
> :certainly not in the traditional sense of personal aggrandizement at the
> :expense of public business.
>
> Oooookaaaaaay....
>
> Who landed on the moon in your timeline?
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Who landed there in yours?
The notion that Clinton was lining his pockets at the public expense is just
plain ludicrous. If you want to see that kind of corruption -- at least on
the corporate level -- we need only examine the shady deals of Bush and
Cheney. Of course they're making sure no one is able to do just that.
Dan Kimmel
"Priscilla Ballou" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vze23t8n-9BBF7C...@news.bellatlantic.net...
She was very approachable, very warm with a sense of humor. It might not be
what you'd expect from her books, but she was quite down to Earth. If you
ever cross paths with her at a con, go right up and say hello. :)
Priscilla Ballou
Priscilla Ballou <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In article
> <ww0_8.111204$UT.71...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Just fine. I'm now resident essayist for a new website
> > (www.cinemasmith.net ) a video store I would patronize even if they didn't
> > have the good taste to make me their in-house film critic, and I'm summer
> > substitute for Jay Carr on New England Cable News. You can catch my first
> > review tonight on the 9 p.m. newscast (repeated at 10), as well as my
> > co-hosting the "Screening Room" show next Saturday at 7 p.m.
>
> Hey, cool! I'll be watching "Star Gate" tonight from 9-10 but I'll
> catch the repeat on NECN.
They had just your voice! What'ja do? Show up in disreputable clothes
so they wouldn't put your image on the air?
Too bad about the dragon movie, but I figured as much from the ads.
Lis Carey
news:67vgju82ks0q6g37j...@4ax.com:
> On 19 Jul 2002 13:56:13 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> typed
>
>
>>But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
>>Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
>>orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
>>motive, what the hell was it?
>
> Who pays the piper calls the tune?
Not the case with Judicial Watch; if they had continued to play the tune
wanted by those that were paying them up until they went after Bush &
Cheney, they would never have gone after Bush and Cheney.
It seems at least seriously possible that what they thought they were doing
with Clinton is genuinely going after possible presidential wrong-doing,
unlikely as that seemed at the time.
--
Lis Carey
Dan Kimmel
"Lis Carey" <lisc...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92514380DF86C...@216.148.227.77...
There is a poetic justice to it. All those Republicans cheering them on
suddenly finding Judicial Watch turning on one of their own.
Now if we could only reinstate the special persecutor law...
Dan Kimmel
> In article <vze23t8n-9BBF7C...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> Priscilla Ballou <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <ww0_8.111204$UT.71...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > Just fine. I'm now resident essayist for a new website
> > > (www.cinemasmith.net ) a video store I would patronize even if they
didn't
> > > have the good taste to make me their in-house film critic, and I'm
summer
> > > substitute for Jay Carr on New England Cable News. You can catch my
first
> > > review tonight on the 9 p.m. newscast (repeated at 10), as well as my
> > > co-hosting the "Screening Room" show next Saturday at 7 p.m.
> >
> > Hey, cool! I'll be watching "Star Gate" tonight from 9-10 but I'll
> > catch the repeat on NECN.
>
> They had just your voice! What'ja do? Show up in disreputable clothes
> so they wouldn't put your image on the air?
No, that's the format for the reviews. Jay Carr doesn't appear on screen
either.
But if you tune in next week (7 p.m. Saturday, 11 a.m. Sunday) I'll be very
much on camera as the co-host for their monthly movie show. And there'll be
lots of SF content including a review of "Goldmember" and a segment on
"Blade Runner."
> Too bad about the dragon movie, but I figured as much from the ads.
It was dreadful. But if you don't mind gigantic spiders, "Eight Legged
Freaks" was fun.
Danny Low
<phba...@bu.edu> wrote:
>Maybe they just want to make trouble and don't particularly care who's
>the target.
This is a definition of a nonpartisan public interest watchdog group.
It appears that JW was mistaken for a conservative group because it
was the malfeasance of Clinton that prompted its formation.
Danny
Don't question authority. What makes you think they
know anything?
Danny Low
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110001969
>Ideology: Now You See It, Now You Don't
>In May 2000, the Associated Press published a dispatch about a
>Judicial Watch lawsuit against Bill Clinton. The dispatch twice
>referred to Judicial Watch as a "conservative group."
>...
>Yesterday the AP published a dispatch on a threatened Judicial Watch
>lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The dispatch makes no reference to the
>group's ideology, calling it only "a Washington-based watchdog group."
A good example of the media's liberal bias. One of the subtle ways the
media shows its bias is to always label a group that attacks liberals
as "conservative" but never labelling a group that attacks
conservatives as "liberal". When a group acts in a nonpartisan way,
this labelling becomes obvious. It is past 1984 and Orwell would be
pleased.
mike weber
typed
>mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote in
>news:67vgju82ks0q6g37j...@4ax.com:
>
>> Who pays the piper calls the tune?
>
>Not the case with Judicial Watch; if they had continued to play the tune
>wanted by those that were paying them up until they went after Bush &
>Cheney, they would never have gone after Bush and Cheney.
>
>It seems at least seriously possible that what they thought they were doing
>with Clinton is genuinely going after possible presidential wrong-doing,
>unlikely as that seemed at the time.
Okay -- i sit corrected.
Priscilla Ballou
<Bhb_8.112101$UT.72...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Priscilla Ballou" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:vze23t8n-E34351...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>
> It was dreadful. But if you don't mind gigantic spiders, "Eight Legged
> Freaks" was fun.
I'm very fond of spiders in RL because they keep the nasty bugs away,
but 8 ft on the screen? I think if I'm going to bother to go to a
theater I'll go see Harrison Ford attempt a Russian accent. I read
something good about that movie somewhere recently, and I do like Mr.
Ford on the screen -- and I was a big submarine movie buff in my teens.
Priscilla ("Dive! Dive! Dive!" <a-oooo-gah! a-ooooo-gah!>)
Vicki Rosenzweig
GMT:
Another standard right-wing lie.
The actual data show that conservatives are *less* likely to be
identified in the media as "conservative" than liberals are as
"liberal".
>
>Danny
>Don't question authority. What makes you think they
>know anything?
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Dan Kimmel
> In article
> <Bhb_8.112101$UT.72...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > "Priscilla Ballou" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:vze23t8n-E34351...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> > > Too bad about the dragon movie, but I figured as much from the ads.
> >
> > It was dreadful. But if you don't mind gigantic spiders, "Eight Legged
> > Freaks" was fun.
>
> I'm very fond of spiders in RL because they keep the nasty bugs away,
> but 8 ft on the screen? I think if I'm going to bother to go to a
> theater I'll go see Harrison Ford attempt a Russian accent. I read
> something good about that movie somewhere recently, and I do like Mr.
> Ford on the screen -- and I was a big submarine movie buff in my teens.
>
> Priscilla ("Dive! Dive! Dive!" <a-oooo-gah! a-ooooo-gah!>)
I'll be curious what you think. I thought it was a dreadful bore and that
the only thing that would have saved it is if the sailors started to mutate.
But the strange new critics of the Globe seemed to like it (while disliking
"Road to Perdition," easily one of the best films of the year).
Best sub movie remains, as far as I'm concerned, "Das Boot."
Elisabeth Riba
> A good example of the media's liberal bias. One of the subtle ways the
> media shows its bias is to always label a group that attacks liberals
> as "conservative" but never labelling a group that attacks
> conservatives as "liberal". When a group acts in a nonpartisan way,
> this labelling becomes obvious.
But that's not the case here. It's not as if these are two contemporary
news articles labelling the same group in different ways.
The article that called them conservative was from 2000, and at that time
they *were* largely believed to be a conservative organization. In fact,
if you read the Judicial Watch website, they call THEMSELVES a
conservative foundation (http://www.judicialwatch.org/chairman.shtml).
It's only since Bush's election that they've shown their true nonpartisan
leanings, which is why the perception has changed in an article written
two years later.
For more on the group's history, read the Washington Post article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8394-2002Jul15.html
Jay E. Morris
My problem is that I've read a little bit on K-19, have seen a couple
documentaries and it appears that Hollywood had again applied a sweeping
dramatic license.
Even though it is "National Geographic's first feature film".
http://crater.nationalgeographic.com/k19/
Steven desJardins
<l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> A good example of the media's liberal bias. One of the subtle ways the
>> media shows its bias is to always label a group that attacks liberals
>> as "conservative" but never labelling a group that attacks
>> conservatives as "liberal". When a group acts in a nonpartisan way,
>> this labelling becomes obvious.
>
>But that's not the case here. It's not as if these are two contemporary
>news articles labelling the same group in different ways.
>
>The article that called them conservative was from 2000, and at that time
>they *were* largely believed to be a conservative organization. In fact,
>if you read the Judicial Watch website, they call THEMSELVES a
>conservative foundation (http://www.judicialwatch.org/chairman.shtml).
>It's only since Bush's election that they've shown their true nonpartisan
>leanings, which is why the perception has changed in an article written
>two years later.
And according to Mr. Low's argument, The Washington Times is a liberal
newspaper. This is not an argument that is intended to convince: it
is merely an argument-shaped object, designed to clog the filters of
public discourse.
Priscilla Ballou
<H8k_8.41807$Iu6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Priscilla Ballou" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > I'm very fond of spiders in RL because they keep the nasty bugs away,
> > but 8 ft on the screen? I think if I'm going to bother to go to a
> > theater I'll go see Harrison Ford attempt a Russian accent. I read
> > something good about that movie somewhere recently, and I do like Mr.
> > Ford on the screen -- and I was a big submarine movie buff in my teens.
> >
> > Priscilla ("Dive! Dive! Dive!" <a-oooo-gah! a-ooooo-gah!>)
>
> I'll be curious what you think. I thought it was a dreadful bore and that
> the only thing that would have saved it is if the sailors started to mutate.
LOL!
> But the strange new critics of the Globe seemed to like it (while disliking
> "Road to Perdition," easily one of the best films of the year).
Huh? I've heard such wonderful things about RtP. Joyce Kulhawik hasn't
started working for the Globe, has she? ;-)
Dunno if I will make it to a theater -- in the past year I've only been
out to the movies three times, and twice was for the same movie, which
shall remain nameless. ;-) And twice was to take my mother -- not the
same two times, but overlapping.
> Best sub movie remains, as far as I'm concerned, "Das Boot."
Oh, yeah. Good movie.
Priscilla, whose favorite movie of all time may be "Rebecca"
Margaret Young
wrote:
The men who survived from the K-19 are mad as hell about it.
--
Margaret Young
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come the apocalypse there will be cockroaches, Keith Richards and the
faint smell of cat pee.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Dan Kimmel
"Jay E. Morris" <j...@epsilon3.com> wrote in message
news:2Jk_8.146424$eF5.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> On 20-Jul-2002, "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > "Priscilla Ballou" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:vze23t8n-CCDC14...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> > > but 8 ft on the screen? I think if I'm going to bother to go to a
> > > theater I'll go see Harrison Ford attempt a Russian accent. I read
> > > something good about that movie somewhere recently, and I do like Mr.
> > > Ford on the screen -- and I was a big submarine movie buff in my
teens.
> > >
> > > Priscilla ("Dive! Dive! Dive!" <a-oooo-gah! a-ooooo-gah!>)
> >
> > I'll be curious what you think. I thought it was a dreadful bore and
that
> > the only thing that would have saved it is if the sailors started to
> > mutate.
> > But the strange new critics of the Globe seemed to like it (while
> > disliking
> > "Road to Perdition," easily one of the best films of the year).
> >
> > Best sub movie remains, as far as I'm concerned, "Das Boot."
>
> My problem is that I've read a little bit on K-19, have seen a couple
> documentaries and it appears that Hollywood had again applied a sweeping
> dramatic license.
>
> Even though it is "National Geographic's first feature film".
> http://crater.nationalgeographic.com/k19/
Well, let's see, they changed the names, included a fire on board that
actually took place ten years later, and say the movie was "inspired" by
real events.
Yep, always a mistake to confuse Hollywood and history.
Dan Kimmel
> Dunno if I will make it to a theater -- in the past year I've only been
> out to the movies three times, and twice was for the same movie, which
> shall remain nameless. ;-) And twice was to take my mother -- not the
> same two times, but overlapping.
Best so far this year, IMNSHO, "Monsoon Wedding," "Minority Report," "Lilo &
Stitch," and "Road to Perdition." I've enjoyed other films, of course --
this year is turning out much better than the last two as far as movies
go -- but you can't go wrong with any of those.
>
> > Best sub movie remains, as far as I'm concerned, "Das Boot."
>
> Oh, yeah. Good movie.
>
> Priscilla, whose favorite movie of all time may be "Rebecca"
So, maybe you know: what WAS the first name of the second Mrs. DeWinter?
Matt Austern
It's what Phil Agre describes as associational rhetoric, as opposed to
logical. The goal isn't to convince, but merely to build up
associations in the listerner's mind.
Laurie Mann
> Yep, always a mistake to confuse Hollywood and history.
Yeah, but sometimes movies are marketed as history.
Look at the movie Elizabeth. It had wonderful performances
and certainly captured the look of the time, but it really
screwed with the actual events and attitudes of the time.
But it was also presented as "history" (and certainly many
reviewers treated it that way).
On the other hand, Shakespeare in Love, out the same year,
was presented as an imaginative re-envisioning of Shakespeare,
and not as Shakespeare's life.
Priscilla Ballou
<txm_8.112976$UT.72...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Priscilla Ballou" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:vze23t8n-56525F...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>
> So, maybe you know: what WAS the first name of the second Mrs. DeWinter?
We are never told. Not in the movie, and I'm rather sure not in the
book either, which I read before seeing the movie. That's all part of
her defining herself in relation to Rebecca. She has no identity of her
own through most of the movie, though I think she should have gained her
own name by the end when she finally started acting less like a leaf of
wilted lettuce.
How many times have I lain awake at night thinking about how *I* would
have done things differently, what *I* would have said to Mrs. Danvers,
how *I* would have greeted the staff when I first arrived....
Priscilla, "last night I dreampt I went to Manderley again"
Jay E. Morris
Well, being at it was done by National Geographic I had hopes.
Danny Low
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Who landed on the moon in your timeline?
>Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Who landed there in yours?
Ah you live in the time line where Clinton got impeached. :-)
O Deus
> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes:
>
> > O Deus <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > Ideology: Now You See It, Now You Don't
> > > In May 2000, the Associated Press published a dispatch about a
> > > Judicial Watch lawsuit against Bill Clinton. The dispatch twice
> > > referred to Judicial Watch as a "conservative group."
>
> > > lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The dispatch makes no reference to the
> > > group's ideology, calling it only "a Washington-based watchdog group."
> >
> > Washington Post:
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8394-2002Jul15.html
> >
> > When they began, Judicial Watch *was* considered a conservative group.
> > They began during the Clinton administration, *only* went after Clinton
> > and his staff, and were largely supported by conservative groups.
> > It was quite reasonable at this time to think of them as a conservative
> > group, since they were closely allied with other conservatives in their
> > allegiances and their aims.
> >
> > *AFTER* Bush took office, Klayman switched the organization's focus and
> > started going after Bush and Cheney. He surprised a hell of a lot of
> > people and lost a lot of his former supporters (financial and friends).
> > This is why Judicial Watch is no longer labelled a conservative organization.
> >
> > Make sense?
>
> Yes and know. Yes, it explains the confusion over their political
> orientation.
>
> But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
> Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
> orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
> motive, what the hell was it?
Investigating criminal government misconduct perhaps?
Danny Low
wrote:
>It's what Phil Agre describes as associational rhetoric, as opposed to
>logical. The goal isn't to convince, but merely to build up
>associations in the listerner's mind.
Build up enough associations and you have convinced. So the goal is to
convince. And it works much better than logic. That is why demagogues
are so successful. They do not appeal to logic and always win over
those who appeal to logic.
mike weber
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> typed
Haven't seen "Widowmaker" or "Road to Perdition" yet -- i may go see
"Road" in a day or so -- but i suspect that once i see both of them,
you and i will be three for three on this parlay -- at least two for
three (i *might* like "Widowmaker"...)
mike weber
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> typed
>
And the ads talk about the reactor exploding and taking the warheads
with it, for a 1.4 megaton blast.
*Maybe* the type of submarine reactor the Sovs were using in those
days could actually explode, but i doubt it. But it ain't gonna touch
off the warheads, like it was all so much dynamite.
mike weber
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> typed
>
.
>But the strange new critics of the Globe seemed to like it (while disliking
>"Road to Perdition," easily one of the best films of the year).
The reviews i've read make it sound similar to the best of Leone, but
that could just be the reviewers.
mike weber
>ste...@desjardins.org (Steven desJardins) writes:
>
>> And according to Mr. Low's argument, The Washington Times is a liberal
>> newspaper. This is not an argument that is intended to convince: it
>> is merely an argument-shaped object, designed to clog the filters of
>> public discourse.
>
>It's what Phil Agre describes as associational rhetoric, as opposed to
>logical. The goal isn't to convince, but merely to build up
>associations in the listerner's mind.
Sometimes more succinctly, if less politely, referred to as
"musdlinging".
Priscilla Ballou
mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 23:40:08 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> typed
> >"Jay E. Morris" <j...@epsilon3.com> wrote in message
> >news:2Jk_8.146424$eF5.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >> http://crater.nationalgeographic.com/k19/
> >
> >Well, let's see, they changed the names, included a fire on board that
> >actually took place ten years later, and say the movie was "inspired" by
> >real events.
> >
> >Yep, always a mistake to confuse Hollywood and history.
> >
> And the ads talk about the reactor exploding and taking the warheads
> with it, for a 1.4 megaton blast.
>
> *Maybe* the type of submarine reactor the Sovs were using in those
> days could actually explode, but i doubt it. But it ain't gonna touch
> off the warheads, like it was all so much dynamite.
I thought the point of the story is that it *didn't* (explode or
whatever they were afraid it would ultimately do).
Priscilla
Steven desJardins
wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 00:46:58 GMT, Matt Austern <aus...@well.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It's what Phil Agre describes as associational rhetoric, as opposed to
>>logical. The goal isn't to convince, but merely to build up
>>associations in the listerner's mind.
>
>Build up enough associations and you have convinced. So the goal is to
>convince. And it works much better than logic. That is why demagogues
>are so successful. They do not appeal to logic and always win over
>those who appeal to logic.
This is remarkable. He doesn't seem to realize that we were talking
about him.
Michael Kube-McDowell
following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:<m2y9c7e...@gw.dd-b.net>...
>> But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
>> Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
>> orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
>> motive, what the hell was it?
>
>Investigating criminal government misconduct perhaps?
Gee, and if only there had actually been some (like, say, in Iran-Contra, or
Watergate).
--
Michael P, Kube-McDowell, http://k-mac.home.att.net
Kip Williams
Lucky it wasn't coal.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Well, it looks as though my time is up. The old clock on the wall
has melted." --Hugh "Wavy Gravy" Romney
Kevin J. Maroney
<mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
[Road to Perdition]
>The reviews i've read make it sound similar to the best of Leone, but
>that could just be the reviewers.
The comic was a watered-down version of _Lone Wolf and Cub_. (It
doesn't hide this influence; the epigraph is attributed to Kazuo
Koike, the writer of _Lone Wolf and Cub_.) Everything I've read about
the movie makes me believe that it is, in turn, a watered-down version
of the comic. So that's a third-generation photocopy.
I might still see the film, but my expectations are very low.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Matt Austern
Matt Austern
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 00:46:58 GMT, Matt Austern <aus...@well.com>
> typed
>
> >ste...@desjardins.org (Steven desJardins) writes:
> >
>
> >> And according to Mr. Low's argument, The Washington Times is a liberal
> >> newspaper. This is not an argument that is intended to convince: it
> >> is merely an argument-shaped object, designed to clog the filters of
> >> public discourse.
> >
> >It's what Phil Agre describes as associational rhetoric, as opposed to
> >logical. The goal isn't to convince, but merely to build up
> >associations in the listerner's mind.
>
> Sometimes more succinctly, if less politely, referred to as
> "musdlinging".
I think it's useful to do a close analysis of dishonest rhetoric. The
trouble with a word like "mudslinging" is that it doesn't tell you
exactly what rhetorical forms are being used, why they're effective,
and under what circumstances they're most effective.
mike weber
<vze2...@verizon.net> typed
>In article <5u6kju4c0p45eeqsj...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 23:40:08 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
>> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> typed
>> >"Jay E. Morris" <j...@epsilon3.com> wrote in message
>> >news:2Jk_8.146424$eF5.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>> >> Even though it is "National Geographic's first feature film".
>> >> http://crater.nationalgeographic.com/k19/
>> >
>> >Well, let's see, they changed the names, included a fire on board that
>> >actually took place ten years later, and say the movie was "inspired" by
>> >real events.
>> >
>> >Yep, always a mistake to confuse Hollywood and history.
>> >
>> And the ads talk about the reactor exploding and taking the warheads
>> with it, for a 1.4 megaton blast.
>>
>> *Maybe* the type of submarine reactor the Sovs were using in those
>> days could actually explode, but i doubt it. But it ain't gonna touch
>> off the warheads, like it was all so much dynamite.
>
>I thought the point of the story is that it *didn't* (explode or
>whatever they were afraid it would ultimately do).
>
Well, yeah. But, if the reactor couldn't have exploded, and
certainly because there is no way it could have chain-fired the
warheads, having one of the charcters who supposedly knows What's
Going On spouting this sort of crap as if it were gospel is just
playing to popular anti-nuclear ignorance and hysteria.
mike weber
<mike....@electronictiger.com> typed
>And the ads talk about the reactor exploding and taking the warheads
>with it, for a 1.4 megaton blast.
>
Let me clarify that -- the ads run a clip of one of the characters
saying that this is likely to happen.
mike weber
typed
>On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 22:30:12 -0400, mike weber
><mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>[Road to Perdition]
>>The reviews i've read make it sound similar to the best of Leone, but
>>that could just be the reviewers.
>
>The comic was a watered-down version of _Lone Wolf and Cub_. (It
>doesn't hide this influence; the epigraph is attributed to Kazuo
>Koike, the writer of _Lone Wolf and Cub_.) Everything I've read about
>the movie makes me believe that it is, in turn, a watered-down version
>of the comic. So that's a third-generation photocopy.
Well, yeah -- that influence is fairly obvious.
>
>I might still see the film, but my expectations are very low.
Based on the near-unanimity of critics i have encountered -- both ones
i usually agree with and ones i usually disagree with -- i have rather
higher hopes.
mike weber
Of which how much was proven, despite the best efforts of a number of
well-trained and orchestrated kangaroos?
James Nicoll
Laurie Mann <lauri...@dpsinfo.com> wrote:
> > Dan Kimmel wrote:
>
>> Yep, always a mistake to confuse Hollywood and history.
>
>
>Yeah, but sometimes movies are marketed as history.
>
>Look at the movie Elizabeth. It had wonderful performances
>and certainly captured the look of the time, but it really
>screwed with the actual events and attitudes of the time.
>But it was also presented as "history" (and certainly many
>reviewers treated it that way).
>
the English Catholic population of the day was almost certainly
closely related to CHUD, except that CHUD have fewer weeping
sores.
James Nicoll
A.C.
news:6qekjugu4g3597oaa...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Jul 2002 19:11:01 -0700, od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) typed
>
> >David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:<m2y9c7e...@gw.dd-b.net>...
> >> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> writes:
> >>
>
> >> But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
> >> Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
> >> orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
> >> motive, what the hell was it?
> >
> >Investigating criminal government misconduct perhaps?
>
> Of which how much was proven, despite the best efforts of a number of
> well-trained and orchestrated kangaroos?
More to the point, Judicial Watch went beyond the normal criticism into the
paranoid conspiracy issues; the Vince Foster and Ron Brown "killings" for
example.
--
nomadi...@hotmail.com | http://nomadic.simspace.net
"Thus let me live, unheard, unknown/thus unlamented let me dye;/Steal from
the world, and not a stone/Tell where I lye." -- Alexander Pope
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>> *AFTER* Bush took office, Klayman switched the organization's focus and
>> started going after Bush and Cheney. He surprised a hell of a lot of
>> people and lost a lot of his former supporters (financial and friends).
>> This is why Judicial Watch is no longer labelled a conservative organization.
>>
>> Make sense?
>
>Yes and know. Yes, it explains the confusion over their political
>orientation.
>
>But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
>Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
>orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
>motive, what the hell was it?
Perhaps they sincerely believed that there were legitimate questions
about President Clinton's conduct?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>I think it's useful to do a close analysis of dishonest rhetoric. The
>trouble with a word like "mudslinging" is that it doesn't tell you
>exactly what rhetorical forms are being used, why they're effective,
>and under what circumstances they're most effective.
Fine. By all means, I'm happy to see people denounce dishonest
rhetoric. I'm curious, though, as to whether you're interested in
uncovering dishonest rhetoric from people on your side. For example,
both Tom Daschle and Al Gore have recently blamed Bush for events
which occurred prior to his taking office. Do you denounce that
dishonest rhetoric?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
>I'll be curious what you think. I thought it was a dreadful bore and that
I thought it was a fantastic movie. Harrison Ford's best performance
since _The Mosquito Coast_.
>the only thing that would have saved it is if the sailors started to mutate.
>But the strange new critics of the Globe seemed to like it (while disliking
>"Road to Perdition," easily one of the best films of the year).
Oh darn; I thought I was going to like _Road to Perdition_, but now,
that seems less likely.
>
>Best sub movie remains, as far as I'm concerned, "Das Boot."
Oh well; even a broken clock is right twice a year. No, K:19 isn't
_Das Boot_. But I still thought it was a great movie.
--
Pete McCutchen
mike weber
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> typed
Actually, what i seem to recall Bush being blamed for is euqlly
failing to act on information that was at least as available to him as
to his predecessor, who has widely been accused of letting All Sorts
Of Things go wrong on his watch, sort of in the manner of "Well, if we
slipped up, what did *you* do?"
Granted, it's slanted so that those not listening closely could assume
Bush was the first President who ever had any inkling as to anything,
including whether Christ was crucified or went down on the "Titanic"
and failed to act, but that's politics.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>
>On 20-Jul-2002, "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> "Priscilla Ballou" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:vze23t8n-CCDC14...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>> > In article
>> > <Bhb_8.112101$UT.72...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> > "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > > "Priscilla Ballou" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:vze23t8n-E34351...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>> > > > Too bad about the dragon movie, but I figured as much from the ads.
>> > >
>> > > It was dreadful. But if you don't mind gigantic spiders, "Eight
>> > > Legged
>> > > Freaks" was fun.
>> >
>> > I'm very fond of spiders in RL because they keep the nasty bugs away,
>> > but 8 ft on the screen? I think if I'm going to bother to go to a
>> > theater I'll go see Harrison Ford attempt a Russian accent. I read
>> > something good about that movie somewhere recently, and I do like Mr.
>> > Ford on the screen -- and I was a big submarine movie buff in my teens.
>> >
>> > Priscilla ("Dive! Dive! Dive!" <a-oooo-gah! a-ooooo-gah!>)
>>
>> I'll be curious what you think. I thought it was a dreadful bore and that
>> the only thing that would have saved it is if the sailors started to
>> mutate.
>> But the strange new critics of the Globe seemed to like it (while
>> disliking
>> "Road to Perdition," easily one of the best films of the year).
>>
>> Best sub movie remains, as far as I'm concerned, "Das Boot."
>
>My problem is that I've read a little bit on K-19, have seen a couple
>documentaries and it appears that Hollywood had again applied a sweeping
>dramatic license.
>
>Even though it is "National Geographic's first feature film".
>http://crater.nationalgeographic.com/k19/
According to the WashPost, it *isn't* their first film. They signed
on with Disney to do a sled-racing movie, and when it turned out to be
"Snow Dogs," they took their name off it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22367-2002Jul17.html
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
David G. Bell
<vze23t8n-234C7E...@news.bellatlantic.net>
vze2...@verizon.net "Priscilla Ballou" wrote:
> In article <5u6kju4c0p45eeqsj...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 23:40:08 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> > <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> typed
> > >"Jay E. Morris" <j...@epsilon3.com> wrote in message
> > >news:2Jk_8.146424$eF5.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > >> Even though it is "National Geographic's first feature film".
> > >> http://crater.nationalgeographic.com/k19/
> > >
> > >Well, let's see, they changed the names, included a fire on board that
> > >actually took place ten years later, and say the movie was "inspired" by
> > >real events.
> > >
> > >Yep, always a mistake to confuse Hollywood and history.
> > >
> > And the ads talk about the reactor exploding and taking the warheads
> > with it, for a 1.4 megaton blast.
> >
> > *Maybe* the type of submarine reactor the Sovs were using in those
> > days could actually explode, but i doubt it. But it ain't gonna touch
> > off the warheads, like it was all so much dynamite.
>
> I thought the point of the story is that it *didn't* (explode or
> whatever they were afraid it would ultimately do).
Somewhere in all that, I've missed the name of the film...
A reactor meltdown in a submarine, sinking it and letting the sea into
the core, is quite nasty enough. Since you can't run away, the USN is a
little paranoid about training.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Mr. Punch's Advice to a Young Man About to Become a Farmer:
"Marry, instead."
Dan Kimmel
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:k49jjuom7spi9610f...@4ax.com...
What specifically?
Personally, I'm noticing that Bush's rhetoric on is stock scam (it was all
investigated years ago, I was completely exonerated, there's no need to have
further investigations or make documents public) sounds exactly like
Clinton's response to the Whitewater charges. Now since the Republicans
have yet to admit that Clinton was *right* I think we have no choice than to
treat Bush exactly the same way: guilty until proven innocent.
Bring on the special persecutor! (In the tradition of Ken Starr we need
some one without bias and no personal axe to grind. I propose Ann
Richards.)
Dan Kimmel
"Laurie Mann" <lauri...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3D3A0DD3...@adelphia.net...
> > Dan Kimmel wrote:
>
> > Yep, always a mistake to confuse Hollywood and history.
>
>
>
> Look at the movie Elizabeth. It had wonderful performances
> and certainly captured the look of the time, but it really
> screwed with the actual events and attitudes of the time.
> But it was also presented as "history" (and certainly many
> reviewers treated it that way).
>
> was presented as an imaginative re-envisioning of Shakespeare,
> and not as Shakespeare's life.
Indeed, although it was inevitable (and certainly justifiable) that Gwyneth
Paltrow would win best actress for "Shakespeare in Love," I thought Cate
Blanchett in "Elizabeth" was clearly the outstanding performance of that
year.
Nonetheless, I'm well aware that one should rely on the film for history --
any more than on Shakespeare's "Richard III." :)
Dan Kimmel
"Danny Low" <dann...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3d3a1778...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 02:47:11 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Who landed on the moon in your timeline?
> >Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Who landed there in yours?
>
> Ah you live in the time line where Clinton got impeached. :-)
And was acquitted.
History will record it much like the Andrew Johnson impeachment: a political
motivated lynching by a Republican Congress.
Dan Kimmel
""David G. Bell"" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20020721.09...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk...
K-19 THE WIDOWMAKER
Miss it at a theater near you.
Dan Kimmel
"Kevin J. Maroney" <k...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:prdkju4l0gh0t5962...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 22:30:12 -0400, mike weber
> <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
> [Road to Perdition]
> >The reviews i've read make it sound similar to the best of Leone, but
> >that could just be the reviewers.
>
> The comic was a watered-down version of _Lone Wolf and Cub_. (It
> doesn't hide this influence; the epigraph is attributed to Kazuo
> Koike, the writer of _Lone Wolf and Cub_.) Everything I've read about
> the movie makes me believe that it is, in turn, a watered-down version
> of the comic. So that's a third-generation photocopy.
>
> I might still see the film, but my expectations are very low.
What you might consider is that the film makers have drawn on their sources
and created a movie that stands on its own. If everything that was adapted
from another source was consider "watered down" and "a third-generation
photocopy" you would lose a lot of great stuff from Shakespeare to the films
of Billy Wilder.
Dan Kimmel
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 20:57:11 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >I'll be curious what you think. I thought it was a dreadful bore and
that
>
> I thought it was a fantastic movie. Harrison Ford's best performance
> since _The Mosquito Coast_.
Impersonating Boris Badanov? Ford spends most of the film looking like he's
trying to find the bathroom.
> >the only thing that would have saved it is if the sailors started to
mutate.
> >But the strange new critics of the Globe seemed to like it (while
disliking
> >"Road to Perdition," easily one of the best films of the year).
>
> Oh darn; I thought I was going to like _Road to Perdition_, but now,
> that seems less likely.
I'd be more impressed by your using my opinion as a reverse if yours if you
had actually read my reviews.
> >
> >Best sub movie remains, as far as I'm concerned, "Das Boot."
>
> Oh well; even a broken clock is right twice a year. No, K:19 isn't
> _Das Boot_. But I still thought it was a great movie.
Actually, a broken clock is right twice a DAY. So we'll give you "Das Boot"
and wait for your OTHER correct statement for today. :)
David G. Bell
<Yyv_8.113332$UT.73...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
dan.k...@worldnet.att.net "Dan Kimmel" wrote:
Thanks for the info. It sounds to be the U-boat capture movie for the
Cold War. Plenty of real history and drama in the idea, but it isn't
enough for Hollywood.
Hearing how many movies don't make a profit (even before Hollywood
accountancy), and how much seems to be guesswork about picking the
winners, I wonder why they bother dumping so much of the history in
these things. It's different to the sort of simplification they had to
do for "Apollo 13", and they don't manage the sort of selection of
representative incidents that Montserrat, for instance, did in writing
"The Cruel Sea".
I'm not planning to go to a cinema until December, so I'm confident I
shall be able to easily follow your advice in this matter.
David G. Bell
<_yv_8.113333$UT.73...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
dan.k...@worldnet.att.net "Dan Kimmel" wrote:
A fair point. Consider "Seven Samurai" and "The Magnificent Seven" and
"Battle Beyond the Stars".
Though you do start to see a few signs of things going wrong with the
last in that sequence (still a good movie for its time and genre).
I can imagine the idea of seven heroes protecting a village being
transplanted into a lot of other settings, with varying similarity to
the original. Mercenaries in the Congo would be close. Special Forces
in Vietnam or Sierra Leone or Afghanistan would be only loosely
connected. There's a trace of the idea in "Three Kings". It's not a
dead or worn out idea, but there are two problems to the remake culture
in movies.
1] Can the job be done well?
2] It's pretty easy to compare previous versions, unlike a play.
Language-change remakes are maybe a bit easier, but I really prefer Anne
Parillaud as Nikita.
Margaret Young
<mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
Cue Molly Ivins on (I think) NPR the other day. She may have good
reasons for being against moving nuclear waste to Nevada but what came
across is the idea that nuclear power is always EVIL.
--
Margaret Young
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come the apocalypse there will be cockroaches, Keith Richards and the
faint smell of cat pee.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Margaret Young
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:n78jju8jl7v0qq6hj...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 20:57:11 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
>> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I'll be curious what you think. I thought it was a dreadful bore and
>that
>>
>> I thought it was a fantastic movie. Harrison Ford's best performance
>> since _The Mosquito Coast_.
>
>Impersonating Boris Badanov? Ford spends most of the film looking like he's
>trying to find the bathroom.
>
The pieces I have seen on television don't make me feel good about his
attempts at an accent.
>
>> Oh well; even a broken clock is right twice a year. No, K:19 isn't
>> _Das Boot_. But I still thought it was a great movie.
>
>Actually, a broken clock is right twice a DAY.
Unless, of course, it is a 24 hr. clock such as we had on the army base.
>So we'll give you "Das Boot"
>and wait for your OTHER correct statement for today. :)
>
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Cue Molly Ivins on (I think) NPR the other day. She may have good
> reasons for being against moving nuclear waste to Nevada but what came
> across is the idea that nuclear power is always EVIL.
I have a physicist friend (a _nuclear_ phsycist friend) who told me that
what is now called Magnetic Resonance in this country used to be called
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. And nobody wanted to have it. They kept
asking their doctors whether they couldn't have a CAT-scan instead,
which according to my friend is a bit more invasive, or even plain old
harmless X-ray. So they started calling it "Magnetic Resonance". End of
problems.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Arthur D. Hlavaty
desJardins) wrote:
>This is not an argument that is intended to convince: it
>is merely an argument-shaped object, designed to clog the filters of
>public discourse.
RASFF Gold Star for that phrase.
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
Arthur D. Hlavaty
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 02:47:11 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
><dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>> Who landed on the moon in your timeline?
>>Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Who landed there in yours?
>
>Ah you live in the time line where Clinton got impeached. :-)
Which is bad enough. I'd hate to live in one where he was convicted.
Arthur D. Hlavaty
Ook ook.
Dan Kimmel
Or go the other way from "Macbeth" and "King Lear" to "Throne of Blood" and
"Ran." Ultimately artistic works have to stand on their own, whatever the
source of their inspiration. (And "Battle Beyond of the Stars" was
*intended* as shlock. It's just that John Sayles, an artist in his own
right, stole from quality sources for this admitted hackwork.) It's why
criticism is sometimes derided as the work of people who depend on the work
of others. That's true, but it doesn't reveal anything. Such people as
George Bernard Shaw, Graham Greene, George S. Kaufman, Robert Benchley, and
Francois Truffaut all committed criticism, much of it quite good.
But if you're not familiar with what they're critiquing, the work doesn't
really stand on its own.
>
> I can imagine the idea of seven heroes protecting a village being
> transplanted into a lot of other settings, with varying similarity to
> the original. Mercenaries in the Congo would be close. Special Forces
> in Vietnam or Sierra Leone or Afghanistan would be only loosely
> connected. There's a trace of the idea in "Three Kings".
Or look at what Coppola did with Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" in "Apocalypse
Now" (or, better yet, in the retooled "Apocalypse Now Redux.")
>It's not a
> dead or worn out idea, but there are two problems to the remake culture
> in movies.
>
> 1] Can the job be done well?
>
> 2] It's pretty easy to compare previous versions, unlike a play.
>
> Language-change remakes are maybe a bit easier, but I really prefer Anne
> Parillaud as Nikita.
Agreed, across the board. However it's important to note that there are
remakes (language change or otherwise) that arguably improve on the
original. "The Maltese Falcon" (the Bogart version) is actually the third
version of the Hammett story. David Cronenberg's 1986 "The Fly" is a great
improvement over the cheesy original movie and short story. The recent
"Vanilla Sky" was a pretty faithful remake of the Spanish "Open Your Eyes"
(including keeping Penelope Cruz in the same role) but I preferred Cameron
Crowe's remake.
However I have suffered through too many remakes (or sequels that are little
more than remakes) that don't get it right to know what's the rule and
what's the exception.
Kip Williams
> Oh well; even a broken clock is right twice a year.
Big clock.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Well, it looks as though my time is up. The old clock on the wall
has melted." --Hugh "Wavy Gravy" Romney
Kip Williams
Since they haven't done that, I denounce this dishonest rhetoric.
Kip Williams
I was wondering what "Alan Smithee Magazine" might be.
I guess the Geographic's next film would logically be about
something designated "K-119."
Kip Williams
> Such people as
> George Bernard Shaw, Graham Greene, George S. Kaufman, Robert Benchley, and
> Francois Truffaut all committed criticism, much of it quite good.
> But if you're not familiar with what they're critiquing, the work doesn't
> really stand on its own.
Shaw's does.
mike weber
>I was wondering what "Alan Smithee Magazine" might be.
>
"Alan Smithee Magazine"? *snort*
mike weber
("David G. Bell") typed
You've missed out "Message from Space" -- about the closest thing to
live-action anime i've ever seen, including a space-traversing
full-rigged ship with rocket tubes and glowing, flying lichee nuts...
mike weber
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> typed
>Actually, a broken clock is right twice a DAY.
Not if it's a military clock.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 19 Jul 2002 13:56:13 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> *AFTER* Bush took office, Klayman switched the organization's focus and
> >> started going after Bush and Cheney. He surprised a hell of a lot of
> >> people and lost a lot of his former supporters (financial and friends).
> >> This is why Judicial Watch is no longer labelled a conservative organization.
> >>
> >> Make sense?
> >
> >Yes and know. Yes, it explains the confusion over their political
> >orientation.
> >
> >But it leaves me wondering *what* they thought they were doing with
> >Clinton. Previously the whole thing made sort-of sense as an
> >orchestrated partisan political attack, but if that *wasn't* their
> >motive, what the hell was it?
>
> Perhaps they sincerely believed that there were legitimate questions
> about President Clinton's conduct?
That weren't already being adequately investigate? About Vince
Foster's Death?
Frankly, that's loony-tune territory.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Kip Williams
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:56:11 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> typed
>
>
>
>>Actually, a broken clock is right twice a DAY.
>
>
> Not if it's a military clock.
He's more like a broken calendar, I think.
David Bilek
>Margaret Young <mmy...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>> Cue Molly Ivins on (I think) NPR the other day. She may have good
>> reasons for being against moving nuclear waste to Nevada but what came
>> across is the idea that nuclear power is always EVIL.
>
>I have a physicist friend (a _nuclear_ phsycist friend) who told me that
>what is now called Magnetic Resonance in this country used to be called
>Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. And nobody wanted to have it. They kept
>asking their doctors whether they couldn't have a CAT-scan instead,
>which according to my friend is a bit more invasive, or even plain old
>harmless X-ray. So they started calling it "Magnetic Resonance". End of
>problems.
Yes, NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) is what I used in my labwork.
MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) is what is used in a medical setting.
The only difference is the name. As you say, people were scared off
by the word "nuclear" and so it had to be changed.
-David
David G. Bell
ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
> Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:35:58 GMT, "Jay E. Morris" <j...@epsilon3.com>
> > wrote:
> >>My problem is that I've read a little bit on K-19, have seen a couple
> >>documentaries and it appears that Hollywood had again applied a sweeping
> >>dramatic license.
> >>
> >>Even though it is "National Geographic's first feature film".
> >>http://crater.nationalgeographic.com/k19/
> >
> >
> > According to the WashPost, it *isn't* their first film. They signed
> > on with Disney to do a sled-racing movie, and when it turned out to be
> > "Snow Dogs," they took their name off it.
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22367-2002Jul17.html
>
> I was wondering what "Alan Smithee Magazine" might be.
Elsegroup somebody quoted an article about why DVD would be a failure.
I see ASM as a sort of Reader's Digest full of such embarrassing
writing.
Kip Williams
> On Sunday, in article <3D3AC1E8...@cox.net>
> ki...@cox.net "Kip Williams" wrote:
>
>
>>Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:35:58 GMT, "Jay E. Morris" <j...@epsilon3.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>My problem is that I've read a little bit on K-19, have seen a couple
>>>>documentaries and it appears that Hollywood had again applied a sweeping
>>>>dramatic license.
>>>>
>>>>Even though it is "National Geographic's first feature film".
>>>>http://crater.nationalgeographic.com/k19/
>>>
>>>
>>>According to the WashPost, it *isn't* their first film. They signed
>>>on with Disney to do a sled-racing movie, and when it turned out to be
>>>"Snow Dogs," they took their name off it.
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22367-2002Jul17.html
>>
>>I was wondering what "Alan Smithee Magazine" might be.
>
>
> Elsegroup somebody quoted an article about why DVD would be a failure.
> I see ASM as a sort of Reader's Digest full of such embarrassing
> writing.
I wish Leonard Maltin had an index entry for "Alan Smithee" in the
back of his TV Movies book. I'd like to be able to reference his
films. Without buying a whole nuther book.
Maybe Alan Smithee should team up with Cordwainer Bird.
Avram Grumer
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Fine. By all means, I'm happy to see people denounce dishonest
> rhetoric. I'm curious, though, as to whether you're interested in
> uncovering dishonest rhetoric from people on your side. For example,
> both Tom Daschle and Al Gore have recently blamed Bush for events
> which occurred prior to his taking office. Do you denounce that
> dishonest rhetoric?
Which events in particular? I've been seeing Bush being blamed for
possible insider trading; that's got nothing to do with his being in the
White House.
--
Avram Grumer / "There will never be
av...@grumer.org / a technology that beats
www.PigsAndFishes.org / having lunch..."
www.livejournal.com/users/agrumer/ -- Jakob Nielsen
Avram Grumer
wrote:
> Pete McCutchen wrote:
> > Oh well; even a broken clock is right twice a year.
>
> Big clock.
A broken sundial, perhaps.
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>Yes, NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) is what I used in my labwork.
>MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) is what is used in a medical setting.
>
>The only difference is the name. As you say, people were scared off
>by the word "nuclear" and so it had to be changed.
As has been mentioned here before, "NMR" can easily be misheard as
"enema". Eliminating that confusion has been given as an auxilliary
reason for changing the name.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Kevin J. Maroney
>I wish Leonard Maltin had an index entry for "Alan Smithee" in the
>back of his TV Movies book. I'd like to be able to reference his
>films. Without buying a whole nuther book.
IMDB returns an interesting bunch of hits on "smithee alan", including
17 actors and 30 directors.
The new Alan Smithee is "Thomas Lee"; as far as I know, he's only made
one film, _Supernova_.
Elisabeth Riba
> I wish Leonard Maltin had an index entry for "Alan Smithee" in the
> back of his TV Movies book. I'd like to be able to reference his
> films. Without buying a whole nuther book.
Try http://us.imdb.com/Name?Smithee,+Alan
48 directorial credits
8 writer credits
3 actor credits
plus 1 listing each as Second Unit Director or Assistant Director,
Cinematographer, Composer, Production Designer, Editor, and Producer
I just find it so amusing that the 1997 comedy about the Alan Smithee
phenomenon actually *WAS* an Alan Smithee film because of directorial
disputes.
--
--------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <--------------
Looking for work in the Boston area. Dynamic professional with over
10 years experience with software interface design, library science,
documentation and end-user support. See http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis
Jim Battista
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:52:05 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>>Yes, NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) is what I used in my
>>labwork. MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) is what is used in a
>>medical setting.
>>
>>The only difference is the name. As you say, people were scared
>>off by the word "nuclear" and so it had to be changed.
>
> As has been mentioned here before, "NMR" can easily be misheard as
> "enema". Eliminating that confusion has been given as an
> auxilliary reason for changing the name.
No to mention that you can NMR without doing MRI. As in, if you don't
build an image out of it. Or do I recall incorrectly that people use
NMR to see what something is made of, a la mass spectroscopy?
--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
Kate Schaefer
news:3D3AC3...@cox.net...
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
> > Such people as
> > George Bernard Shaw, Graham Greene, George S. Kaufman, Robert
Benchley, and
> > Francois Truffaut all committed criticism, much of it quite good.
> > But if you're not familiar with what they're critiquing, the work
doesn't
> > really stand on its own.
>
> Shaw's does.
So does Dorothy Parker's.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
I think I'll take a walk in the hundred-wood mile.
-- LJM
--
+-----------------------+
| Loren J MacGregor |
| The Churn Works |
| System Administration |
|Technical Documentation|
| churn...@att.net |
+-----------------------+
Avram Grumer
wrote:
"Tonstant Weader fwowed up" just stands on its own.