"V" has Fall's biggest debut
David
ABC's 'V' premiere lands big ratings
by James Hibberd
They came, they saw, they conquered primetime.
ABC's "V" premiere was Tuesday's highest-rated program in the adult
demo, cracking usual leader CBS' drama-series choke-hold on the
evening.
"V" was seen by 13.9 million viewers and had a 5.0 preliminary rating
among adults 18-49.
That's the biggest scripted series premiere rating for a freshman show
this fall.
"V" bested tough competition from "NCIS" (19.4 million, 4.2), which
nonetheless ranked as the evening's most-watched show. The alien
invasion drama gained 4% from its first half hour to its second.
The 8 p.m. "V" surge put ABC just a tenth of a point behind CBS for
the nightly win. Compared to "Shark Tank" in the time period, "V" was
up 213%.
Critics were a bit all over the map on "V", ranging from a rave in USA
Today to NY Times calling it slapdash and formulaic.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "V" was seen by 13.9 million viewers and had a 5.0 preliminary rating
> among adults 18-49.
New shows (especially sci-fi/fantasy) typically have big dropoffs in ratings
over the first few weeks. Still, it is great to see this show get a good
initial sampling and for it to stomp NCIS (CBS's lead dog in the boring
crime procedural genre) down a peg.
RichA
It was boring and poorly-paced with lackluster acting.
krp
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:34ff0d2e-d01b-4da6...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
R> It was boring and poorly-paced with lackluster acting.
About the only promise to the series seems to be the possibility that
"ANNA" will be doing a bit of breeding with her favorite human pet. That
was sort of a undertheme in the original series and it appears will be
followed with the new one too. Bestiality seems to be a bit titillating.
Women getting it on with lizards seems to have some attraction for some
folks. Now we may have a guy doing the lizard in the new one too. It seems a
desperate stretch to save an otherwise losing story line. Why couldn't they
be good guys for a change? Remember the original "V" was done during the
COLD WAR and its theme reflected that mindset. Pretty transparent and pretty
lame. It's like we all missed Roddenberry hitting us over the head with his
Hollywood left wing politics episode after episode in TOS. Can't Hollywood
do better than this? I mean having Morena Baccarin play Hugo Chavez in DRAG
is a bit much. All they need to do to seal the fate is bring out all of
Hollywood's tired old Marxists, Danny Glover, Sean Penn, James Olmos, Harry
Bellefonte, Susan Sarandon et al and we could put ABC's audience to sleep.
(COMA).
Sorry - the old "V" is painful to watch today. Unless you are 9 years
old. Talk about BAD science. Tell me, regardless of technology, what would
the energy output HAVE TO BE to keep a 2 mile diameter spaceship hovering
5000 feet off the ground for 2 YEARS? Now what about a hundred of them? Is
it possible for a human hybrid with a lizard? Hell, it seems to not even
work with species much closer on the evolutionary rung than that. I'm no
biological expert but I just don't think the DNA would be compatible. Feel
free to correct me on that.
larry_scholnick
> On 2009-11-04, krp <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > be good guys for a change? Remember the original "V" was done during the
> > COLD WAR and its theme reflected that mindset. Pretty transparent and pretty
>
> over the United States and the resulting resistance movement. Due to
> the then-success of Star Wars, the studio wanted sci-fi and the lizard
> invasion concept (and the resulting resistance movement) was brought in.
>
> --
> Roger Blake
Didn't they do the Communist Invasion as the mini-series Amerika?
clouddreamer
Now there's something you can't find on dvd.
..
steve march
"Roger Blake" <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhf3tig.m...@svalbard.freeshell.org...
> The original "V" was supposed to be a story about the Communists taking
> over the United States and the resulting resistance movement. Due to
> the then-success of Star Wars, the studio wanted sci-fi and the lizard
> invasion concept (and the resulting resistance movement) was brought in.
You missed the Nazi symbolism?
Ian J. Ball
Roger Blake <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-04, krp <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > be good guys for a change? Remember the original "V" was done during the
> > COLD WAR and its theme reflected that mindset. Pretty transparent and
> > pretty
>
> The original "V" was supposed to be a story about the Communists taking
> over the United States and the resulting resistance movement. Due to
> the then-success of Star Wars, the studio wanted sci-fi and the lizard
> invasion concept (and the resulting resistance movement) was brought in.
Considering the El Salvador scene Ken Johnson put in at the beginning
(with silliness of the FMLN rebels being portrayed heroically), I'm
going to doubt that Johnson was going for the portrayal of a Commie
takeover. Based on the 80s timeframe, and Hollywood politics of the
time, it was probably more of a straight Nazi analogy...
--
"There's no business, like Cho business."
- Patrick Jane, "The Mentalist", 02/11/09
krp
"Roger Blake" <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhf3tig.m...@svalbard.freeshell.org...
>> be good guys for a change? Remember the original "V" was done during the
>> COLD WAR and its theme reflected that mindset. Pretty transparent and
>> pretty
>
> The original "V" was supposed to be a story about the Communists taking
> over the United States and the resulting resistance movement. Due to
> the then-success of Star Wars, the studio wanted sci-fi and the lizard
> invasion concept (and the resulting resistance movement) was brought in.
Roger - the problem with Science Fiction has always been the heavy
handed POLITICAL messages it contains. The authors etc think they are being
SUBTLE and nobody can figure out the REAL messages. The "B" movies of the
50's were maybe the worst with their "commie scare" themes. Roddenberry kept
hitting the audience with a sledgehammer with his "subtle" political themes.
The original V was lousy. Bad scripts, bad acting. This new "V" seems to be
picking up on the only part of the original "V" that sold. That was the
multilayered sexual themes. So far there is one BLATANT bit of interspecies
sex going on, and at least TWO ones heavily suggested. It looks like Morena
Baccarin is gonna get a little Earth stuff. One with the teen age son of the
FBI agent. A little soft core bestiality.
krp
"larry_scholnick" <larry_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:db3cc5c7-1303-4083...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
L> Didn't they do the Communist Invasion as the mini-series Amerika?
With Chris Christopher son. Actually a fairly good series, but it never
caught on. Too little sex with animals.
steve march
> in the day when the V mini-series debuted.
I remember seeing when it first aired. At one point an old man who was in
the Holocaust connects up the alien symbol to show it as a swastika.
Although there was no internet everyone I knew saw the Nazi allegory and
none saw it as Communist.
> It could just as well be
> Nazis (or space lizards) of course if you are writing about resistance
> to vicious invaders.
See above. the swastika is rather distinctive.
Wiki for what wieght you want to give it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(The_Original_Miniseries)
"The story became a Nazi allegory, right down to the Swastika-like emblem
used by the Visitors and their SS-like uniforms. There is a youth auxiliary
movement called the "Friends of the Visitors" with obvious similarities to
the Hitler Youth, and Visitor broadcasts mimic Nazi-era propaganda. The
show's portrayal of human interaction with the Visitors bears a striking
resemblance to stories from Occupied Europe during World War II with some
citizens choosing collaboration and others choosing to join underground
resistance movements.
Where the Nazis persecuted primarily Jews, the Visitors were likewise
depicted to persecute scientists, their families, and anyone associating
with them. They also distribute propaganda in an effort to hide their true
identity. Some of the main characters in the initial series were from a
Jewish family and the grandfather, a Holocaust survivor, frequently
commented on the events of the past again unfolding. Once they are in a
position to do so, the Visitors later declare martial law to control the
scientists (and resistance fighters) as well."
steve march
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4af2c57d$0$15008$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Roger Blake" <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhf3tig.m...@svalbard.freeshell.org...
>
>>> be good guys for a change? Remember the original "V" was done during the
>>> COLD WAR and its theme reflected that mindset. Pretty transparent and
>>> pretty
>>
>> The original "V" was supposed to be a story about the Communists taking
>> over the United States and the resulting resistance movement. Due to
>> the then-success of Star Wars, the studio wanted sci-fi and the lizard
>> invasion concept (and the resulting resistance movement) was brought in.
>
> Roger - the problem with Science Fiction has always been the heavy
> handed POLITICAL messages it contains.
The problem is that Roger is completely wrong in his belief tha tthe
original was allegorical of a Communist takeover of the US.
krp
"steve march" <sma...@home.ca> wrote in message
news:hcugts$cpd$1...@news.datemas.de...
I too saw it as Nazis, BUT it's not unreasonable to see the "Red Dawn"
aspect of it too.
Obveeus
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Roger - the problem with Science Fiction has always been the heavy
> handed POLITICAL messages it contains. The authors etc think they are
> being SUBTLE and nobody can figure out the REAL messages. The "B" movies
> of the 50's were maybe the worst with their "commie scare" themes.
The original 'V' was not about Communist takeover.
> This new "V" seems to be picking up on the only part of the original "V"
> that sold. That was the multilayered sexual themes. So far there is one
> BLATANT bit of interspecies sex going on,
Maybe they cohabitate and plan to marry, but the 'sex' part hasn't occured
yet?
>and at least TWO ones heavily suggested. It looks like Morena Baccarin is
>gonna get a little Earth stuff.
...or maybe she just picked up on his infatuation and knew that she could
use it to manipulate him? There did not appear to be any indication from
episode #1 that she had feelings for him.
> One with the teen age son of the FBI agent. A little soft core bestiality.
Again, stupid human is manipulated by what he sees, but there was no
indication that the feelings were mutual (rather than that the lizard was
simply using her costume to manipulate the boys).
Of course this show will be about sex (how else can you get anyone to watch
TV), but you are reading relationships into plot points that did not exist
from what was actually shown in episode #1.
steve march
Not literally as V Original predated Red Dawn by over a year.
As I said elsewhere the Nazi allegory was not exactly subtle with
characters old enough to have been in WW2 commenting on it and the alien
'Nazi' symbol.
Generalisimo Franco
>
> - Show quoted text -
At least it has some likable characters from the starting block,
unlike BattleStargate-UniversalFLOP...Gee, haven't they cancelled SGU
yet??? Maybe the Visitors could stop by and eat evryone. Now that's
an episode I'd watch!
frank
jojo
> On 2009-11-05, steve march <sma...@home.ca> wrote:
>
> > Although there was no internet everyone I knew saw the Nazi allegory and
> > none saw it as Communist.
>
>
In 1983, yeah... of course.
> The mini-series as produced was substantively changed from the original
> concept that was pitched to the network, at the network's request.
>
Nobody cares about the mini-series "as pitched". Who do you think you
are trying to fool ?
jojo
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > Roger - the problem with Science Fiction has always been the heavy
> > handed POLITICAL messages it contains. The authors etc think they are
> > being SUBTLE and nobody can figure out the REAL messages. The "B" movies
> > of the 50's were maybe the worst with their "commie scare" themes.
>
> The original 'V' was not about Communist takeover.
>
> > This new "V" seems to be picking up on the only part of the original "V"
> > that sold. That was the multilayered sexual themes. So far there is one
> > BLATANT bit of interspecies sex going on,
>
> Maybe they cohabitate and plan to marry, but the 'sex' part hasn't occured
> yet?
>
I have 2 problems in this story:
- How could a lizard fall in love with a human as we know than the
contrary is impossible. I expect that they see us as ugly and
repulsive as we we see them.
- How is it that his girl friend is black like him knowing that he is
not black nor human at all and should not care less.
> >and at least TWO ones heavily suggested. It looks like Morena Baccarin is
> >gonna get a little Earth stuff.
>
> ...or maybe she just picked up on his infatuation and knew that she could
> use it to manipulate him? There did not appear to be any indication from
> episode #1 that she had feelings for him.
>
I agree 100% with you. She does not care about him, she just uses him.
> > One with the teen age son of the FBI agent. A little soft core bestiality.
>
> Again, stupid human is manipulated by what he sees, but there was no
> indication that the feelings were mutual (rather than that the lizard was
> simply using her costume to manipulate the boys).
>
Exactly, she understood he was falling for her (and I guess the
visitors gave her this hot look for that exact reason) and is just
manipulating him.
steve march
>> original was allegorical of a Communist takeover of the US.
>
> was that it was to be a story of Communist invasion of the U.S. This
> concept was completely changed before anything was filmed.
Right. And you know this how?
steve march
> the original miniseries was produced.
Right. I'll give that as much weight as I think it deserves.
> We're not all 20-somethings
> here.
No indeed.
Dano
<snip>
> I have 2 problems in this story:
> - How could a lizard fall in love with a human as we know than the
> contrary is impossible. I expect that they see us as ugly and
> repulsive as we we see them.
This one problem alone makes the whole thing breakdown for me. I have great
difficulty getting past it. The idea of interspecies romance between such
ridiculously different species is too much to handle. If they were at least
mammals...
> - How is it that his girl friend is black like him knowing that he is
> not black nor human at all and should not care less.
>
Presumably she was a cover for him in the beginning. I just can't get past
the notion that he would find her attractive at all...regardless of her
race. Some kind of interspecies Viagra...or is that what the V really
stands for?
<snip>
steve march
> On 2009-11-05, steve march <sma...@home.ca> wrote:
>> Right. I'll give that as much weight as I think it deserves.
>
A jerk? On some days. Mindless? I hope not.
> who should be the first up
> against the wall when the revolution comes. Duly noted.
Just out of curiousity, what form will this revolution take?
PV
>The original "V" was supposed to be a story about the Communists taking
>over the United States and the resulting resistance movement. Due to
Bull puckey. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>On 2009-11-05, steve march <sma...@home.ca> wrote:
>> Although there was no internet everyone I knew saw the Nazi allegory and
>> none saw it as Communist.
>
In 1983? Really? Mr. Still uses 8 track tape? *
Doc O'Leary
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Tell me, regardless of technology, what would
> the energy output HAVE TO BE to keep a 2 mile diameter spaceship hovering
> 5000 feet off the ground for 2 YEARS?
0 Joules, in theory. We've certainly kept an entire city (Denver)
hovering a mile over the sea for much longer than 2 years. I'd grant
you that, depending on the technology, there would be some
inefficiencies that might require it to expend some energy, but just
hovering isn't necessarily a huge energy sink.
> Now what about a hundred of them?
100 * 0 = 0
> Is it possible for a human hybrid with a lizard?
Depends on the genetics and/or the genetic engineer's technology. If we
can cross plants and bacteria today, it isn't so far-fetched to think a
race capable of interstellar travel might have more tricks up their
sleeves.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
and probably your server, too.
David E. Powell
> In article <slrnhf3tig.mp8.rogblak...@svalbard.freeshell.org>,
> Roger Blake <rogblak...@iname10.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-11-04, krp <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > be good guys for a change? Remember the original "V" was done during the
> > > COLD WAR and its theme reflected that mindset. Pretty transparent and
> > > pretty
>
> > The original "V" was supposed to be a story about the Communists taking
> > over the United States and the resulting resistance movement. Due to
> > the then-success of Star Wars, the studio wanted sci-fi and the lizard
> > invasion concept (and the resulting resistance movement) was brought in.
>
> Considering the El Salvador scene Ken Johnson put in at the beginning
> (with silliness of the FMLN rebels being portrayed heroically), I'm
> going to doubt that Johnson was going for the portrayal of a Commie
> takeover. Based on the 80s timeframe, and Hollywood politics of the
> time, it was probably more of a straight Nazi analogy...
Johnson has said it basically aimed at both the Nazis and USSR.
David Johnston
>Roger Blake <rogbl...@iname10.com> writes:
>>On 2009-11-05, steve march <sma...@home.ca> wrote:
>>> Although there was no internet everyone I knew saw the Nazi allegory and
>>> none saw it as Communist.
>>
>>Of course there was an internet. I was using it at the time. Where were you?
>
>In 1983? Really? Mr. Still uses 8 track tape? *
The internet just celebrated the 40th anniversary of its first crash,
you know.
David Johnston
<rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote:
>On 2009-11-05, steve march <sma...@home.ca> wrote:
>> Right. I'll give that as much weight as I think it deserves.
>
>In other words you are a mindless jerk who should be the first up
>against the wall when the revolution comes. Duly noted.
He's quite right you know. In the commentary track for the
miniseries, Kenneth Johnson says his original pitch was that the
series would be about the rise of a home-grown fascist dictatorship
and the resistance against it. The network nixed that because they
were afraid that it would be regarded as an attack on the Moral
Majoritarians.
~consul
> See above. the swastika is rather distinctive.
> Wiki for what wieght you want to give it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(The_Original_Miniseries)
> "The story became a Nazi allegory, right down to the Swastika-like
> emblem used by the Visitors and their SS-like uniforms. There is a youth
> auxiliary movement called the "Friends of the Visitors" with obvious
> similarities to the Hitler Youth, and Visitor broadcasts mimic Nazi-era
> propaganda. The show's portrayal of human interaction with the Visitors
> bears a striking resemblance to stories from Occupied Europe during
> World War II with some citizens choosing collaboration and others
> choosing to join underground resistance movements.
>
> Where the Nazis persecuted primarily Jews, the Visitors were likewise
> depicted to persecute scientists, their families, and anyone associating
> with them. They also distribute propaganda in an effort to hide their
> true identity. Some of the main characters in the initial series were
> from a Jewish family and the grandfather, a Holocaust survivor,
> frequently commented on the events of the past again unfolding. Once
> they are in a position to do so, the Visitors later declare martial law
> to control the scientists (and resistance fighters) as well."
Which does work for the Nazi angle, but it seems to me that it would have also worked fine as a communist angle, especially in say Asia and Red China. They had the uniforms, the youth movement and their tons of propoganda/re-education trucks moving through the villages. The series also had the collaborators working in secret because their family members would narc on them, like the Red Youth would narc on their parents.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
PV
>>>Of course there was an internet. I was using it at the time. Where were you?
>>
>>In 1983? Really? Mr. Still uses 8 track tape? *
>
>The internet just celebrated the 40th anniversary of its first crash,
>you know.
Yeah, but your average person did not "use the internet" in 1983. *
Ian J. Ball
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
And they were right - based on the Hollywood politics of the time, it
would have been.
I'm glad NBC's Tartakoff & co. were smarter than Johnson on this.
Default User
33-1/3.
Brian
--
Day 276 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Ian J. Ball
<aee78f81-2d1a-4eeb...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
jojo <joj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 3:09�pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > � �Roger - the problem with Science Fiction has always been the heavy
> > > handed POLITICAL messages it contains. The authors etc think they are
> > > being SUBTLE and nobody can figure out the REAL messages. The "B" movies
> > > of the 50's were maybe the worst with their "commie scare" themes.
> >
> > The original 'V' was not about Communist takeover.
> >
> > > This new "V" seems to be picking up on the only part of the original "V"
> > > that sold. That was the multilayered sexual themes. So far there is one
> > > BLATANT bit of interspecies sex going on,
> >
> > Maybe they cohabitate and plan to marry, but the 'sex' part hasn't occured
> > yet?
>
> I have 2 problems in this story:
> - How could a lizard fall in love with a human as we know than the
> contrary is impossible. I expect that they see us as ugly and
> repulsive as we we see them.
> - How is it that his girl friend is black like him knowing that he is
> not black nor human at all and should not care less.
Lourdes Benedicto is Hispanic.
Obveeus
"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote in message
news:ijball-NO_SPAM-01C...@nntp.aioe.org...
> In article <ei46f59v0ad8c694t...@4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:04:13 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
>> <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2009-11-05, steve march <sma...@home.ca> wrote:
>> >> Right. I'll give that as much weight as I think it deserves.
>> >
>> >In other words you are a mindless jerk who should be the first up
>> >against the wall when the revolution comes. Duly noted.
>>
>> He's quite right you know. In the commentary track for the
>> miniseries, Kenneth Johnson says his original pitch was that the
>> series would be about the rise of a home-grown fascist dictatorship
>> and the resistance against it. The network nixed that because they
>> were afraid that it would be regarded as an attack on the Moral
>> Majoritarians.
>
> And they were right - based on the Hollywood politics of the time, it
> would have been.
Good to see you acknowledge that the Moral Majoritarians are, indeed, a
home-grown Fascist group trying to rise to power.
David Johnston
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> writes:
>>>>Of course there was an internet. I was using it at the time. Where were you?
>>>
>>>In 1983? Really? Mr. Still uses 8 track tape? *
>>
>>The internet just celebrated the 40th anniversary of its first crash,
>>you know.
>
>Yeah, but your average person did not "use the internet" in 1983. *
Computer geeks in college did, though.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Nov 5, 3:09�pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> > � �Roger - the problem with Science Fiction has always been the heavy
>> > handed POLITICAL messages it contains. The authors etc think they are
>> > being SUBTLE and nobody can figure out the REAL messages. The "B" movies
>> > of the 50's were maybe the worst with their "commie scare" themes.
>>
>> The original 'V' was not about Communist takeover.
>>
>> > This new "V" seems to be picking up on the only part of the original "V"
>> > that sold. That was the multilayered sexual themes. So far there is one
>> > BLATANT bit of interspecies sex going on,
>>
>> Maybe they cohabitate and plan to marry, but the 'sex' part hasn't occured
>> yet?
>>
>
>I have 2 problems in this story:
>- How could a lizard fall in love with a human as we know than the
>contrary is impossible.
We "know" that do we?
Obveeus
PV
>>Yeah, but your average person did not "use the internet" in 1983. *
>
>Computer geeks in college did, though.
Roger Blake is not a computer geek. The guy thinks 8 track tapes are high
tech. I am not kidding. *
Anim8rFSK
1) sort of; Filipino and Dominican/Spanish
B) well, that changes EVERYTHING :P
--
Stargate Universe SGU: It puts the "U" in "SUCKS"!
It's the show 'Defiling Gravity' would be if DG had more regulars,
fewer abortions, worse writers, and no budget for lighting.
Remember, you can't spell "disgust" without SGU!
Ubiquitous
>ABC's "V" premiere was Tuesday's highest-rated program in the adult
>demo, cracking usual leader CBS' drama-series choke-hold on the
>evening.
>
>"V" was seen by 13.9 million viewers and had a 5.0 preliminary rating
>among adults 18-49.
>
>That's the biggest scripted series premiere rating for a freshman show
>this fall.
Was it only a one-part TV movie? I don't think Ive seen ANY more
promos for it since!
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Ian J. Ball
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
Oh, Obv, try not to prove your cluelessness so blatantly next time.
We prefer a bit more *subtlety* on this newsgroup... :p
krp
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hcuipm$fdo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Roger - the problem with Science Fiction has always been the heavy
>> handed POLITICAL messages it contains. The authors etc think they are
>> being SUBTLE and nobody can figure out the REAL messages. The "B" movies
>> of the 50's were maybe the worst with their "commie scare" themes.
>
> The original 'V' was not about Communist takeover.
>
>> This new "V" seems to be picking up on the only part of the original "V"
>> that sold. That was the multilayered sexual themes. So far there is one
>> BLATANT bit of interspecies sex going on,
>
> Maybe they cohabitate and plan to marry, but the 'sex' part hasn't occured
> yet?
>
>>gonna get a little Earth stuff.
>
> ...or maybe she just picked up on his infatuation and knew that she could
> use it to manipulate him? There did not appear to be any indication from
> episode #1 that she had feelings for him.
>
>> One with the teen age son of the FBI agent. A little soft core
>> bestiality.
>
> Again, stupid human is manipulated by what he sees, but there was no
> indication that the feelings were mutual (rather than that the lizard was
> simply using her costume to manipulate the boys).
>
> Of course this show will be about sex (how else can you get anyone to
> watch TV), but you are reading relationships into plot points that did not
> exist from what was actually shown in episode #1.
They manage it in lots of programs.
krp
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-C5...@news.twtelecom.net...
> In article <4af1de88$0$5077$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell me, regardless of technology, what would
>> the energy output HAVE TO BE to keep a 2 mile diameter spaceship hovering
>> 5000 feet off the ground for 2 YEARS?
>
> 0 Joules, in theory. We've certainly kept an entire city (Denver)
> hovering a mile over the sea for much longer than 2 years. I'd grant
> you that, depending on the technology, there would be some
> inefficiencies that might require it to expend some energy, but just
> hovering isn't necessarily a huge energy sink.
>
>> Now what about a hundred of them?
>
> 100 * 0 = 0
HUH?
trag
> "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.use...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
>
> news:droleary.usenet-C5...@news.twtelecom.net...
>
> > In article <4af1de88$0$5077$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> Tell me, regardless of technology, what would
> >> the energy output HAVE TO BE to keep a 2 mile diameter spaceship hovering
> >> 5000 feet off the ground for 2 YEARS?
>
> > 0 Joules, in theory. We've certainly kept an entire city (Denver)
> > hovering a mile over the sea for much longer than 2 years. I'd grant
> > you that, depending on the technology, there would be some
> > inefficiencies that might require it to expend some energy, but just
> > hovering isn't necessarily a huge energy sink.
>
> >> Now what about a hundred of them?
>
> > 100 * 0 = 0
>
> HUH?
Hovering involves no change in potential energy (energy/position of
mass with respect to the gravitational field) so in theory, it should
require no energy. How you prevent yourself from falling while
expending no energy is left as an exercise for the soon-to-be-super-
rich-inventor.
krp
"trag" <tr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:f20d093b-c8c0-4fc0...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Tell me, regardless of technology, what would
>> >> the energy output HAVE TO BE to keep a 2 mile diameter spaceship
>> >> hovering
>> >> 5000 feet off the ground for 2 YEARS?
>>
>> > 0 Joules, in theory. We've certainly kept an entire city (Denver)
>> > hovering a mile over the sea for much longer than 2 years. I'd grant
>> > you that, depending on the technology, there would be some
>> > inefficiencies that might require it to expend some energy, but just
>> > hovering isn't necessarily a huge energy sink.
>>
>> >> Now what about a hundred of them?
>>
>> > 100 * 0 = 0
>>
>> HUH?
>
> Hovering involves no change in potential energy (energy/position of
> mass with respect to the gravitational field) so in theory, it should
> require no energy. How you prevent yourself from falling while
> expending no energy is left as an exercise for the soon-to-be-super-
> rich-inventor.
BULLSHIT!
Obveeus
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves), there is no
reason that humans can't invent it.
clouddreamer
Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If we
can invent it, surely they could have.
;]
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
A Watcher
Have you ever seen a magnet cause something to hover in the air. There
is no use of energy involved. On the tour of the Visitor ship they
claimed to have found a way to control gravity.
Obveeus
"clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
> Obveeus wrote:
>> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves), there is
>> no reason that humans can't invent it.
>
> Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If we can
> invent it, surely they could have.
Sure, Christ could have posted a video short on Youtube to spread his
message, but what good would it have done when none of those potential
followers had home computers yet? Besides, would Christ really want to
spread his message right alongside all that porn and karaoke? Would he end
up looking like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Jesus Christ Superstar'?
Either way, the whole cult would likely have died right then and there.
clouddreamer
But why didn't they have home computers. We do today.
..
Obveeus
"clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
news:1d6dncuJPK8rBWnX...@supernews.com...
God works in mysterious ways.
clouddreamer
> "clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
> news:1d6dncuJPK8rBWnX...@supernews.com...
>> Obveeus wrote:
>>> "clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves), there
>>>>> is no reason that humans can't invent it.
>>>> Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If we
>>>> can invent it, surely they could have.
>>> Sure, Christ could have posted a video short on Youtube to spread his
>>> message, but what good would it have done when none of those potential
>>> followers had home computers yet? Besides, would Christ really want to
>>> spread his message right alongside all that porn and karaoke? Would he
>>> end up looking like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Jesus Christ
>>> Superstar'? Either way, the whole cult would likely have died right then
>>> and there.
>> But why didn't they have home computers. We do today.
>
> God works in mysterious ways.
>
>
Conclusion: If lizards can invent it, there is a reason why humans can't.
Obveeus
"clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>
> Conclusion: If lizards can invent it, there is a reason why humans can't.
Your conclusion makes no sense. Clearly, if the lizards can invent it, then
humans can invent it as well (since the invention is within the realm of
reality).
clouddreamer
Sure. After a few more decades of technological advancements.
Obveeus
"clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
> Obveeus wrote:
>> "clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>>> Conclusion: If lizards can invent it, there is a reason why humans
>>> can't.
>>
>> Your conclusion makes no sense. Clearly, if the lizards can invent it,
>> then humans can invent it as well (since the invention is within the
>> realm of reality).
>
> Sure. After a few more decades of technological advancements.
You keep trying hard to put a timestamp on this issue when no such timestamp
existed for the original statements.
Besides, the time needed to 'invent' something should go down dramatically
if you are presented with a working model to 'reverse engineer'. So, if the
lizards arrive tomorrow, humans should be able to 'invent' an anti-gravity
device shortly thereafter.
clouddreamer
> "clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
> news:Lcednf-eC9YWPGnX...@supernews.com...
>> Obveeus wrote:
>>> "clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>>>> Conclusion: If lizards can invent it, there is a reason why humans
>>>> can't.
>>> Your conclusion makes no sense. Clearly, if the lizards can invent it,
>>> then humans can invent it as well (since the invention is within the
>>> realm of reality).
>> Sure. After a few more decades of technological advancements.
>
> You keep trying hard to put a timestamp on this issue when no such timestamp
> existed for the original statements.
> Besides, the time needed to 'invent' something should go down dramatically
> if you are presented with a working model to 'reverse engineer'. So, if the
> lizards arrive tomorrow, humans should be able to 'invent' an anti-gravity
> device shortly thereafter.
>
>
Definitely a possibility. If we have the technology to replicate their
systems. If I brought a F-16 back to 1864, do you think Lincoln could
have replicated it?
An AK-47, perhaps. An F-16? Unlikely. At least not in the 19th Century.
The technology to produce the circuitry didn't exist and would likely
take decades to develop.
The only question that remains...is their AG system an AK-47 or an F-16.
Harold Groot
Some gaps are really too big for this to be of much help.
I recall an editorial from John Campbell (from Astounding/Analog)
where he detailed what might happen if an object from his current time
(late 50s) was given to a top-flight research lab from just 30 years
earlier (late 20s). He detailed how half-a-dozen or so things on this
object would simply not be possible to be understood, even with the
top men and equipment of the day.
For example, a transistor would have been analyzed as being "pure
silicon" because the equipment from the 20s simply couldn't detect the
tiny amounts of impurities needed to make it work. The particular
type of jet engine he chose for the example only starts working above
a certain speed - which is a higher speed than anything from the 20s
could reach. And so on. Most of it they couldn't even figure out
WHAT the things did, let alone HOW they did it. He did say that it
wouldn't be a total bkank - that they would eventually figure out
(something I currently forget) with the working model in front of
them. But for the most part, no. And that's with the same shared
technology path and only 30 years difference in tech level. Now
imagine things developed along a different path, and centuries ahead
of us....
krp
>>>> >> Tell me, regardless of technology, what would
>>>> >> the energy output HAVE TO BE to keep a 2 mile diameter spaceship
>>>> >> hovering
>>>> >> 5000 feet off the ground for 2 YEARS?
>>>>
>>>> > 0 Joules, in theory. We've certainly kept an entire city (Denver)
>>>> > hovering a mile over the sea for much longer than 2 years. I'd grant
>>>> > you that, depending on the technology, there would be some
>>>> > inefficiencies that might require it to expend some energy, but just
>>>> > hovering isn't necessarily a huge energy sink.
>>>>
>>>> >> Now what about a hundred of them?
>>>>
>>>> > 100 * 0 = 0
>>>>
>>>> HUH?
>>>
>>> Hovering involves no change in potential energy (energy/position of
>>> mass with respect to the gravitational field) so in theory, it should
>>> require no energy. How you prevent yourself from falling while
>>> expending no energy is left as an exercise for the soon-to-be-super-
>>> rich-inventor.
>>
>> BULLSHIT!
>
> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves), there is
> no reason that humans can't invent it.
The amazing thing is the belief that a maybe million ton spaceship can
be set to hover 5,000 feet in the air with ZERO energy. I think we have a
fundamental misunderstanding of what "potential energy" means in relation to
defying gravity. Maybe the Earthers should invent gravity repulsor beams?
Also needing absolutely NO source of energy. Maybe a wind-up system.
krp
Well if Jesus could invent YouTube, certainly he could have provided
everyone with a laptop that didn't require batteries.
krp
As do Hollywood S/F scriptwriters I see.
krp
"clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
Only because the idea of operating with NO need for energy is an insane
concept, EXCEPT to Hollywood scriptwriters.
krp
"A Watcher" <stoc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8omdncGwe9r8HWnX...@earthlink.com...
Actually horse shit. First you need a second magnet. Secondly over time
the energy of both magnets begins to dissipate. There is no such thing as
":free energy." And gravity doesn't work exactly the same way as magnetism.
Obveeus
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4af536b1$0$5086$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
It was already established above that he wouldn't want to spread his message
through a Youtube format because it would make him look silly and likely
cause a crash and burn to the whole following before it ever got off the
ground.
krp
>>>>> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves), there
>>>>> is no reason that humans can't invent it.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If we
>>>> can invent it, surely they could have.
>>>
>>> Sure, Christ could have posted a video short on Youtube to spread his
>>> message, but what good would it have done when none of those potential
>>> followers had home computers yet? Besides, would Christ really want to
>>> spread his message right alongside all that porn and karaoke? Would he
>>> end up looking like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Jesus Christ
>>> Superstar'? Either way, the whole cult would likely have died right then
>>> and there.
>>
>>
>> Well if Jesus could invent YouTube, certainly he could have provided
>> everyone with a laptop that didn't require batteries.
>
> It was already established above that he wouldn't want to spread his
> message through a Youtube format because it would make him look silly and
> likely cause a crash and burn to the whole following before it ever got
> off the ground.
Makes about as much sense as Mohammed shouting at a stick and explaining
to all his followers it was a microphone.
clouddreamer
Heck, if there was Youtube around then, Jesus would have been exposed
for the fraud that he is. He only got the job cause no one else was
around to dispute what his followers wrote about him.
Imagine if David Coresh's followers had been the only ones to write on
his life.
..
clouddreamer
This only proves an earlier point I made. People whine about scientific
points yet won't whine when humans don't act like humans (ie why didn't
some consider suicide in SGU Darkness part II).
The Vs are an advanced civilization. They have technology we don't. The
writers can make them do what ever they want. That's the beauty of sci-fi.
Remember, there was a time when people thought breaking the sound
barrier was impossible.
Obveeus
"clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
> This only proves an earlier point I made. People whine about scientific
> points yet won't whine when humans don't act like humans (ie why didn't
> some consider suicide in SGU Darkness part II).
>
> The Vs are an advanced civilization. They have technology we don't. The
> writers can make them do what ever they want. That's the beauty of sci-fi.
Agreed. With most 'stories', you have to accept some of the basic premise
as 'fact' or you might as well not watch. It seems rather pointless to
claim that the 'V' technology couldn't exist. It ranks right up there with
claiming that werewolves couldn't transform the way we see on TV
shows/movies because it would require more energy than is available. The
complainers are trying to prove their scientific understanding while all
they really do is expose their non-understanding of the 'fiction' component.
The only thing more pointless is when people cherry pick which impossible
technology they wish to complain about; see the Star Trek threads.
Jimmy Simpsons
> krp wrote:
>
> > "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:hd23g7$svt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "clouddreamer" <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>
> >>> Obveeus wrote:
> >>>> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves),
> >>>> there is no reason that humans can't invent it.
>
> >>> Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If
> >>> we can invent it, surely they could have.
>
> >> Sure, Christ could have posted a video short on Youtube to spread his
> >> message, but what good would it have done when none of those potential
> >> followers had home computers yet? Besides, would Christ really want
> >> to spread his message right alongside all that porn and karaoke?
> >> Would he end up looking like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Jesus
> >> Christ Superstar'? Either way, the whole cult would likely have died
> >> right then and there.
>
> > Well if Jesus could invent YouTube, certainly he could have provided
> > everyone with a laptop that didn't require batteries.
>
> Heck, if there was Youtube around then, Jesus would have been exposed
> for the fraud that he is.
Your hysterical fear of Christianity continues unabated, I see.
Continue proving how hateful and irrational atheists are :)
peachy ashie passion
> On Nov 7, 5:50 am, clouddreamer <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>> krp wrote:
>>
>>> "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hd23g7$svt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> "clouddreamer" <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves),
>>>>>> there is no reason that humans can't invent it.
>>>>> Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If
>>>>> we can invent it, surely they could have.
>>>> Sure, Christ could have posted a video short on Youtube to spread his
>>>> message, but what good would it have done when none of those potential
>>>> followers had home computers yet? Besides, would Christ really want
>>>> to spread his message right alongside all that porn and karaoke?
>>>> Would he end up looking like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Jesus
>>>> Christ Superstar'? Either way, the whole cult would likely have died
>>>> right then and there.
>>> Well if Jesus could invent YouTube, certainly he could have provided
>>> everyone with a laptop that didn't require batteries.
>> Heck, if there was Youtube around then, Jesus would have been exposed
>> for the fraud that he is.
>
> Your hysterical fear of Christianity continues unabated, I see.
> Continue proving how hateful and irrational atheists are :)
Sure! In the way that Fred Phelps protesting at funerals proves how
hateful Christians are.
clouddreamer
> On Nov 7, 5:50 am, clouddreamer <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>> krp wrote:
>>
>>> "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hd23g7$svt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> "clouddreamer" <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves),
>>>>>> there is no reason that humans can't invent it.
>>>>> Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If
>>>>> we can invent it, surely they could have.
>>>> Sure, Christ could have posted a video short on Youtube to spread his
>>>> message, but what good would it have done when none of those potential
>>>> followers had home computers yet? Besides, would Christ really want
>>>> to spread his message right alongside all that porn and karaoke?
>>>> Would he end up looking like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Jesus
>>>> Christ Superstar'? Either way, the whole cult would likely have died
>>>> right then and there.
>>> Well if Jesus could invent YouTube, certainly he could have provided
>>> everyone with a laptop that didn't require batteries.
>> Heck, if there was Youtube around then, Jesus would have been exposed
>> for the fraud that he is.
>
> Your hysterical fear of Christianity continues unabated, I see.
> Continue proving how hateful and irrational atheists are :)
Nothing irrational or hateful there. He was a fraud. Do you think Isis
was real? Or Zeus? How about Mohammend? Or the guy that started the
Mormons???
Funny....you can call them frauds...but I can't call Jesus a fraud.
Hypocrite.
>
> He only got the job cause no one else was
>> around to dispute what his followers wrote about him.
>>
>> Imagine if David Coresh's followers had been the only ones to write on
>> his life.
>>
Obviously, that common sense analogy hits a little too close to home.
Doc O'Leary
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
We already understand you have no grasp of physics or math.
> First you need a second magnet.
Very wrong. One of the main reasons you can get levitation out of a
superconductor is that it *exactly* opposes the force of one magnet.
I'm guessing an equilibrium is also found with multiple independent
magnets, but I can't recall seeing any videos of that kind of thing, so
it's possible that some kind of "three body" effects are present.
> Secondly over time
> the energy of both magnets begins to dissipate.
I don't even know what you think that means. The only dampening you
might have seen is due to the fact that we only have superconductors
that operate at very cold temperatures, so the effect disappears as
things heat up. Room-temperature superconductors are actively being
sought. Please educate yourself on subjects you're discussing.
> There is no such thing as
> ":free energy."
There is no free energy in hovering.
> And gravity doesn't work exactly the same way as magnetism.
We still don't know how gravity works exactly. Apparently you presume
to know something about it that we don't.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
and probably your server, too.
krp
"clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves), there
>>>>> is no reason that humans can't invent it.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If we
>>>> can invent it, surely they could have.
>>>
>>> Sure, Christ could have posted a video short on Youtube to spread his
>>> message, but what good would it have done when none of those potential
>>> followers had home computers yet? Besides, would Christ really want to
>>> spread his message right alongside all that porn and karaoke? Would he
>>> end up looking like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Jesus Christ
>>> Superstar'? Either way, the whole cult would likely have died right then
>>> and there.
>>
>>
>> Well if Jesus could invent YouTube, certainly he could have provided
>> everyone with a laptop that didn't require batteries.
>>
>
> Heck, if there was Youtube around then, Jesus would have been exposed for
> the fraud that he is. He only got the job cause no one else was around to
> dispute what his followers wrote about him.
You know you were doing okay till then. Then you blew it.
krp
"clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves),
>>>>>>>> there is no reason that humans can't invent it.
>>>>>>> Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If
>>>>>>> we can invent it, surely they could have.
>>>>>> Sure, Christ could have posted a video short on Youtube to spread his
>>>>>> message, but what good would it have done when none of those
>>>>>> potential followers had home computers yet? Besides, would Christ
>>>>>> really want to spread his message right alongside all that porn and
>>>>>> karaoke? Would he end up looking like 'The Last Temptation of
>>>>>> Christ' or 'Jesus Christ Superstar'? Either way, the whole cult would
>>>>>> likely have died right then and there.
>>>>> But why didn't they have home computers. We do today.
>>>>
>>>> God works in mysterious ways.
>>>
>>>
>>> Conclusion: If lizards can invent it, there is a reason why humans
>>> can't.
>> Only because the idea of operating with NO need for energy is an
>> insane concept, EXCEPT to Hollywood scriptwriters.
> This only proves an earlier point I made. People whine about scientific
> points yet won't whine when humans don't act like humans (ie why didn't
> some consider suicide in SGU Darkness part II).
Maybe because they aren't as chicken shit as some folks around here.
> The Vs are an advanced civilization. They have technology we don't. The
> writers can make them do what ever they want. That's the beauty of sci-fi.
There is no such thing as "free energy" and hovering above the ground
requires energy expenditure. There is nothing for free anywhere in the
universe.
krp
Obvious the technology could exist. You just can't get something for
nothing. Having a 2 mile long spaceship hovering at 5,000 requires
expenditure of energy.
krp
"Jimmy Simpsons" <notsur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff827d76-3795-4f1d...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 7, 5:50 am, clouddreamer <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
> krp wrote:
>
> > "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:hd23g7$svt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "clouddreamer" <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>
> >>> Obveeus wrote:
> >>>> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves),
> >>>> there is no reason that humans can't invent it.
>
> >>> Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If
> >>> we can invent it, surely they could have.
>
> >> Sure, Christ could have posted a video short on Youtube to spread his
> >> message, but what good would it have done when none of those potential
> >> followers had home computers yet? Besides, would Christ really want
> >> to spread his message right alongside all that porn and karaoke?
> >> Would he end up looking like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or 'Jesus
> >> Christ Superstar'? Either way, the whole cult would likely have died
> >> right then and there.
>
> > Well if Jesus could invent YouTube, certainly he could have provided
> > everyone with a laptop that didn't require batteries.
>
> Heck, if there was Youtube around then, Jesus would have been exposed
> for the fraud that he is.
J> Your hysterical fear of Christianity continues unabated, I see.
J> Continue proving how hateful and irrational atheists are :)
Some atheists want to impose their religion on others. Or bore the
living shit out of us.
krp
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-77...@news.twtelecom.net...
Well I know enough to know that havering a huge speceshit WILL require
massive energy oputput. There is NO such thing as FREE energy. There is no
Department of Energy Welfare, and no Energy Stamps.
>> First you need a second magnet.
> Very wrong. One of the main reasons you can get levitation out of a
> superconductor is that it *exactly* opposes the force of one magnet.
> I'm guessing an equilibrium is also found with multiple independent
> magnets, but I can't recall seeing any videos of that kind of thing, so
> it's possible that some kind of "three body" effects are present.
Magnetism isn't the force here.
>> Secondly over time the energy of both magnets begins to dissipate.
> I don't even know what you think that means. The only dampening you
> might have seen is due to the fact that we only have superconductors
> that operate at very cold temperatures, so the effect disappears as
> things heat up. Room-temperature superconductors are actively being
> sought. Please educate yourself on subjects you're discussing.
You think that magnets with polar opposition maintain their magnetic
charge forever?
>> There is no such thing as
> ":free energy."
> There is no free energy in hovering.
Right. A large ship would necessarily NEED to expend massive amounts of
energy to hover. You just can't HANG something in the air.
>> And gravity doesn't work exactly the same way as magnetism.
> We still don't know how gravity works exactly. Apparently you presume
> to know something about it that we don't.
Right but we at least KNOW it ain't MAGNETISM.
steve march
>
> "clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
> news:vKidnRLsvJR85mjX...@supernews.com...
>>>> Conclusion: If lizards can invent it, there is a reason why humans
>>>> can't.
>
>>> Only because the idea of operating with NO need for energy is an
>>> insane concept, EXCEPT to Hollywood scriptwriters.
Where was it claimed in the show that the ships expended no energy to
maintain their hover?
> There is no such thing as "free energy" and hovering above the ground
> requires energy expenditure. There is nothing for free anywhere in the
> universe.
Stephen Hawking once observed that the entire Universe might be considered a
free lunch. Of course that was in the form of blue sky speculation. But
still to graft his point to an SF TV show: as much as a blimp or a
helicopter might seem like 'free' energy to a Neanderthal, so might the
Visitors method of hovering their ship appear to us without breaking any
physical laws.
PV
>Nothing irrational or hateful there. He was a fraud. Do you think Isis
>was real? Or Zeus? How about Mohammend? Or the guy that started the
>Mormons???
Some of these things are not like the others. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
clouddreamer
The vast majority of atheists just want you not to impose your religion
on us. We honestly don't give a shit what you do, just keep it to
yourselves.
clouddreamer
> clouddreamer <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> writes:
>> Nothing irrational or hateful there. He was a fraud. Do you think Isis
>> was real? Or Zeus? How about Mohammend? Or the guy that started the
>> Mormons???
>
> Some of these things are not like the others. *
You mean they're something like corkscrews?
PV
>>> was real? Or Zeus? How about Mohammend? Or the guy that started the
>>> Mormons???
>>
>> Some of these things are not like the others. *
>
>You mean they're something like corkscrews?
I don't know about that, but Joseph Smith and Mohammed actually existed. *
clouddreamer
> clouddreamer <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> writes:
>>>> was real? Or Zeus? How about Mohammend? Or the guy that started the
>>>> Mormons???
>>> Some of these things are not like the others. *
>> You mean they're something like corkscrews?
>
> I don't know about that, but Joseph Smith and Mohammed actually existed. *
And Jesus likely existed. Doesn't meant they weren't all frauds.
krp
"steve march" <sma...@home.ca> wrote in message
news:hd4jpu$pej$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>>>>> Conclusion: If lizards can invent it, there is a reason why humans
>>>>> can't.
>>
>>>> Only because the idea of operating with NO need for energy is an
>>>> insane concept, EXCEPT to Hollywood scriptwriters.
>
> Where was it claimed in the show that the ships expended no energy to
> maintain their hover?
Read back in the thread.. It was an idiotic claim. My point was 100+ ships
in orbit at 5,000 feet hovering would be using an enormous amount of energy.
Or in simple terms an enormous waste of energy.
krp
"clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>> Obveeus wrote:
>>> >>>> If lizards can invent it (those apples didn't hover themselves),
>>> >>>> there is no reason that humans can't invent it.
>>>
>>> >>> Yeah. Darn. Why didn't Christ use Youtube to spread his message? If
>>> >>> we can invent it, surely they could have.
>>>
>>> >> Sure, Christ could have posted a video short on Youtube to spread his
>>> >> message, but what good would it have done when none of those
>>> >> potential
>>> >> followers had home computers yet? Besides, would Christ really want
>>> >> to spread his message right alongside all that porn and karaoke?
>>> >> Would he end up looking like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or
>>> >> 'Jesus
>>> >> Christ Superstar'? Either way, the whole cult would likely have died
>>> >> right then and there.
>>>
>>> > Well if Jesus could invent YouTube, certainly he could have provided
>>> > everyone with a laptop that didn't require batteries.
>>>
>>> Heck, if there was Youtube around then, Jesus would have been exposed
>>> for the fraud that he is.
>>
>> J> Your hysterical fear of Christianity continues unabated, I see.
>> J> Continue proving how hateful and irrational atheists are :)
>> Some atheists want to impose their religion on others. Or bore the
>> living shit out of us.
> The vast majority of atheists just want you not to impose your religion on
> us. We honestly don't give a shit what you do, just keep it to yourselves.
True - but those speaking out NEED to evangelize and impose their
religious beliefs on the rest of us as badly as does a Jimmy Swaggart. Keep
the atheism to yourselves. Tell me WHAT is the BFD about a cross 85 miles
out in the desert? What is it about that cross that makes you people
sterile? What drives you nuts if a bunch of kids want to sing Christmas
carols in the part on Christmas eve?
clouddreamer
The extreme atheists don't represent the vast majority of atheists the
same way Islamic fundies and Christian fundies don't represent the vast
majority of their faiths. Nothing we can do about them except IGNORE them.
I could care less about a cross in the desert. There's one sitting on
top of a mountain a couple of klics away from me...on public land even!!
I don't care. I do care about the cross hanging in the classroom of a
public school. Education of a specific religion belongs in the home and
church, not in the school and despite the fact that they no longer
advocate only one religion (they teach World Religion - an optional
subject in later grades), they should no show favoritism towards one or
another. If one wants their kid educated in a Catholic school, send them
there, but keep religion out of the public school. I'm guessing most
christian parents wouldn't want their kids taught the islamic religion
or buddism or hinduism...why do they think atheist parents would want
their kids force fed a christian religion?
I don't care if kids sing carols. Heck, I sing christmas carols. I love
christmas holidays and everything about it...except that I ignore the
christian elements...no mass or anything like that (I was brought up
catholic, BTW). And frankly I don't know of any atheist who has a
problem with the holidays. We know it was a pagan holiday stolen by
Constantine to make the conversion of christianity easier. Pretty well
everything about christmas from the tree to the yule log all come from
pagan sources.
The only real disputes I've seen are with political institutions
decorating with christian specific decorations...nativity scene etc.
Since church and state are supposed to be separate, they should either
celebrate every religious holiday or none. But you don't see them
observing ramadan or hanukkah or quanza (sp?) to the degree they do
christmas. The political institution is supposed to be secular. It's not
supposed to have any concrete connections to any one religion. So, stick
up a tree and take the day off.
In Canada, practicing christians are the minority and declining. Atheism
(or No Religion Specified) is growing...from 8 to 16% between 1991 and
2001. In 2011, some expect the number to more than double to over 30%.
No other religion comes close to those numbers. Most declined.
Religion belongs in the home and church. It has no place in politics or
being forced on other people. Simple as that. If I want an abortion,
that's my choice, not yours. If I want treatment from an embryonic stem
cell, that's my choice, not yours. If I were gay and wanted to marry
another woman...that's my choice, not yours. No one is forcing you to
have an abortion, marry in the same sex etc. Doing so doesn't affect
you, and frankly, is none of your business.
No one is telling you that you can't put a nativity scene on your front
porch or that you can't prayer to allah in your living room. Atheism
isn't stopping you from going to church, holding retreats or dancing on
tables naked if you wanted to.
But it is stopping you from forcing YOUR beliefs on our lives.
Besides, I prefer to dance on the tables fully clothed.
;]
steve march
Enormous is relative. To us and compared to our total global energy output
it might seem enormous. To a species with ability to travel instellar
distances it might seem trivial to the point of being akin to someone
leaving their car idling while running into the convenience store.
> Or in simple terms an enormous waste of energy.
Like a helicopter? Relatively speaking.
krp
"clouddreamer" <Reuse....@nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
MAYBE! But they are the only ones we hear from.
> I could care less about a cross in the desert. There's one sitting on top
> of a mountain a couple of klics away from me...on public land even!! I
> don't care
But many Atheists DO CARE, enough to pour a great deal of money into
litigation to geet rid of the croses.
> I don't care if kids sing carols.
That's nice but many Ateists are willing to spend their last penny to
try to PREVENT those songs from being sung in public.
> Religion belongs in the home and church. It has no place in politics or
> being forced on other people.
And yet Atheists on Usenet have argued that they want LAWS prohibiting
parents from raising their own children in their religion, arguing that
parents MUST NOT have that right.
> But it is stopping you from forcing YOUR beliefs on our lives.
Some Atheists argue that religious symbols are churches are "FORCING"
the beliefs on them and they want them banned. Some argue that churches
should not exist at all. Some are so hostile to Christianity in specific
they would like it outlawed. Atheism hasn't had a whole lot of good PR.
krp
>>>>>>> Conclusion: If lizards can invent it, there is a reason why humans
>>>>>>> can't.
>>>>
>>>>>> Only because the idea of operating with NO need for energy is an
>>>>>> insane concept, EXCEPT to Hollywood scriptwriters.
>>>
>>> Where was it claimed in the show that the ships expended no energy to
>>> maintain their hover?
>> Read back in the thread.. It was an idiotic claim. My point was 100+
>> ships in orbit at 5,000 feet hovering would be using an enormous amount
>> of energy.
> Enormous is relative. To us and compared to our total global energy output
> it might seem enormous. To a species with ability to travel instellar
> distances it might seem trivial to the point of being akin to someone
> leaving their car idling while running into the convenience store.
I'm sorry you can compact energy only so far. Even direct conversion
fusion can't be put in your hip pocket. Levitating a 9,000 ton spaceship at
5,000 feet off the ground would take an iincredible amout of energy for even
a brief time period. Keeping them up for years would be prohibitive.
>> Or in simple terms an enormous waste of energy.
> Like a helicopter? Relatively speaking.
Well keeping helicopter up for no good reason would be something of a
waste no?
steve march
>
> "steve march" <sma...@home.ca> wrote in message
> news:hd506v$old$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>>>>>>>> Conclusion: If lizards can invent it, there is a reason why humans
>>>>>>>> can't.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only because the idea of operating with NO need for energy is an
>>>>>>> insane concept, EXCEPT to Hollywood scriptwriters.
>>>>
>>>> Where was it claimed in the show that the ships expended no energy to
>>>> maintain their hover?
>
>>> Read back in the thread.. It was an idiotic claim. My point was 100+
>>> ships in orbit at 5,000 feet hovering would be using an enormous amount
>>> of energy.
>
>> Enormous is relative. To us and compared to our total global energy
>> output it might seem enormous. To a species with ability to travel
>> instellar distances it might seem trivial to the point of being akin to
>> someone leaving their car idling while running into the convenience
>> store.
>
> I'm sorry you can compact energy only so far. Even direct conversion
> fusion can't be put in your hip pocket. Levitating a 9,000 ton spaceship
> at 5,000 feet off the ground would take an iincredible amout of energy for
> even a brief time period. Keeping them up for years would be prohibitive.
Go back to 1949 and describe to the creators of Univac the capabilities of a
low end notebook computer and ask them what they thought the power
requirements would be for such a hypothetical machine. And that is a mere 6
decades separation
>
>>> Or in simple terms an enormous waste of energy.
>
>> Like a helicopter? Relatively speaking.
>
> Well keeping helicopter up for no good reason would be something of a
> waste no?
Conquering a planet seems like a good reason. The US deployed a massive
fleet of of helos in it's decade long experience in Viet Nam. They still do
in every place they have gone now supplement with drones that have
endurances measured in days aloft.
It's SF. You really can not argue that aliens have not come up with some
technological handwave that allows them to nullify the gravitional
attraction between their ships and the planet at a reasonable energy cost.
Well you can but I doubt most will agree.
clouddreamer
>
> Some Atheists argue that religious symbols are churches are "FORCING"
> the beliefs on them and they want them banned. Some argue that churches
> should not exist at all. Some are so hostile to Christianity in
> specific they would like it outlawed. Atheism hasn't had a whole lot of
> good PR.
I have yet to see any of what you're referring to. If some are out there
doing that, and I have no doubt some morons probably are, they are the
extreme fanatics. Christianity has them. Islam has them. Star Trek has
them. They take it too far and they do not represent the vast vast
majority of atheists.
Quite frankly, if I met an atheist who thought all crosses should be
removed or all kids not educated in any religion, I'd tell them to
chill. To form your opinion of atheists on the actions of a few fanatics
is like believing that all christians are like Swaggart or any number of
religious nuts.
Some have simply had enough of being pushed around and are pushing back
a little too much. Heck, Bush used his religious beliefs to stop funding
of embryonic stem cell research. What right did he have to interfere
with research based on HIS beliefs??? He was supposed to represent all
Americans and not all Americans share those beliefs. Not to mention the
hundreds of millions around the world who would benefit from that
research. I won't get into Bush's belief that god told him to invade
Iraq. That would get any normal citizen a trip to the Funny Farm.
Christianity has been forcing its beliefs on us for hundreds of years. I
don't think you should be upset because some are pushing back. After
all, if one truly believed, truly had faith then they wouldn't need a
church, christmas carols or a cross in the desert.
..
David E. Powell
wrote:
So you're saying that someone who claims to represent a philosophy
should take care they don't make it look bad when they do? We agree.
David E. Powell
And if one didn't care, they wouldn't care what someone else had....
David E. Powell
> Obveeus wrote:
> >news:Lcednf-eC9YWPGnX...@supernews.com...
> >> Obveeus wrote:
> >>> "clouddreamer" <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
> >>>> Conclusion: If lizards can invent it, there is a reason why humans
> >>>> can't.
> >>> then humans can invent it as well (since the invention is within the
> >>> realm of reality).
> >> Sure. After a few more decades of technological advancements.
>
> > You keep trying hard to put a timestamp on this issue when no such timestamp
> > existed for the original statements.
> > Besides, the time needed to 'invent' something should go down dramatically
> > if you are presented with a working model to 'reverse engineer'. So, if the
> > lizards arrive tomorrow, humans should be able to 'invent' an anti-gravity
> > device shortly thereafter.
>
> Definitely a possibility. If we have the technology to replicate their
> systems. If I brought a F-16 back to 1864, do you think Lincoln could
> have replicated it?
>
> An AK-47, perhaps. An F-16? Unlikely. At least not in the 19th Century.
> The technology to produce the circuitry didn't exist and would likely
> take decades to develop.
>
> The only question that remains...is their AG system an AK-47 or an F-16.
Good point. Remember how beat up an AK can get and still work. People
in Sub Saharan Africa with no spare parts and limited tech can keep an
AK going.
Some seemingly complex things are simpler than others..... similar to
the first series where the Visitors' weapons seemed to be maintainable
with human technology, which for battle weapons makes sense.
David E. Powell
> and thus steve march inscribed ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Roger Blake" <rogblak...@iname10.com> wrote in message
> >> It could just as well be Nazis (or space lizards) of course if you are writing about resistance to vicious invaders.
> > See above. the swastika is rather distinctive.
> > Wiki for what wieght you want to give it:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(The_Original_Miniseries)
> > "The story became a Nazi allegory, right down to the Swastika-like
> > emblem used by the Visitors and their SS-like uniforms. There is a youth
> > auxiliary movement called the "Friends of the Visitors" with obvious
> > similarities to the Hitler Youth, and Visitor broadcasts mimic Nazi-era
> > propaganda. The show's portrayal of human interaction with the Visitors
> > bears a striking resemblance to stories from Occupied Europe during
> > World War II with some citizens choosing collaboration and others
> > choosing to join underground resistance movements.
>
> > Where the Nazis persecuted primarily Jews, the Visitors were likewise
> > depicted to persecute scientists, their families, and anyone associating
> > with them. They also distribute propaganda in an effort to hide their
> > true identity. Some of the main characters in the initial series were
> > from a Jewish family and the grandfather, a Holocaust survivor,
> > frequently commented on the events of the past again unfolding. Once
> > they are in a position to do so, the Visitors later declare martial law
> > to control the scientists (and resistance fighters) as well."
>
> Which does work for the Nazi angle, but it seems to me that it would have also worked fine as a communist angle, especially in say Asia and Red China. They had the uniforms, the youth movement and their tons of propoganda/re-education trucks moving through the villages. The series also had the collaborators working in secret because their family members would narc on them, like the Red Youth would narc on their parents.
Ideology aside, many totalitarian regimes have the same methods. One
of the reasons Stalin and Hitler hated each other so much was probably
because they saw a bit of their own methods in each other.
I feel it is no accident that the Aliens' human helpers wore brown
shirts (Nazi like) while the Visitors wore red (Communist colors.)
Plus the emblem the Aliens had has been compared to the Swastika,
though most totalitarian regimes have some sort of basic symbol.
The original was an excellent allegory, and they made the point when a
Holocaust Survivor was one of the first to recognize the tactics the
Visitors were using to demonize certain people and take power over the
humans.
> "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
> --till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -