Slashdot Mirror
Spoonful of Quickies
Darren wrote in to blatantly plug his 'Darren's Penguin Habitat' which aims to be a newbie Linux site.
g8orade wrote in to say that Applix has Applix Anywhere which is apparently a Java compatible suite of mail, word processing, presentation, and spreadsheet software.
jimw wrote in to tell us about Vintage Computer Festival if you're into that old stuff, and near Santa Clara.
yack0 warned us that
Elijah Wood will be Frodo Baggins in the upcoming Lord of
the Rings Trilogy of movies. Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer
is also rumored to have a part.
rawlink sent us a
URL with some Hi Res Fractals that prove
Rob' First Law of Art: All art is better if you can use it as your background image.
An anonymous reader wrote in to plug these Y2k Posters which actually look surprisingly sweet if you're into those classic movie type posters. I dig 'em.
Abe Zuckerman sent us pictures of the new Rios (hint: Butt ugly)
Randy Rathbun wrote in to note that several new pictures of the empeg have appeared on their website.
Mikey LeBeau us pix of a metallic hand-crafted aluminum Palm case for those of us who are entertained by shiny objects.
Scooter sent us a report on how offensive South Park the Movie is. Absolutely Hilarious.
Finally, matthewg pointed us to After Y2K which pokes some fun at Hemos, Martha Stewert, and Me.
Linux rhymes with cynics? Techno-ostrich? Head in the cyber-sand? Where do they get these people...
I started out thinking it was funny, but then I read some of their other reviews. It's something about their Anti-Everything that gives me the chills. Can someone crack this site please? ;)
Anyone think that Palms are somewhat overpriced now? I mean, they're great from what I've seen, but the new models are more expensive than some color Windows CE palmtops that do the same thing. Shouldn't they be cheaper??
What exactly is that MetaTrust thing they're talking about? Will it get in the way of playing our favorite format (mp3), or is it simply Step 1 on the way to SoDoMI?
I was LOL for the entire time I was reading it! Is this REAL or someone's parody of the typical christian right essays about how we must protect our CHILDREN from the evils of Satanic movies? For god's sake (oops, is that taking the lord's name in vain?), let people think for themselves for a change instead of telling them what they SHOULD be thinking.
Dude....ya don't have to be so drastic. Just the southern baptists. *shudder* having sex before marriage is a sin to them, but marrying cousins is alright. there's logic
I wonder how many times they watched the movie to get those accurate counts... surely it was more than once, there is no uncle f'ing way they could have got those results from one sitting.
Why is it that, when it comes to controversial moral topics, it all turns into flippant remarks about the hypocrisy or general silliness of the extremes (example: every atheist is a lecherous scumbag murderer OR every southern baptist beats down women and marries his sis)? How about thinking about what people say and that it might have some truth, rather than instantly and irrationally reacting to everything that comes your way? IMHO, I can understand why any religious person could be extremely offended by the inaccurate portrayals (to the religious person) that were in the film (This could apply to Moslems, Christians, Jews, etc.) no matter if it is "just a film" or "for adults only". Can't anyone else?
Unfortunately, it's quite real. I'd tried to laugh it off myself while I was reading it, but I found the idea that somebody could take this so seriously to be a little too disturbing.
I've known a few people like this in person, and that's what makes it just so bad. These people honestly believe that they are doing what's best. They really think that by writing something like that, they are protecting children from satan, or other such nonsense. It makes me sick. Can't they let people think for themselves? I am an athiest and proud of it, and let me tell you that people like this will never leave you alone. They do not tolerate anything that does not fit within their own narrow definition of right and wrong. South Park was a wonderfull movie that was intended to poke fun at people like this, but I guess that the subtleties of the movies went right over the author's head.
Sorry for the AC post but I don't have my password handy.
I can understand too. Though I mostly enjoyed it, there were definitely things I winced at (being a Christian myself). A movie like this can't possibly help offending someone, and I don't blame them for being offended by it, either.
;)
I'm disappointed that this South Park review has been used as an opportunity to make light of other's beliefs, when it benefits all of us to understand each other better.
Now making fun of M$ loyalists is a different story....
a 1 MHz 6502 is capable of about 2/3 of a MIP on average... so 64 64s would be solidly in Cray-1 or Pentium-90 territory... :)
you wouldn't have the RAM or I/O throughput though
Not much but it is somewhat funny. However if you look at cruel.com, you will notice that site was featured back on the 6th. It usually takes about a week for the funny ones to show up here on /. Don't miss the site for the 9th though.
P.S.
The guy who runs cruel.com also runs drudge.com which is also worth a laugh or two.
He was the guy who played Willow and R2D2.
Incidently, he had a camio appearance as him self in The Phantom Menace during the pod race.
File that one under useless trivia.
I for one have to say that I was very disappointed by the CAP article. The least they could have done was written 'spoilers' across the top.
Now I know that someone ignites his anal wind.
rde posing as an AC.
anyone know about music for Lord of the Rings?
Any chance of them taking music from Johan DeMeij (spel?)? He wrote a wonderful symphony with themes from Tolken's novels.
~JON email jon@ilb.dyndns.com
"Cracking" their site puts you on exactly the same level as the Christian Culture Nazis. Maybe even worse -- I haven't seen the CAP nuts trying to shut down theatres showing South Park. Have you?
repeated questions about a female private organ were but a very few of
the vulgar expressions used by the kids.
Since when is the clit an organ?
Java was originally designed to run toasters and other small kitchen appliances and amazingly enough that is the only think it is still good for!
No, there isn't just one true Christian God...
Just ask a Protestant in N. Ireland about how they feel about the Catholics (or vice-versa).
Or an Assembly of God member about the Mormans (or vice versa).
Or just about anybody about 7th Day Adventists, and other fringe Christian groups.
If they were all worshipping the same god, it shouldn't matter that one wears polkadotted underwear (NIV bible) and the other wears whitey-tighties (King James bible). But it does.
I wonder what those bible freaks think about movies like "Jesus Christ, Superstar", "Monty Python's 'the Life of Brian'", and "The Last Temptation of Christ" (especially the last one...).
Or why they pick and choose from those fine laws in Exodus with the 10 commandments, but ignore so many of the other things in that context that you see Hasidic Jews following (can't cut facial hair, etc.).
Rob, your moderators are out of control. You better rein them in before Slashdot becomes a meeting place for Barney and Tinky Winky.
Ummm. What the hell is wrong with being naked?
Adam and Eve were perfectly happy with their
nakedness until outside forces made them feel
otherwise.
Mr Out !
..... !
I strongly object to Your obviously false statistics that half the population has a disemobodied male member.
Disembody THIS you
From the applix anywhere site (registration section):
"Due to an unprecedented number of registrations for the site, we are experiencing an unexpected load on our servers..."
I wonder what caused that.
I wonder what the CAP guy would say about _The Ten Commandments_.
Food for thought...
tsunake@houston.rr.com
I have never heard of her before.
I tried everything but it didn't bring very much light into the story for me.
Applix Anywhere is *not* an all-Java
implementation of Applixware, it is a Java
front end that remotes the user interface.
You still need a backend machine to really
run the app.
It's been around for a *long* while. Applix
marketing people seem asleep.
NB: I've never used it.
BTW: Applix has open-sourced their underlying
implementation language ELF. See
http://www.applixware.org
-- cary
(happy applixware user. See
http://www.radix.net/~cobrien/applix
if you want applix to talk to postgresql)
Look busy.
Christianity is often a target for satire (and worse) because it is the dominant religion in the western world and because those of us who are not Christians are often on the receiving end of bigotry with much more severe consequences than being made fun of in a cartoon. Everyone knows that not all Christians are members of the Religious Reich, but it's still a lot easier for you to live in countries like the U.S. and be open about your beliefs.
You said: I don't go around calling you a "fornicating, left-wing, drug-loving, peace-freak pagan" because you don't believe as I do. You say that as if it's an insult. Well, I'm definitely not 'drug-loving' but I am a pagan (Celtic Reconstructionist Druidism, to be precise). Nobody in my workplace knows this. Religious discrimination is illegal but very hard to prove. Nobody in my community knows this. Pagans practicing their religion openly tend to draw the attention of Christians who want to convert them or make a spectacle of them.
A few weeks ago I went to a festival to celebrate the summer solstice. While Christian religious activities are usually advertised far and wide to draw people in, this event was not publicized at all outside of the pagan community and participants (who came from across the U.S.) were urged not to tell anyone in the press or any of the area's residents about it. With all the secrecy, it sounds like we were up to no good, doesn't it? But we weren't. We just wanted to quietly practice our religion without a bunch of Bible-thumpers making a mess of it, without anyone winding up on TV and being "outed" to their bigot boss or neighbor. Most of all, we wanted to be able to go an entire day without hearing something about Christianity!
And that's the part that tends to annoy non-Christians the most about Christianity. You can't get away from it. It's in our national holidays, it's in our legal system (swearing an oath on the Bible), it's on network TV ("This week on Touched by an Angel..."), it's on the news ("Today the Christian Coalition announced..."), in politics (Presidential candidates are always getting into dicksize wars over who's more of a church-goer), and at work (daily conversation, office Christmas parties).
This is a fact of life that most of us are willing to deal with, but then you have the nerve to get your panties in a bind whenever we make fun of you. Well just deal with it! It's the price of being the dominant religion! If druidism was the dominant religion then the South Park movie probably would have had Saddam Hussein having gay sex with Balor, and Lugh would have a call-in show on public access TV, and I can't imagine what would be done with the Goddesses! The Morrigan (triune war goddess(es)) in all-girl SM action? I wouldn't put it past the South Park guys. Jeesh, even I can make fun of my own religion, but I believe that the Gods and Goddesses have a sense of humor (even the Morrigan, though I wouldn't push my luck with Her/Them). Maybe that's your problem. Until Christians learn to make fun of their own religion, others will have to make fun of it for you.
Finally, I want to say that Christians have a lot of nerve claiming to be the victims of religious bigotry when you can openly wear your crosses but I have to conceal my triskele to avoid questions that could lead to me losing my job, and Wiccans can forget about wearing their pentacles because Christians are taught that the pentacle is a symbol of evil. So somebody made fun of you in a movie. Big fscking deal. So maybe you all tend to get lumped in with your more fanatical sects. Well, I don't see many moderate Christians going out of their way to stand up for non-Christians who have to endure the Religious Reich's abuse, and I don't believe the fanatics would have gotten as far as they have without tacit support, or at least a willingness to look the other way, from the majority of the Christian population.
how wonderful. yet another thing that used to mean something will be degraded, with its own website, its own merchandise, and its own video game (came out already). The modern world has lost all meaning. Clearly the only thing left to do is to die in whatever way seems best.
...burn, hang, torure, mutilate, etc. the sinner.
I've said before, I'll say it again, there has been more violence done in the name of religion than any other cause.
Religion in and of itself (with a few exceptions) is not bad. It is what a few nut cases do using religion as an excuse.
Thank you Zappo. Just thank you. It's amazing how people get so caught up in their own little world with no idea of what's really going on around them. It's not the religious preference that urks me, it's the blatant hypocrisy. It's the blatant, SCREAMING hypocrisy. The people who profess the beauty of god's creation (humans) are so quick to refer to the human body as vulgar. WHAT??? God's creation is vulgar? that seems to me to be a bit of heresey right there. And sex. Sex is one of the most beautiful unions between two people and in the case of the church's endorsed hetero option, is the method of one of our most sacred (and holy) rights: procreation. yet sex is some sort of dirty, vulgar act that must be hidden from people's eyes and ears. amazing. How do these people live with themselves?
These people are not to be hated, and certainly do not deserve bigotry (as bigoted as they are themselves) as they are mostly harmless sources of entertainment that kept us amused on our college campuses and now via the web. I say mostly harmless because we shouldn't forget the power of brainwashing and the deep political influence their rich, white (and often quite dirty) heritage bestows upon them. The moral majority in this country provides us with a sense of perspective with which to view the spectrum and a warning of the dangers of fascism.
Dave-O
>Some of my co-workers thought the movie to be hilarious -- and have lost quite a bit of my respect because of it.
I'm sure that just makes a tear run down their leg...
Well, if you're that big a nerd, check out MERP: Middle-Earth Role Playing game. Can't much nerdlier than that. My friends and I played that a lot in high school. It may not be the best system, but it's fun to be able to use all that middle-earth stuff (they have a book which lists stats on the valar and maiar, for example.) Check it out: www.ironcrown.com. I'm still trying to get through the Silmarillion this summer (I've been trying to read it for about three years.) Heh. I still remeber "naur an edraith ammen" after reading _Lord_ four years ago.
I reject "salvation" because (a) it doesn't exist and (b) the fundamental tenets of all versions of Christianity go against my moral beliefs.
As for the other benefits of religion -- yes, it gives people hope. But is hope still a good thing when it's false? I mean, probably some of the happiest people in the world are insane, but I don't advocate that as a solution to problems. Sometimes it doesn't seem to me that religion is much better.
I'd rather believe something that's true, even if it makes me miserable, over something false that makes me feel good. Which is why I reject religion. My idea of hopeless despair is finding out that the Christian God really is running things; if I'm going to worship a god I don't want it to be an evil one.
I agree.
Atheism doesn't operate on faith. No atheist accepts as an article of faith that gods don't exist. They simply will tell you that they haven't seen any credible evidence for it.
I guess he prefers sexually-repressed, fascist, teetolating, warmongers (?)
To each their own I guess...
I think that slashdot readers should be more tolerant to that section of the community whose deeply held beliefs are mocked by this film.
And that would be... everybody?
I think it's funny how Christians, the dominant religion in the western world, act like they're persecuted everywhere they go. I bet you're an oppressed white male, too!
Sorry, in a country where a Presidential candidate (George "Dubya" Bush) can say that God doesn't hear the prayers of Jews and that Wicca isn't a "real" religion and nobody so much as flinches, it's pretty hard for us non-Christians to give a rat's ass about your beliefs being mocked by a low budget cartoon.
It wasn't very good, even by the standards of early fantasy... It certainly can't be compared to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.
Checkout the south park christian review, and then go down to the bottom left corner.. Gods Counter!!
That has to be the funniest thing I have seen on the web for at least a week. The picture of microsoft in 1978 was funnier, but that wasnt on the web, it was emailed to me. (All bearded hippies except for one twat who looks 13... can you guess which one?)
I find the extremely aggressive attitude of the /. crowd towards religion disturbing. Is it really necessary that we all have to slander and defame Christians? Whether you agree with Christianity (and most other religions, which would also agree with the religious sentiment towards SP) or not, you should all exhibit the maturity to try to understand other peoples' points of view. Biblically, the review is correct in their assessment of the movie. It is a horrible affront to those with Christian morals. I've heard people try to slander this reviewer by saying that it's ridiculous that he watched the movie enough times to gather statistics, but is that not how a *review* is done? This "CAP" is trying to provide a Christian perspective of cultural events. The most common thing I've heard so far is that these people are somehow guilty of "telling people what to think" but are we not doing the same thing by telling CAP what to think..that they should disregard what they think is fundamentally *right*? *Everyone* has opinions. CAP did not email each of you personally with this review. You went there yourselves. People so far, on this forum, have called for the site to be cracked and defamed, accused southern baptists of incest, and other such things. Friends, this is sad. This doesn't convey the image of /.ers as being "free thinkers" but instead, "adolescent thinker"
CAP is very proud of their "objective" scoring system. Let's see...
CAP review, Ride A Wild Pony (1976), final score: 87
Basically CAP liked the movie, but took off points for "examples of impunity" such as:
a minor child spending the night on the ground at the police impound to be with the pony
These CAP folks are tough. I bet they'd take off twenty points just for cussing! Here's another review...
CAP review, The Apostle (1998), final score: 89
Review excerpts:
"There was adultery (between the preacher's wife and a youth minister) and a baseball bat murder (by the preacher)..."
"This is the kind of high [positive] influence movie we need! While little tykes will not likely be able to connect with the movie, late pre-teens and up should understand it well"
Why is it a high positive influence movie, you ask? Not because of the murder of course, but because the preacher is a holy-ghost filled man! (but you knew that)
Question: If pre-teens should (according to CAP) go to see a movie featuring adultery and murder, then why should they avoid South Park at all costs?
Answer: If you can make fun of religion, then by golly, you just might start thinking for yourself!
I am a pagan. If the worst I ever had to face because of my religious views was being made fun of in a movie and taking flack on slashdot, I'd be a pretty happy camper. Instead, I have to hide my religious beliefs or risk losing my job and being harrassed by Christians. Yes, Christians. I'm tired of this excuse of "Well, they're not real Christians." They call themselves Christians, they're part of organizations that call themselves Christians, they carry around Christian symbols, and they're the first thing I think of when somebody says the word "Christian" to me. As far as I'm concerned, they're Christians.
Maybe most Christians do not engage in this sort of behavior, but I do not see many of them trying to put a stop to it.
I agree that many people on slashdot are somewhat contemptuous of religion in general but when the religion they've probably had the most contact with is Christianity it really isn't that surprising. Look at the behavior of most people publicly calling themselves Christians. How could anyone not have contempt for that?
If you consider yourself a Christian and yet you don't agree with the extreme intolerance and hate preached by others who call themselves Christian then I regret to inform you that the name of your religion and its symbols have been appropriated by these people, and you need to either fight to get them back or you need to pick another name for what you believe.
I judge people by their actions, and no matter how much you say otherwise, to sit there and let people use the name of Christianity to persecute others tells me that you support such persecution. In other words, if you don't like what's being done in your religion's name then maybe you should get off your butt and do something about it instead of blaming the victims.
What I am reading in the posts on /. are less than respectfull of my own beleifs. I am a member of a Church that has a history of TWO THOUSAND YEARS.
I want to speak to that comment, and then hopefully I can leave this religion thread alone and get some work done. I am a member of a religion that has been on the brink of extinction for nearly TWO THOUSAND YEARS because your church burned our texts, banned our beliefs, and burned anyone at the stake who tried to revive them.
We have lost so much. We don't even have an unbroken tradition; your church was very thorough at times. You have taken the crusades straight into the 20th century with missionary work that, while doing some good in part, is primarily directed at stamping out the indigineous beliefs of native people around the world. Part of my religion is that all gods of all people are real and worthy of respect. Your church, to this very day, continues to carry on in a manner that is more offensive to me than any potty-mouthed cartoon or slashdot post ever could be.
Maybe your TWO THOUSAND YEAR old Church can't make Padraig un-burn the books of the Druids, but at the very least you owe us an apology (I hear that the Vatican is actually considering it--that would be a step in the right direction!), and you definitely owe the world a cease and desist of your "missionary" (i.e., convert and we won't just sit by and let you die) work.
Anyhow, you'll have to forgive some of us (you should be good at that) if we're a little less respectful of your beliefs than you think we should be. Forgiveness and turning the other cheek are part of your religion, but they're not part of mine. Forgiveness is earned. I'm not asking you to discard your beliefs, but you can't ask me to ignore history. You can't ask me to ignore current events, either, and if you think the United States has religious freedom I invite you to walk a mile in the shoes of a non-Christian. I couldn't even get married in a court house without the JotP bringing up God.
Oh, and TWO THOUSAND YEARS does not impress me. The Indo-European paganism that your Church displaced had a far longer and richer history, and even among the major world religions you're only older than Islam.
Every time someone sees an angel in the Bible they have one reaction... they are scared out of their boots. Usually the first thing an angel says when they appear is ``be not afraid...''
As to the movie, yes, it's offensive. This article is trying to point itself towards christian parents of 8-10 year olds who are begging to go see it. Not to the typical (16-25 year old male) slashdot reader. 8-10 year olds don't need to see this kind of movie; people who know right and wrong and understand satire and can handle the offensiveness of the movie are (usually) Ok.
That being said, would your parents want to see this movie? Especially with you when you were between the ages of 8 and 10? I know mine wouldn't...
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Sure it is... it's covered in that ``free speech part...'' I'm not saying it's a good thing to do, but it is within their rights.
Anyway, you're right. You probably won't find God listening to CAP alerts. Scriptures can certainly help you, though. And it's not everyone else who deserves hell. It's everyone period.
But who is this CAP alert designed for?
It's designed for the typical christian parent who maybe doesn't watch too much TV (maybe no cable...) and who has little kids that want to go see this movie. The parent doesn't know much about the movie. Obviously this little kid shouldn't see the movie.
This is NOT designed for the typical slashdot reader (16-25 year old male).
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
For what it's worth, the crusades are solidly in the distant past of the church. NO evangelical Christians today would suggest that the crusades were ever a good thing. Christianity (mainly Catholicism) has been a state religion for a long time, and most of their beliefs are just symbolism and ritual. I highly doubt anyone involved in the crusades really cared about being like Jesus.
Following Jesus is not a set of rituals - it's a real relationship! What most people see as the Church (at least in history) has NOTHING to do with that!
In those days, the Church wasn't that bad.
It was only during the Inquisition that Christianity and its variants started "going south".
Once the Church had established itself enough to be able to pick up the mess left by the end of the Roman Empire, it became a political tool, and it was inevitable that it became perverted over the following centuries.
History has a lot to offer.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I noticed something the Moral Majority left out of their analysis. The major plot point of the South Park movie was demonizing the Moral Majority. Normally they are quick to classify any criticism as evil in itself, whereas they dwelled on the overt language, sexual, and violent elements in the movie.
I didn't agree with them on one point. They make many references to casting Jesus as the part of the female anatomy, but I never made that assumption. Is Jesus the only wise sage you can seek out in the world?
I read the internet for the articles.
Who cares? As I said when I submitted this article a few days ago (Gee, thanx Taco):
:).
They have a right to their opinion. Just as we have a right to laugh at their opinion
OK, let's read through our history books...
:))
Jesus preached love, peace, non-violence and helping your fellow man. So what have Christians done over the years?
War on those that didn't agree with them (and even on some groups that did); genocide; slavery; spread intolerance; destroyed ancient texts (especially in the New World); kept countless groups in subjugation (mostly by preaching that suffering in this world is ok...you'll get your reward after you're dead); and forced conversions by swordpoint and gunpoint; etc. etc. etc....
Oh, and one more thing...the movie also made fun of Jews, Muslims, Satanists *and* atheists. Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, you know.
My view of the movie? Don't take your kids to see it. Don't see it yourself if South Park offends you. But as for me, I've seen it 3 times (once after reading the Christian page on it) and will probably see it one more time (need to get a few more quotes straight).
"That movie has warped my fragile little mind" -- Eric T. Cartman (think he's in on the Eric rule?
Posted by OGL:
> Linux is revolutionizing the information
> technology (IT) universe just like the early
> Church changed the Roman Empire in the first
> century AD.
It's amazing the different types of parallel's people will draw based on their backgrounds...I'm glad to see at least that using Linux isn't a sin.
-W.W.
I think that if your beliefs can't stand up to a bit of mocking, then they might not be as worthy as you think. Since nobody is making them go see the movie, I don't see how their beliefs are really being mocked anyway. Sure, behind their backs maybe, but then the people who wrote the review are not at all respectful of other people's beliefs either. They are as convinced as anyone that their way is the One True Way. Everyone else is damned to hell.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It's designed for the typical christian parent who maybe doesn't watch too much TV (maybe no cable...) and who has little kids that want to go see this movie. The parent doesn't know much about the movie. Obviously this little kid shouldn't see the movie.
What about parents of older children who could benefit from this movie? The review makes it sound like buying a ticket to this movie is the same as buying a ticket to hell. They don't even consider any of the good things in the film. The CAP rating is completely negative. Of course, groups like this probably wouldn't agree with many of the things I consider to be good in this movie. They don't seem to want to hear anything that doesn't profess that gays are bad, parents are always right, the media is to blame for the country's problems, etc. I guess when you look at it that way, their ratings make sense.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think it's rather ironic how people are tolerant to most everything - except intolerance.
The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I don't have a problem tolerating someone else's religion, but if that person refuses to tolerate mine and harrasses or threatens me because of it, then I don't see any way that that can be tolerated.
Why should someone else care that I don't believe the same thing as him? It sounds like a big case of insecurity to me. They want everyone to believe the same as they do so that we're all in the same boat. If it turns out that they're wrong, they don't want anyone else to be right. Misery loves company.
Again, for a society that tries really hard to be non-judgmental, being hostile to those who _are_ judgmental is still wrong.
Wrong? Maybe. Unavoidable? Probably. You simply can't be non-judgemental about a group that passes judgement on you and tries to make you do things their way. The christian groups around the country constantly lobby for things that will make people do things their way by preventing us from doing things that they don't like. You can't force religion or morality on someone. Maybe someday they'll understand that.
I mean, what's the use of believing in a religion if you're not going to take it seriously? How useless is that?
You can take your religion seriously while still retaining an open mind. Just because you're a Christian, doesn't mean you have to shut out everything that doesn't agree 100% with you. No religion has been proven to be true. That's the reason it's called faith. Is your faith so week that it can't stand up to a challenge? Is it so shaky that it can be toppled by a movie? Many of the things we do on faith don't make sense to us. We do it because a book says we should and we happen to believe that that book is the word of our god. It can be funny to step back and look at our faith and the things that we do because of it. It doesn't mean our faith is wrong, but it can sometimes point out things that we may want to look into to make sure we are truly doing the right thing. We don't always have a perfect understanding of things and unfortunately this can be exploited by those who would use our faith to further their own agendas. There are a lot of personal decisions involved that can't be made for you by your church.
Assuming that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, finding God through the Bible doesn't really seem to me like inappropriate conclusion.
If you make that assumption, then I guess it's ok. I don't know exactly why you would make that assumption though. I don't think I'll ever understand why the Bible exists if it is truly God's word. If God wanted us to know his word, then we wouldn't have to deal with bad translations or selective translations. We wouldn't have to deal with a book at all. He could simply have included the true word in our minds in a way we could understand. That would have solved a lot of problems I think. Maybe prevented a bunch of wars and countless senseless deaths. I guess we just have to keep taking for granted that we can't possibly understand God's reasons.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
and that angels are likely more respectable and wholesome since they are representatives appointed by the Holy Father."
You mean like how the ultimate embodiment of evil, Satan, was appointed by God? Sure, he got tossed out, but that only tells us that God has his limits. If an angel can be that evil, why couldn't some others be less than 100% purely respectable? Michael was far from evil. He just had a bit of a hygiene problem and was a tad eccentric in some ways.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"I challenge you to keep matters of unholiness out of the next one, which I hope you will make. See if you can make a CAP score of 100 in the Offense to God Investigation Area."
Yeah. I'm sure Lucas is terribly worried about the CAP score his movies get. :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If there were children in the theater, they should not have been there without their parents. That is a separate problem, and one that was recently addressed when the theater owners stated that they would begin enforcing the ratings rules more strictly. I have seen evidence of this. They were carding people at a theater I went to last weekend.
It does seem to be a very unfair and dishonest review though. It does not mention any of the good messages that were in the movie. Perhaps this is because the reviewer doesn't agree with those messages. Tolerance and accountability are not high on the christian extremists' list of Good Things.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
n/t
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, it made fun of Hinduism too. Remember, Ghandi was one of the faces in Hell.
Actually, I think that might have been a poke at Christianity. Note that despite whatever good Ghandi had done in his life, he wasn't a Christian, so he's in hell. The point being that God/Christians won't tolerate those who are not Christian, even if they are good people.
As I said in an earlier post though, I don't think they are really making fun of Christianity or any other religion. They are making fun of ignorance, self-righteousness, and intolerance.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The only thing the movie really makes fun of is intolerence.
This is mostly true. I think it also makes fun of the ignorance that causes bigotry and intolerance too. You can almost feel sorry for Cartman's ignorance. It's a reflection of his upbringing though. There were plenty of other ignorant people who were made fun of in the movie. I've only seen it once, but I plan to go see it again. I'm sure I missed some stuff.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Well, I too think Palms a bit too overpriced. Howerver I got an IBM c3 (Palm V) for $320 at outpostauctions.com, so it might be worthwhile to watch places like that...
(I really wanted IIIx, but couldn't resist to bid on the V when I saw it)
Jón
Well you know what? South Park did its job if it pisses off folks not unlike yourself. :) Seriously though, if you don't see the humor of the show (or know the show even) of course this is going to trip your trigger. But let me reassure you that this is very funny stuff. Trust me. Jesus is very funny in the show even though he should have kicked Santa Clause's ass in an actual episode.
They say "Microsoft" 131 times? No wonder they claim the movie is "straight from the smoking pits of Hell."
What on earth are they thinking?
They'll massacre it, I mean christ, they were trying to get Sean Connery for Gandalf!
Deleted
These people think that "101 Dalmations" should be R-rated. Do you really expect us to take them seriously?
Regards, Ralph.
Since this is /., a better question might be why didn't you like it? What I dislike is all the flowery descriptions, like Galadriel with the harp, playing her sad and sweet tunes (blah blah blah). I guess I don't like most of the songs either; I tend to skip em. But other than that, the books are the best adventure stories written.
Come to think of it, David Brin should love them too, since they show the triumph of the commoner (common for a hobbit that is).
...he may be a talented actor and all but I'm disapointed they couldn't spend a little more time and find a real midget (or whatever they prefer to be called these days), like was done for Willow, because it looks more realistic and I'm sure there are some talented, diminutive actors out there who could use the role (and would better suit it).
This makes me cautious about the movie. If Jackson messes this up, then it will be the greatest movie disapointment for me of all time.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
I'm sorry, but let me clear up some points dealt with in that article you linked to.
First of all, Middle Earth *should* seem familiar to us...it's supposed to be prehistoric Europe!
Second, anyone who challenges Tolkien's ability to write is a boob. Tolkien was an accomplished linguist, a student of the English language and mythology (he is the interpreter of Sir Gawain and the Green Night from Old English, many of the Rorrihim names in LOTR are in Old English). Of course his language uses archaic forms!
And the way Tolkien downplays many of the more "fantastic" aspects of the story is a great style, IMO. It allows the world to blend together comfortably, like the Ted Nasmith paintings depicting it. Any AD&D book can give you vivid discriptions of the wonderful golden dragon; Tolkien makes you think that it's real. And as for being down to earth, Tolkien is nothing of the sort; his writing is fantastical in its best-- if you want extensive descriptions of the mundane, read Raymond Feist (whom I also enjoy). I admit that LOTR is not all that fast-moving, but one's displeasement with this is more a testament to their attention span than the author's skill. Tolkien was writing an epic, not a serial, and so he had the time and space to stretch his arms out and build an entire world.
About the only good point the article made was that Tolkien and Le Guin have different styles of writing. I read the Wizard of Earthsea and liked it, but for different reasons. Anyone who demands conformance to one style is limiting themselves.
Of course, if Tolkien's writing style is not one you enjoy then feel free not to read it; but to imply that he is not talented? Well ask yourself where your writings will be 100 years later and where will Tolkien's be?
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
Y'know, the one with Hemos. Love It!
fish and pipes
South Park was designed, in part, to point out that while a movie may have a corrupting influence on some people, it's far better to work to create an environment in which people can resist this corruption than to attempt to eliminate anything that may corrupt.
In the movie, the reactions of the kids who see it sparks a war with Canada, because it's felt to be better to go to war than to raise one's children.
In a genius stroke of execution, the South Park movie itself seems to have been intended to act as the movie within the movie, to either impart that moral to us, or perhaps engender a war with Canada. I'm a bit partial to the war myself (those lousy Quebecois...) but I'm digressing.
South Park makes fun of religions for two reasons, really. The first is legitimate comedic effect. After all there are some very bizzare things done in the name of religions everywhere. Unless you're actually involved in a particular religion, these sorts of things are probably pretty evident. However, there is not a lot of this in the South Park movie. A better example would be from the TV show. There, Jesus has a public access cable call-in show. This is funny, I think, because if Jesus actually were to do this, he would get a lot of stupid questions on the one hand, and be denounced as not really being Jesus on the other (although this doesn't happen, AFAIK; everyone knows he really is Jesus). In one episode, during a football game, one character prays to Jesus for the home team to win. Jesus, sitting nearby in the bleachers, says 'Stop bothering me.'
The second reason is again related to deliberately offending people to drive the point home. Christianity is made fun of a bit, but organized religion is a better target. After all, few people have any problem with *Jesus*, they have a problem with people who claim to be acting in Jesus' name. The CAP people fill this role quite well. Judaism is mostly made fun of from the standpoint of a bigot, which really serves to make fun of the bigot.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No, an atheist takes it on faith that there are no gods. An agnostic is undecided, generally due to the lack of evidence. And I wonder how many agnostics are familiar with Pascal's wager?
Don't take this as a knock against religions or the lack therof. I bounce all over that landscape like a pinball.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
"MetaTrust security enabled"?
Doesn't sound promising, although the RIAA twits went off on an odd tangent trying to make Rio-like devices writeonly storage. There are already consumer products that can store the same amount of MP3s, that cost a fraction as much, are as easily transportable, fit in a shirt pocket and have very low battery requirements -- they're called "removable media." Sheesh.
(how does one moderate a quickies forum?)On the whole I agree with you, except for one thing: what was so tasteless about the Simpsons?
(Note that I said *was* as I'm not going to attempt to defend the poor excuses for episodes created in the last two years)
I think it was initially promoted as having a style of comedy more akin to Southpark and Bevis and Butthead - popping in swear words at every opportunity, etc. However, this didn't continue for very long... even by the second season the show had evolved to using some of the highest-level comedy I've ever seen. It makes fun of life in general, and I can't see how that can be considered "tasteless".
You know, this is the country of Freedom of Religion. That means anybody in this country can practice any religion, parody any religion, or choose not to have any religion at all. And nobody has a right to denegrate anybody's religion, or lack thereof. If people disagree with somebody's religious viewpoints - fine. Saying you're right and everybody else is wrong and will be eternally damned if you don't believe them is not. I happen to take great pleasure in any group that takes itself just alittle too seriously - and this CAP warning definately fits the bill nicely.
Combining pseudo-science and mock-seriousness just about had me floored in fits of laughter. What's even better is the idea that merely watching a movie will earn you eternal damnation. Most religious groups that take themselves this seriously wind up on 60 minutes, or the evening news along with the latest FBI embarassement.
But since I know nothing less than a philosophical debate will satisfy things to certain people, I offer this brief insight into the world of theology - it is my opinion that finding God is a personal experience, and not one you can find simply reading scripture. CAP alerts, speeches about eternal damnation, and the latest Rush Limbaugh episode will not find you God. Only you can find Him, and only if you want to.
--
Applix Anyware, the all-Java port of Applix's butt-ugly Unix office suite, has been around for some 3 years now. I remember trying the demo back in '96.
It was pretty nifty and quite usable, if predictably sluggish and butt-ugly. Now, what with the much faster JVMs and much faster CPUs we have nowadays, I'd imagine it's pretty snappy and makes an interesting solution for shops that want to deploy thin clients. But I'll bet it's also still butt-ugly.
It's no New Beetle or anything, but the new Rio looks pleasant enough. The clear ones look a lot like a Gameboy Pocket, IMHO not a bad industrial design to crib from as far as such things go.
She knows what she's doing, I'm there everyday. Good quality stuff. I wonder if she talks to any of the people she spoofs. :)
South Park 2: From The Smoking Pits of Hell
Don't you just love it when the ultra conservatives give you a helping hand with marketing?
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
>It isn't a kid's show! Does animation==kid's show still prevail?
'Fraid so.
>Do you think the Christian folks reading this stuff would let their kids see the TV episodes of South Park?
"Avert your eyes, children! He may assume other forms!" Personally, I can't wait to go see it this weekend. Woo-hoo!
Meow
Windows is the Acme of computing -- in the Wile E. Coyote sense.
what does southpark have to do with "News for nerds, stuff that matters"
Besides the bit about Bill Gates getting killed in the movie.(That's what I heard, I wouldnt waste my money on southpark).
Bill Clinton is a liberal.
Bill Clinton bombed, sent troops to Kosovo.
Bill Clinton is a warmonger.
Damn, they deserve it too... I hate Christians like that, think they can change the world with their morality lessons. I mean, no offense to Christians or Christianity in a whole, but being pushy gets you nowhere.
....... INCREDIBLY dangerous." as if he were saying "Satan will take you if you watch this movie!"
In this case, this person OBVIOUSLY has wayyy too much time on their hands to have 1. watched that movie so many times that he actually COUNTED how many times they swore in it, 2. took notes, and 3. wrote an entire review up on it saying that it is "*South Park* is an *incredibly dangerous* movie for those who do not understand or are developing an understanding of the Gospel
BTW, for the record, my favorite part of the review is the "A child was graphically incinerated by igniting his anal wind..." ANAL WIND?!?! Can't this guy even say fart? I mean, hell the word has been around what, a few hundred years? You'd think it'd be ok to call it a fart according to the religious rules by now.
8Complex
I am a Christian, one with a Bible & Religion minor, at that. From this perspective, I feel safe in saying that the CAP website is flawed from both a spiritual and theological perspective.
First off, this guy is on his spiritual high horse, acting in a pharisaical manner. From a Christian perspective, the old law is dead, because to live by the law is to live in sin. This guy is a prime example of this. By making a livelihood of 'exposing the immoralities' of today's culture, he is searching out, perhaps misinterpreting every little instance of anything that could be considered 'immoral'. But in doing so, he is both immersing himself in it, as well as spending so much time nitpicking that he's forgetting the true meaning of the word. That's exactly what Jesus meant when he talked of the pharisees straining flies and letting through camels.
You've stated that "his "CAP" is trying to provide a Christian perspective of cultural events." This is false. For a prime example, read his review of You've Got Mail and/or 101 Dalmations . In the former, he warns about a man sitting on a woman's bed with her in it (both unmarried)"; in the latter, he states that "we cannot permit elevatation of the dog to human status". Regardless of one's belief in the morality/immorality of either action, it becomes quite obvious that his obsession with finding faults has surpassed his interest in finding and sharing the truth; he is not coming from a Christian perspective.
Furthermore, a perusal of this guy's reviews shows he is speaking from a truly dualist perspective, which is theologically incorrect. The battle of 'good vs. evil', in a cosmological sense, is unbiblical. From a Christian perspective, Evil is not a 'substance' that exists where Good is not, rather it is a virus, a scavenger that exists upon Good. It is a perversion of good; it can't exist on its own.
This said, everything I've read at CAP leads me to believe that this guy is under the impression that if something is not outright Christian, then it is evil. Thus, CAP is theologically incorrect in that perspective. In addition, this assumption that everything non-Christian is evil, puts it at odds with the realisation that everything is ultimately God's creation.
In the end, the CAP Reports are spiritually and theologically flawed. While the guy might have good intentions, to sit and seek out the faults only results in a failure to ultimately understand what Christianity is -- while at the same time, gives the world a false impression of the same thing.
I'm excited about the Lord of the Rings movie. I just finished reading (and almost understanding) The Silmarillion (Kind of the Episode 1 for LOTR) And I'm hungering for more Middle Earth entertainment.
Oh my God, I AM a nerd...
FinkPloyd
a comic strip where certain frames are animated GIFs is an interesting idea. Even if there's nothing else to say about the strip, it's technically creative.
It's nice when web pages manage to make enough of their medium that they artistically become something more than just a digital approximation of something that ought to be printed on a sheet of paper.
http://www.superbad.com
http://www.radiohead.co.uk
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I don't hate religion, but bigots who fight as hard as they can to avoid thinking about *gasp* the flip side of the coin really drive me nuts.
These CAP movie reviews are a perfect example. I know plenty of good, nice people that are active in christian churches, but I can have conversations with them about things that Catholic doctrine isn't 100% behind. In fact, this whole movie review thing seems like a generally good idea to me - a bunch of people with similiar values have a site they can go to for info on what movies they would probably like to see, and which to avoid.
But I'm sorry, the implementation of this concept is just plain awful. The reviewer's method apparently involves going to the movie with a form to fill out. It probably has "W I S D O M" written across the top (an acronym representing the different types of offenses used on charts in the reviews, in case you didn't follow the link). And he attempts to write down and categorize each un-christian image/utterance/implication in the movie, and keep careful count of which words are uttered how many times, and by whom, as evidenced byt the south park review. Even after the number hit 3 digits he kept counting. This is very funny to me. Reminds me of a great many pointless assignments I have had in high school.
And all this counting is the meat of the reviews! They have this graph rating system which basically rests on the number and variety of offenses in the movie, and each movie is given a number. The text part of the reviews is mostly "this was said ___ times and this was done __ times".
It's like the guy senses on some level that his beliefs and convictions that he holds dear are being examined, and if they aren't lovingly stroked by the movie he feels threatened. Truthfully, though, I don't think that any kind of messages, warning flags of satire, or any information at all not put front and center in the movies made it past the reviewer's thick skull.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I read several reviews, and these had the funniest, most beautiful irony:
A *deep breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Matilda - didn't even watch the whole thing he was so upset over the challenges to christian values. It's a kid's movie! He sat through many R rated movies! This one, aparently, subtely corrupts kids.
Michael - He's most upset about inaccuracies in what angels can and can't do - "be prepared to quickly explain that angels do not have the power to resurrect anything let alone dogs, that angels are neither born nor do they die, and that angels are likely more respectable and wholesome since they are representatives appointed by the Holy Father."
Pleasantville - "a slam against the wholesomeness and cleanness of the TV series of yesteryear in favor of hedonistic selfness." That one made me laugh for almost a full minute.
Tarzan - Apparently it preaches evolution.
And, saving the absolute best for last:
Star wars (episode I but really the whole series) - Serious concerns in the offense to god arena. He's concerned about Anakin's immaculate conception and especially anything relating to the Force. Blasphemy!!!! But there's more. THis one takes the cake:
"I challenge you to keep matters of unholiness out of the next one, which I hope you will make. See if you can make a CAP score of 100 in the Offense to God Investigation Area."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Right. Keep up the good work but episodes 2 and 3, just take out that one little bit about the Force.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I am a teen that, without his parents really having absolutely any idea at all, has been all around the web. Yeah, that includes all those places kids shouldn't see. When we first got unlimited access, I just went around, clicking absolutely anything that piqued my curiosity, disregarding those stupid "adults only" warnings the way that south park kid did. The porn sites, the anarchist's cookbook and related mailing lists and sites, the warez kiddies, the hate sites, everything. I think I turned out ok.
You know what? I ended up here (meaning Slashdot). My "fragile little mind" just sort of lost interest in those places quickly because they weren't restricted and really didn't have anything interesting to say. I think I'm better off now, as a matter of fact. Having seen hate sites, I now have a pretty good idea of how bigots think, and in any situation I can "try on" their point of view (and debunk it of course). Funny how people think we need to be "protected". I would rather shape my own point of view - I think it came out pretty balanced.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
I just read the CAP review of South Park - quite entertaining in some ways! Of course, I am not exactly sure what they are trying to do ...
..."
... maybe these CAP folks should be targeting something their kids actually might see?
"A child cannot escape being influenced by this useless
Huh? It isn't a kid's show! Does animation==kid's show still prevail? Do you think the Christian folks reading this stuff would let their kids see the TV episodes of South Park?
BTW, I sat through a seminar recently where a psych researcher showed data revealing that there is a higher percentage of violence in kid's shows than in prime-time shows
YS
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender
Aw, hell, this is why I ditched all that nonsense long ago... 8^)
RinkRat
So unless you call standing up for one's beliefs a "vice" or "folly", I have trouble calling the S.P. movie a satire.
Standing up for your beliefs is a good characteristic within a human, but that doesn't validate the beliefs. And that is the key to the movie. People stood up for their belief that slavery was right, that Jews were the cause of the problems, etc etc. I certainly don't think those are valid beliefs.
The movie brutally asks "Is this worth believing in?" (if you've got the brains to see it, children don't). It isn't subtle, it slaps you in the face with topics that are quietly ignored to make life easier. So no, it isn't a sublte satire, rather it is satiric (and uses rather large tools to be so).
You may notice that I have never said it was a "bad" movie. I merely state (and restate and restate) that I don't condone vulgarity, obscenity, and bigotry by paying money to those who continue to serve it up in the media. And that I'm uncomfortable when people bash other people with beliefs different from their own.
I honestly applaud you for standing up for your beliefs, the world needs people willing to do so. Just make sure that those you congradulate are worthy of the congradulations. The CAP review seemed to contain its own bigotry with its emphasis on homosexuality (why oh why is S for Sex/Homosexuality and not just Sex?) As well as this line from (I) a general theme of anarchy, rebellion, and autonomy . A) The USA (where this movie's emphasis lies) was founded in rebellion and B) what's wrong with autonomy?
The merits (or lack thereof) of the USA is not an issue here, but this reviewer and the organization are obviously within the US (Texas) and enjoying the right of Freedom of Speech. So they must at least agree with some of the ideals of the US.
I can respect people for standing up for their beliefs, but I have a much harder time of doing so when those beliefs are themselves suspect.
One final note, I wanna know why this is in (I):
vomiting
*Cameroon
On the VCF page they mention their plans to cluster 64 C64s. I don't suppose we can call this a beowulf since I doubt they can use Linux/PVM/MPI, but still, this has to get the award for most out of control cluster ever. So lets see, 64 C64s will have the blazing speed of a 12 Mhz 286, if your app is extra-parallel. These people are TRUE geeks.
I really hate movie reviews that spoil the plot.
Now that I know Satan is a sensitive dude, and the kids say f**k 131 times, whats left to see?
At least they didn't say if any of the main characters died...
Hail to the Sun God! He is the Fun God! Ra! Ra! Ra!
IMHO, any movie that makes fun of any religion and is as full of crap as described in the Christian site's South Park review is worthy of nothing but contempt. Frankly, I would be ashamed to be even related to anyone who had anything to do with the production of the movie. Some of my co-workers thought the movie to be hilarious -- and have lost quite a bit of my respect because of it.
CmdrTaco found the site to be hilarious, and numerous other posters have taken their free pot-shots at Christianity (which seems to be the target of choice on /. whenever religion is mentioned, doesn't it?) Hence my statement that religious bigotry is alive and well -- because as yet I haven't seen a single post standing up for what I would say are mostly decent people and what they believe.
On second thought, go ahead and get out your flamethrowers.I'm standing up for them now.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I don't agree with everything on the CAP site either (unfairly critical in many reviews, I'd say.)
I'm just getting tired of the Christian bashing, because most of the I know of that call themselves Christians are pretty darn good folks.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Huh? I don't understand what this part of your comment is referring to. Please explain.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Whoever marked it as a troll -- catch a clue!! On /. we have the right to disagree, and his writing was well done. His message got downgraded as a "troll", but it was well written and deserves better treatment.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
A documentary about the Holocaust shows where race or religious bigotry and intolerance can lead, if not checked by (as Abraham Lincoln put it) "the better angels of our nature".
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Yes. And my Jewish friends, and the African Americans, the people from Latin America, and a few others. No, I didn't stand up for the evils perpetrated by the Crusaders, because as far as I can tell, the whole political/religious framework back then was an inextricably combined, corrupt mess that had little to do with Christ's message and everything to do with worldly power and totalitarian control.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
- Great satire does not rely nearly exclusively on obscenity and vulgarity for comedic effect.
- Great satire has an obvious and focused target-- around which the story is focused. From what I've read, the writers of South Park simply chose to be equal opportunity offenders.
- Great satire
- Great satire (2nd webster's definition) involves using trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.
So unless you call standing up for one's beliefs a "vice" or "folly", I have trouble calling the S.P. movie a satire.holds up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn. AFAICT, South park merely parades the vices, and ridicules and scorns anything opposed to those same vices.
A couple of last things: why should I pay even one red cent to the maker's of an offensive movie, when they could have spent the same amount of money making something without the obscenity, vulgarity, etc.? As to my friends, yes, I explained why I wouldn't go, because there isn't much I would consider hilarious. Funny thing is, I didn't blow my credibility -- something about not having to stand in the s--- to smell it and move away, if you catch my drift.
You asked How do you know, without having seen the movie, that it is as bad as the review said it is? You may notice that I have never said it was a "bad" movie. I merely state (and restate and restate) that I don't condone vulgarity, obscenity, and bigotry by paying money to those who continue to serve it up in the media. And that I'm uncomfortable when people bash other people with beliefs different from their own.
Finally, I don't thing that the majority of /. readers or writers are bigots. But if I had stayed silent, I would have been tacitly agreeing with the few that are.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
The Roman Empire went straight down the toilet when it became Christain!
a) What did you like about the Lord of the Rings series?
:-)
Everything?
b) Am I the only one who didn't like Lord Of The Rings?
Probably.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
"No. Apart from being first, its not very good."
I guess that's why it was voted the #1 "favorite
book" in Britain, is a best seller many times
over, and can still stand as one of the very best
books written 50 years later.
"For a detailed critique from someone with more literary background than myself..."
For that one negative critique there are a thousand positive ones.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Actually I thought the original RIO was butt
ugly... these are starting to look good. I mean,
fer chrissakes the old RIO's looked like a rotary
telephone.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I'd find it hard to defend christianity like
this knowing that Jerry Falwell is just as bigoted
towards gays and non-christians.
Just because it's a religion makes it off-limits?
As far as I know, South Park makes fun of
EVERYTHING, not just religion.
And to answer why Christianity is the butt of most
religious jokes on slashdot is quite simple: it's
the most prominent religion in America.
-WW
--
When someone asks you if you believe in God,
which god are they talking about? There are so many.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Looks just like a Gameboy. The translusence reminds me of iMacs as well. Farewell to black?
rooooar
Tolerance is the hallmark of liberal democracy. While I agree that you should be free to go and see this movie - and nobody is stopping you - I think that slashdot readers should be more tolerant to that section of the community whose deeply held beliefs are mocked by this film.
Something is "good" if it can be experienced innumerable times and still seem worthwhile. Linux holds up well under massive usage (I sit at my machine all day); Windows becomes frustrating if it is used excessively. I could still watch Citizen Kane, or Goodfellas, or The Seven Samurai, or The Empire Strikes Back again and love watching them, even though I've seen them all a million times. And I would be happy re-reading Lord of the Rings, or Programming Pearls, or One Hundred Years of Solitude.
On the other hand, I could do without watching The Phantom Menace again -- it was pretty good the first time, but after the second time it really got on my nerves. On this basis, I can say the movie is of low quality.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Go read "The Bad Popes" to discover why the Inquisition wasn't the only bad thing about Catholicism in the Middle Ages.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I remember back in '92 or '93 there was this great program called fractint that would do great looking fractals. Does anyone know of a updated program like that, or a more modern version? I loved playing with that back then, and would love to play with something like that again.
Jesus is a reoccering character in the series, in the film I noticed that he had enlisted in the army and was fighting the canucks,
I guess wo know why canada sucks so much now....
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Check out this review of American pie by those same people.
and this revie of Austen powers, including:
n other scenes of nudity, convenient objects were used to hide his genitalia -- and ONLY his genitalia. Convenient objects used included furniture, a clock, and textblocks of the names of actors/actresses. In one instance a baby's head was used to hide Powers' genitalia -- and yes, the baby was facing Powers, in the same way DiCaprio's head in *Titanic* was used to hide Winslett's genitalia, but the baby's head was much smaller in perspective than DiCaprio's, thus, less was hidden. Though the baby was an animated baby (like the *Dancing Baby*), what pedophilial signal do you suppose was sent by this scene?
and this gem:
This configuration of shadows made it seem that Shagwell was directly behind him. As Shagwell reached in the bag, the shadows made it appear that she was reaching inside Power's colon. As she stretched to reach deeper into the bag, the shadows appeared as if she was slowly shoving her arm into him up to above her elbow. Dr. Larry Burthoft for Focus on the Family claims this act, when done by homosexuals, is called "fisting."
From the review of 'the matrix'
-- *he was resurrected from the dead* -- by a kiss, no less. One character in "The Matrix" mocked our Lord by telling the hero that he was "[His] own personal Jesus Christ." And slowly the movie built the Matrix as having the power and authority of God to create and provide for the people. And at the end of the show the central hero narrated a piece to promote anarchy: "No rules. No boundaries." A most sly movie......sly almost to invisibility about its position regarding the King of kings and Lord of lords, about His Authority, AND about our subservience to it.
From Star Wars episode 1 the phantom menace
"Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" (PG) -- Not one. No, not one single instance of foul language or nudity or sexual activity was noted! And no drugs/alcohol! And not one instance of God's name in vain with or without the four letter expletive! Good job, Lucas! But maybe that is not enough.
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
wow, how childish of me :(
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
wow.... you shouldn't be so hard on the guy, in a lot of places the clit is taboo, he isn't worse then them. you must look at things from a cultrual perspective.
in these places the clit is cut out with out anstiesea when girls reach puberty.
then the vagania is sewn shut untill marage
the idea is that this will prevent women from enjoying sex, and will therefor keep them 'pure'
I'm sure this guy would jump at the chance to see that practice brought to the US.
but we can't juge him on that.
I'm being sarcastic btw.
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
fornicating, left-wing, drug-loving, peace-freak pagan
where's the insult?
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
While looking for particularly bad reviews in the 'CAP' thing, I came acrost this one, of a holocost documentary:
"The Last Days" -- truly! This is NOT a movie for entertainment. It is a documentary about the final days of millions of Jews: the Holocaust! Spielberg of Dreamworks(tm) has amassed miles of film file footage about the Holocaust -- but why? Is there some need for my children or yours to watch nude brutalized and skeletonized humans stumbling about? Why was this movie released to the general public as PG-13 through entertainment movie houses if it was not intended to be seen by children?
um... yes there is
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
MS Windows is THE most commonly used OS.
Amazing Palm Case Pics Posted!
It still doesn't explain much.
Just tought I'd inflame a few of the hate-mongering anti-Christian crowd by pointing out that Tolkien's The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy are (and were clearly intended to be) works of *Christian* literature. This is amply documented in Tolkien's contemporary writings, including his discussions and correspondence with the famous "Inklings" which included notables such as C.S. Lewis (a Christian who was formerly an atheist), and Charles Williams.
Of course, I suppose now we'll have a backlash against Tolkien, now that the cat's out of the bag!
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
"Angels were portrayed as females - nude, very nude"
.. sex is dirty, let's not talk about it.. hide it. Then when they get older they have no idea.
Excellent I saw nothing wrong with that
Hussein waves his disembodied male member around. And it was not a cardboard drawing like most other images of the movie -- it was of photographic resolution.
*GASP!!!* OH NO! Not his disembodied male member.. that's the last thing people need to see (well probably half of the population has one for god's sake). That's just what we need for our kids to learn
LIGHTEN UP! Maybe they need to "Suck my --, "Let's ([homo]sexual intercourse)"
hehe.. "God's Counter" made me laugh my ass of too.
Just two quick questions for people:
:-)
a) What did you like about the Lord of the Rings series?
b) Am I the only one who didn't like Lord Of The Rings?
--------------------------
>IMO, something is a "great work" when enough people say it is.
So if everyone were to forget all about LotR, it would no longer be a great work? So there can be *no* 'lost great works'? Obviously they aren't great *while* they're lost--they aren't anything (except lost). But they *were* great, thus 'great works'. You're thinking too much in the present tense. Maybe you should consider including *everyone* who has experienced the work, not just the living.
And some people would debate the subjectivity of 'greatness'. If it is completely relative, why do so many people agree some things are great? If it is because of cultural or constitutional similarities, then it isn't really subjective, is it? (If you like, consider it this way: is the color blue subjective. Clearly the experience of seeing blue is, but then why do most people see roughly the same color? Subjectivity isn't as subjective as you seem to think.)
>And don't give me that standard elite crap that "the masses are too stupid or uninformed to understand". The masses are what make something "worthy", whether by direct indorsement (ie. LotR), or by deferral to acknowledged experts (ie. Shakespear).
There is a reason why 'popular' and 'worthy' are different words. It isn't because the masses are ignorant, it's because few people are exposed more than a small fraction of literature. Most people would agree that Shakespeare was great playwrite, but how may of them have read on of his plays, let alone seen one? How many North Americans are exposed to the German literature, which boasts poets at least as great as S.? Or African or Asian works? If all Greeks believed that a (untranslated) text was the greatest work of Greek literature, would they be wrong because most people have never read it? If not, if you are allowing that only people who could potentially have read a text can judge it's greatness, then why can there be no great lost works, as only those who could have read them, that is pre-loss, would count? You're arguement seems to suffer the more you ask of it.
People naturally are exposed to more contemporary than historical works. Is Steven King (sp on first name?) a greater writer then Tolkien? Because I can assure you that he is more widely read. The National Enquirer has more readers than most poets and writers of the last few centuries, so is it greater?
BTW, do you see the conflict you created by including "acknowledged experts"? If, as you say, the masses aren't bumbling fools (and I would agree with you here), why do they have experts to tell them if something is good? And why does that count toward somethings greatness if the masses aren't even exposed to it? Is it not the 'expert' who is making it great, via the masses?
>I answer, well, yes, obviously, otherwise, why are they still around?
Did you happen to notice all the complete crap that this statement would confer greatness on? *Everything* published in the last few decades, (in the Western World, anyway) will be arround in 100 years. So is all of that great? Obviously not. These things are still around because thy were saved, and they wee saved for any number of reasons--historical record, or perhaps an archive of just how *bad* some things are.
On to elitism, I believe that some mild 'elitist crap' is considerably more appealing than poorly applied relativism. Things may very well be entirely subjective, but that does not mean that there are no standards or norms, or that great literature is defined by being a best seller.
(PS: I wrote this inside-out, which is why a the same few ideas permeate every section.)
Whoops. I thoroughly destroyed one paragraph there. Here's the corrected version:
Um, you don't see the problem here? Actually, three problems, the first being that the 'majority' rarely get involved (depending on how one interprets 'majority'. The majority of Christians have read the New Testament, the majority of Hindus have not.) Second, there is no way of measuring what people 'think' on any significant scale, except for popularity (and mass polling, which is even worse.). Thirdly, you never said *how* the masses 'vote' for somethings greatness. If you believe it is their opinion that counts, you should have *said* that, instead of something is a "great work" when enough people say it is. How am I to know how they "say" it, other than buy purchasing it (objective measurement).
My browser is slowing spiralling toward death as I type this, so I'll forgoe any more correction until you respond (if you evr do).
I think the CAP did an accurate review of SP-BLU. If you do want to know about the level of vulgarity etc. etc., it's a legitimate way of doing it. I can use this information and make a judgment about the movie myself. However they should keep the moral judgment of the viewer to themselves. God (pick yer favorite) gave us intelligence and independent thought. Hell will freeze over before I let one of his (self-appointed) representatives tell me how to think. That would be squandering these two gifts.
- - -
--
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
Well, all of this is subjective opinion. None of us is capable of rendering a final decision on weather Tolkein is a literature class writer. But as far as I'm concerned this statement is nonsense:
"I'm willing to bet that most of the great works of history have been lost, or aren't remembered by more than a handful of people."
IMO, something is a "great work" when enough people say it is. The value and quality of something is subjective, and so it takes mass opinion to establish something as "worthy". And don't give me that standard elite crap that "the masses are too stupid or uninformed to understand". The masses are what make something "worthy", whether by direct indorsement (ie. LotR), or by deferral to acknowledged experts (ie. Shakespear).
So when you ask "Just because his works will be around in 100 years, does that make them good?", I answer, well, yes, obviously, otherwise, why are they still around?
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
in some circumstances. MS Windows is the most commonly used OS because it has a monopoly and the majority of games and applications are tied to it. ;) ;)
LotR is not an OS with a strangle hold on a cornered market, it's a series of books. You don't need one special book to read all the other books of the same type, unless you count a series
The opinion of the masses DOES make something "worthy", either directly as with popular books, or indirectly through "experts", who's opinion's the public value. Like I said in a lower post, people who say that "people don't appreciate something because they are uninformed, or stupid, or ignorant" are full of shit. If you think something is worth believing in, then stop whining on the sidelines and convince other people that it is too! Educate them, or make them believe in you, and through you the work that you value will be valued by them!
Hey, isn't that how Linux got started?
Rant rant rant...whew, done.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Thankyou for this thoughtfull if lengthy ;) response.
First off, I concede that lost works can have *been* great at one time, when there were individuals alive to consider them that way. But to me (and this is simply personal semantics), they are no longer great. You have to realize that when it comes to anything but concrete physics, I am an extreme relativist.
"And some people would debate the subjectivity of 'greatness'. If it is completely relative, why do so many people agree some things are great? If it is because of cultural or constitutional similarities, then it isn't really subjective, is it? "
Well of course it is! Just because nearly everyone in a group of similar cultures believes something, that doesn't make it so. You will never be able to assure me that nowhere in time or space has there existed or will there exist a culture that does not hold a contrary opinion.
And anyway, can you prove to me physically that something is/was a "great work?" No? Well, then it IS subjective.
"There is a reason why 'popular' and 'worthy' are different words. It isn't because the masses are ignorant, it's because few people are exposed more than a small fraction of literature. Most people would agree that Shakespeare was great playwrite, but how may of them have read on of his plays, let alone seen one? How many North Americans are exposed to the German literature, which boasts poets at least as great as S.?"
Did you read what I said? I said "The masses are what make something worthy, whether by direct indorsement (ie. LotR), or BY DEFERRAL TO ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS (ie. Shakespear)."
That means that if the population hasn't read it, but they endorse an expert which endorses the work, then the population is indirectly indorsing the work.
People naturally are exposed to more contemporary than historical works. Is Steven King (sp on first name?) a greater writer then Tolkien? Because I can assure you that he is more widely read. The National Enquirer has more readers than most poets and writers of the last few centuries, so is it greater?
Where in my article did I say that readership is the factor that determines greatness? It's not readership, but what the majority *THINK* about a particular work. A very small number of people have read Shakespeare as compared to those who have read the Enquirer, but they don't THINK the enquirer is a great work, but they believe Shakespeare's plays ARE.
Anyhoo, you reply was well written, but it distresses me that you didn't seem to READ my STATEMENT, as a lot of your points either coincide with mine or don't address the points that I made.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
That is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time... though it's not intended to be. Read some of the other reviews, as they are even more hilarious...
--"A man's Palm is his best friend."
--"A man's Palm is his best friend."
(IIIx, that is...hehehe)
Either that, or maybe they couldn't decide whether "A child was graphically incinerated by igniting his anal wind" would be considered suicide. And they're complaining about burning bodies in Hell. You just can't please some people.
And you know this person (these people?) laughed at least once. C'mon...at least once. Please?
The fact that the anti-christian posts are getting moderated down makes me wonder about the demographics of the readership of slashdot.
From my own preferences I get the impression that there are a lot more reasonable people on the net than in "real life", but things like this make me wonder.
Were the posts killed for being flaimbait, or were they killed for their anti-Xtian stance?
I don't know but regardless, I am reading at -1 threshold from now on.
+++ ATH0 +++
The South Park movie is designed to offend people. To push buttons. To slaughter sacred cows. As such, we can use the movie to see what our sacred cows are, where our buttons are, and how we might be offended. With this knowledge, we are less likely to be distracted by unproductive emotions which may follow from offense. A condemnation of this movie is in some sense a vote for emotional weakness.
-- $SIGNATURE
Mini Me in Lord of the Rings? Gee, I wonder what he'll be. What's that? A hobbit you say? Him? No.........
I personally think he'll play a different part.
mmmmmmmm my precious.........
-------------------------------------------- Don't hit a man with glasses, use your fist!
It's a funny one this. I almost never swear, I'm put off by swearing (in real life), I'm a Christian. I'm frequently bored by stand up comics who think they can get a laugh by adding a few obscenities to an otherwise dull routine, and depressed to find that often they can.
South Park was the funniest movie I have ever seen.
I guess the issue might be that South Park pokes fun at the Moral Majority. If you're not part of it, and don't take yourself too seriously, then its funny.
Here's another odd thing: Sabrina, Buffy and Daria all feature attractive heroines who feel rejected by the fashionable set. Are they pandering to geek fantasies, or the inadaquacy/rejection thing is far more widespread, with personal significance to the majority of the population? I suspect the latter.
> David Brin should love them too, since they show
... There's little _common_ about TLotR characters. The whole thing reeks of noble birthrights and bloodlines and even downright racism.
...
> the triumph of the commoner
Preface: I love Tolkien's works.
Now
OK, Sam is a commoner, and he is a slow, rustic, hire hand most loyal to his master like any good common lout should be. As for the rest, read on:
1) Frodo is a scion of a wealthy family on his dad's side (Baggins). He is a scion of a noble family on his mother's (Brandybuck). He is related to yet another noble family (Took) on both sides. Merry Brandybuck and Pippin Took are therefore also nobles.
2) Aragorm is a real cool guy because he is the lineal descendent of kings from about 3000 years back. As a descendent of Luthien, he is the noblest of the noble, even by Elf standards.
3) Gimli is a noble dwarf of Durin's brood, a most noble dwarf family.
4) Legolas is the son of Thranduil, who is a noble Elf of Doriath and thus of the same noble ilk as Celeborn.
5) Galadriel is a member of the royal house of Finarfin. She is the grand-daughter of Finwe the King of the Noldor.
6) The men of Gondor encountered by Frito and Spam (sic) were "goodly men": pale skinned and grey eyed.
7) Bad men are usually swart (dark) or sallow or slit eyed: all orclike features.
There's more for Lucas to like than Brin. Maybe that's why Star Wars (New Hope) seems so Tolkienesque in so many ways.
Just ranting for fun, Ta
-MWR-
The fact that South Park scores so 'well' on the CAP scale simply proves that the movie did what it was intended to do, and Mr. CAP fell right into the trap.
Irony isn't dead in America, it's just involuntary.
I think they look pretty good on those piles of bills and gold coins ;-) Well rested.
Nitrozac
Someone posted the url to this review last week sometime in a comment - 'gods counter' was up to about 29,000. This morning it's past 133,000. I'd love to hear what our little christian nutter friends are making of that : )