eonfreon

Now I've read the article and it is completely out of context. Not relevent? Sure, I suppose influencing science fiction themes to this very day is not relevent. Should it retire from the field of battle? What an asinine way of saying it. The franchise encompasses an entire universe. Are we to believe that nothing further can be plumbed from a universe wherein brand new characters and situations can created? Good writers can and do build upon what has come before and acknowledge their influences and inspirations. Dr. Who is far older and it has managed a healthy and highly enjoyable modernization imho- and that is about a single character! Star Trek has the added bonus of being completely open-ended.

Trust me FOX News has not been embraced by us Americans as a whole. We know it's propaganda (at least most do ) and we hate it (at least I do). But I do watch it once in awhile. After all I gotta know what kinda trouble they're trying to stir up. Since it is out there and does influence a bunch of our neighbors, I watch it to see what to expect from the right-wing crazies. Unfortunately, that means I sometimes add to their ratings, I guess. Even misinformation is information if you know that it's misinformation. For the rest- well, every country has it's unwashed masses- they're the same bored mofos who watch Springer have to have some form of news. EDIT: And sorry to be so far off topic too, but you got to understand that this stuff is crammed down our throats as much as PRAVDA was in the Soviet Union, so we're kinda tired of hearing it. And "FAIR AND BALANCED" is their trademarked slogan, not some label we gave 'em. Anyway back to the topic at hand......

Just curious. What are the European's plans for these batteries? I'm assuming that they will also have a large increase in hybrid cars and face the same problems (of course we are assuming that there will be a problem). What are their plans before this comes back to bite them in the rear end?

The thing you need to understand, Bezelton, is that every generation's speech pattern's are different from every other's. Especially among the young. I'm sorry that you couldn't groove to those hap cat's lingo, daddy-o, that's really a downer. You know. Seriously, what one says is also augmented by how one says it. And body language. When I was young "cool" could convey many, many things, even it's opposite. Someone tells you something and you are barely interested, you would say "Yeah, thas cool" (spelled phonetically "thas"- weakening the strong "ts" sound of "that's" to a lisping "s" sound) which would actually mean "yeah, I heard you and I could care less". Especially if you moved your hand in a waving away motion- but that was usually reserved for a very aggressive dismissal. Plus if they were talking amongst themselves, to friends, meaning may be implied in other ways. When one says "you know" to a friend, he probably does know, even if YOU, while eavesdropping, don't. Ya know? The survey you ran (over) for a mere five hours (is the survey ok, by the way, did you run over his toes?) at a large chain like Barnes and Nobles, which is more about entertainment than education, hardly qualifies you as an authority on this country's intellectuals. Go visit a library. A coffee shop during a poetry recital. Heck,even a park near a university. Not a store that mostly deals in escapism. Even intellectuals like escapism, that's one of the reasons sci-fi is so popular. So where do we hide our geniuses? Well, mostly at the labs ,university classes, board meetings, etc. The rest of the time, when on a break and wanting some "down time", we hide in plain sight. B)

I'm tired of . . . I'm gonna go take a nap.

Oh yes. Good to know MPAA has a dvd checking department. I've been looking for some place to check the legitimacy of my dvds. I can't tell you how important such knowledge is to me. What are you talking about? Why would anyone do what you suggest? Are you worried that a snobby dvd player may reject the dvd and spit it out exclaming "That's not legit! It tastes bad!"

I didn't mind too much that they had to change so much. I did mind that it SUCKED SO BAD.

Well I just saw the movie today and I really liked it. I too felt it may have been a little weak in the middle, but overall I really enjoyed it. Especially as it was really about bringing back Superman into the modern consciousness. And it setup a lot of great concepts for following movies. I hope Bryan Singer can stay on for that, because I really want to see him get to really cut loose and bring on the supervillains. Personally, I give alot of kudos to the filmmaking on this movie. I highly recommend it. Love it or hate it, seeing it on the big screen was quite a treat. And I loved it. And about the off-topic stuff here: I have to agree that we should not whitewash history. Racism is real and part of our history. I recently found a dvd with old original Superman cartoons made during WWII. Naturally, they depicted the Japanese and Germans as the enemy. On one episode Clark and Lois are reporters imprisoned in Japan. Clark allows himself to be imprisoned and every night he sneaks off and wrecks Japanese military installations and weapons. In the end he gets Lois out but stays behind to continue his one-man war. It was propoganda pure and simple. Maybe a salve for the children whose father's were away? Did the younger ones allow their imaginations to believe that their daddy would be okay, because Superman was there to help? Anyway, the cartoons are classic and beautifully done. I would hate for them to be destroyed or hidden away because they show an ugly side of human nature; to demonize the enemy, and now Japan is no longer our enemy. We're human, we have our ugly side and our noble side. Denying it won't work. When something becomes forbidden it is almost always more enticing, at least to the younger generations who want to make their own mistakes, not be patronized about how our elders know best. Anyway, now I'm really off-topic- so back to Superman. It was well-worth seeing IMHO.

not me

Basically, "hero" and "antihero' is a personal point of view. I cited Hunter S. Thompson. To me he was a hero. To others he was an antihero at best. Still others would see him as a hedonist with no redeeming values. I feel he took many risks and always stood by his values, that makes him a hero in my book. However, if you don't agree with his values then you might at least concede that he was an antihero and brave enough to poke a stick into the ribs of the status quo. Then he committed suicide which is an unforgivable sin in many faiths (not mine- but then I outgrew my church a long time ago). To that person he would be unredeemable. Your values shape your heroic ideals. Of course, this is with a real person. A fictional character is more straightforward because the writer often gives clues to how we should feel about a character.

Hunter S. Thompson is way up there on my list. Jack Keroac definently. I'll think of more later.

personally, I see no harm on shows that depict things that others would find reprehensible. Ignoring things won't make them go away. It is good to have some exposure to things we don't agree with, even if it's exposure thru hollywood, which is still miles away from reality. I've always thought an anti-hero was just that, someone who does not do the things that are traditionally "heroic". Often selfish and with few redeeming values- you know, a human being.

Well I googled the story after reading the articles that confirm this and deny this story. Every single article debunks this as a hoax. Before posting such a thing perhaps the original poster should do a little research. It's amazing how many were ready to jump on the bandwagon and were advocating Israel and the U.S. attacking Iran. I personally have many misgivings about the Iranian government, but I don't see how it is any affair of ours what happens there unless it is a direct threat to us. I mean missiles would have to be launched at us or our allies before I would care. They have a terrible Human Rights record, but so do many of the governments we support. If you want something to hate Iran for go to http://save.nazanin.googlepages.com/ This is where international pressure should be applied. As for Nuclear weapons, we have them and Israel has them (even though they weren't supposed to and it was one of the worst-kept secrets that they did). As much as I wish no nation had them, that's not going to happen, and Iran can look to N. Korea and see we haven't invaded them (they do have nukes) but have invaded Iraq (who didn't). Remember when we claimed having nukes was a deterent to war?

i am certainly not gonna waste my goodwill on the MPAA. I can't seperate the deed from the person, to me the deed is the person. Or to paraphrase Emma Goldman. "There is no greater fallacy than the belief that a person is one thing, while a person's deeds are another, this conception is a potent menace to social regeneration."