The last few weeks of the course were the best because it is when they stop giving you ethical models that they punch holes in (utilitarianism, relativisim, etc), and deliver something to actually believe in. Did you show up or drop out?
I'll assume that by "last few weeks of the course", you mean "last semester of 200-level classes", as that would adequately explain your unfamiliarity with analytical marxism and the limits of liberal egalitarianism, not to mention the adherence to utilitarianism evident in the decision making of corporations and governments.
It's funny, though, I can't recall anybody suggesting that I was at school to be delivered something to actually believe in. Another tragic ethical violation in my education and upbringing, apparently. They maintained (insidiously) that the purpose of my instruction was to amass knowledge.
Aha, but Morals are based on Ethics. And Ethics is quite definitive.
Man, I wish somebody had explained that ethics are quite definitive back before I spent all that time taking ethics courses. Apparently, my professors neglected to identify that there is broad agreement over what is and is not ethical, and how to determine an ethical course of action. All their silly talk of utilitarianism, pragmatism, stoicism, normative ethics, descriptive ethical systems, subjectivism, objectivism, altruism, ad nauseum, was really just to rack up the credit hours.
Model Railroad Tour - I have had hundreds of visitors to my layout. Here is a chance to take a short virtual tour.
[Emphasis mine]
And I mean, it's *right there* when you read the page. Couldn't you at least set up a Paypal account or something so that people who visit the site can kick a pity dollar for smalltime, image-heavy, hobbyist sites like this?
Did the guy get a warning, at least? Since the site hasn't buckled, I'm assuming he's bursting his metered bandwidth as I type, and paying an awful lot for the privilege.
Slashdot should at least buy one of his books.
leem
p.s. Totally amazing dedication that this guy has put into the hobby.
Shakespeare wrote virtually all of his plays in blank verse, relying on couplets to really drive home some of the important concepts (not so much end-of-scenes), although there were a few passages with end-rhymes.
Shakespearean sonnets, however, virtually always carry the rhyme scheme: ABABCDCDEFEFGG. His most famous sonnet would be:
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate, Rough winds do shake the darling buds of may, And summer's lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dim'd, And every fair from fair sometime declines, By chance or nature's changing course untrim'd.
But thy eternal summer shall not fade, Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest, Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade, While in eternal lines to time thou growest.
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, So long lives this and gives life to thee.
The beauty of the sonnet lies in the ability to find play within the strictures of it, including the rhyming scheme. Shakespeare was a master of this, as the above indicates -- beyond being a lovely love sonnet, it's also a barb directed towards those who allow the formula of a sonnet to shape a conventional narrative within it.
Actually, you wouldn't be very lucky to get ten feet with your average flashgun.
Consider that most professional photographers will "bounce" their flash to avoid glare when shooting indoors, and that typically the light is bounced off of a surface 5-10 feet away and falls onto a subject an additional 5-10 feet away, just for a typical indoors bounce-off-the-ceiling flash.
I have three flashes for my camera, a head-on one that can do about 25-30 feet without difficulty, an adjustable angled one that can do about 40 feet tops, and a shoddy little one that I have a bunch of filters for that manages about 20 feet easily.
Though I appreciate the Inverse Square Law, you do not necessarily need a tremendous amount of light falling on your subject -- just enough to catch them on the film. Shooting a subject 40 feet away with a powerful flash, and 1600 ISO film, and you should be fine.
American Scientist and Nature, with a little bit of the Skeptical Inquirer and Astronomy will make you wonder why you've bothered with Popular Science since 1990 or so.
Google always seem to be early-to-market with some really highly developed software solutions, and also always seems to have the backbone to support them.
I'm curious -- what drives the innovation? Is it the hardware team advancing architecture to permit the software team more room to play, or is it the software team saying, "Hey, look what we got!" and the hardware team dropping the iron to implement it?
I understand there must be some level of synergy, but is it completely seamless or is one side of the equation effectively driving the other?
Eminem is talented in the same way as Flava Flav. Unfortunately, Eminem is center-stage and not a foil to a much more talented rhyme animal.
He's hooky, jokey, controversial, and pretty fond of swearing. His rhymes are tight. By no means does that elevate him above the hundreds of hip-hop artists who aren't doing that because they're too busy trying new things.
If it weren't for the curiousity of his being white, and furthermore for the controversy stirred up by his sophomoric masturbation-revenge fantasy lyrics, he would be nothing more than a roadside attraction, breaking it down 6th in the lineup to shake the serious out of the crowd.
Maybe I should go into internet journalism and write witty and insightful columns about how everything relates to the Columbine shootings and the alienation of nonconformist high-schoolers... oh, wait. That position's filled.
No, that position is open. The "Internet journalist who writes humorless and insipid columns about how everything relates to the Columbine shootings and alienation of nonconformist high-schoolers", well, that one is open.
The general public has caught on to all this brouhaha about how proprietary, closed environments are bad for business. They can even see how that might be so. Unfortuately, they still have no idea what it means.
In the last six months, there's been a definite upswing in the inclusion of sentences like the one you quoted in marketing literature. Most of the time, it's a complete misnomer.
"Our new workstation comes pre-loaded with Windows XP, Microsoft Office and the Adobe Suite, allowing you to create documents in industry-standard formats and avoid being locked into a proprietary model." Uh, what?
It's sort of like when "portability" was a big thing, and you saw references to it in the literature for virtually every product, even those that were designed to run on very specific hardware/software setups.
This is what happens when capitalism takes it up the ass from marketing. It stops being a battle of the better products and becomes a battle of the better brands.
And there is so much market-space that nobody can really claim to be an authority on everything they will buy. You and I might know something about computers, but I know virtually nothing about refrigerators (I recently bought one and was amazed at the amount of research I had to do!). Sometimes, people just don't have the time or inclination to research a purpose. The marketers target those people with nebulous claims that fall roughly in line with what they've been reading in the Business and IT sections of their newspapers (always the most whorish sections, of course).
Yes, and I understand that. I just point out that Campbell can't be used as a sort of guide to create mythology, or at least that it is no more valid than anything that pops into your head, because all relates back to the simple fact that we're all human beings, down here.
agree with much of what you're saying. Do have reservations about Campbell. Have read Masks. If you would like to discuss further, drop a line, as i'm always interested.
Western and Judeo-Christian influence are not mutually exclusive.
I believe I was pretty careful to note both Judeo-Christian and Western influences -- the myths that permeate modern Western culture are borrowed from the Classical Mythologies as well as the Christian ones.
I may have shorthanded sometimes. Whilst I'm aware that you're almost certainly trolling me, I'll apologize for rendering my point unclear.
My points:
1) Western culture and mythology is influenced largely by Classical and Judeo-Christian mythology.
2) The confluence of Classical and Judeo-Christian myth create common elements in mythologies derived from them.
3) These common elements, when described in broad terms, can be used to describe essentially everything, since the onus is on the interpreter of these myths.
i.e. My walking to the store, struggling to find change, paying an exasperated storekeeper and then going home to have a beer could be interpreted as an archetypical myth under Campbell's definitions.
4) Because of the distinctly Western/Classical/JC influence that crafted Campbell's worldview, and due to the seeming impossibility of creating a confluence of all myth without losing at least some signal to the noise, his "hero" or "world myth" only applies to a very small subset of mythology.
Sorry if this didn't do much by way of clarifying. When I started, it looked like the compile was gonna go.
Nothing that I've read about Campbell in any place other than the masturbatory presses that produce quasi-intellectual asides within E! and People lauds him in any sense for his belief in the World Myth.
His vision was that there was a sort of primal myth, variations on which were the substances of our myth.
He left it open to the god-like powers of the Interpreter-of-Myths (himself in his writings) to cram other myths into his distinctly Western, Judeo-Christianic views. While the "Water-Jar Boy" myth can be made to appear to fit into those characteristics, the actual meaning imparted by it within the group of people who tell it is far removed from Campbell's heavy-handed re-interpretation.
For myths that spring from the Western Classical and are influenced heavily by Judeo-Christianity, his analyses can be held as valid in most permutations of the more popular myths. Though a sufficiently creative interpreter can make them *appear* to, by re-locating them into the Western Sphere of Thought.
A bit dishonest, to say the least, though Campbell himself never seems to have realized this. (Those of his students who emerged beyond the fun-filled days of smoking weed and having deep conversations, however, did. And wrote extensively about it.) This is not to suggest that Campbell's impact is unimportant -- he did a tremendous amount of work in collecting and (occasionally mis-) cataloguing existing myths, and as I mentioned above, his interpretations remain largely valid for a particular subset of mythology.
Anyway, the point being that of course Star Wars fits his vision -- everything does. It's one of those annoying little self-enclosed bits of ignorance. All pulp science fiction fits it, too. Of course, it's all up to who is doing the interpreting!
It is a bit valid, too, for a lot of sci fi -- most of it is heavily influenced by Classical and Christian mythology.
Sorry this post is a bit disjointed, I'm debugging in the other window.
To Summarize: Campbell's system can be made to contain any myth within it; this is due to a flaw in Campbell's system. Star wars can be made to be contained within it. Milking that gave George Lucas some intellectual credibility with the uninformed. It also gave Campbell some recognition (and he did deserve some, make no mistake.), and perpetrated a sort of urban myth about George Lucas toiling by candlelight to reproduce ancient mythologies in space.
Pah.
The examination of Lucas' sources was interesting, but the rest of this article seems to be a bit too vitriolic, and contained absolutely zero in the way of new information or refutation.
He didn't even have the grace to properly explain and debunk Campbell's theories, which I think he should have, because I found his point to wander away from time to time due to a lack of support.
Indeed, Onion2k should be revered as a prophet, fearlessly and faultlessly predicting:
1) The drop in price 2) Roughly when this drop would occur 3) The value of this drop, to within reasonable error. 4) Slashdot's bent on the story regarding the price drop.
I know I'm gonna hang a plastic-moulded replica of him from my rearview mirror.
Yes, I do have a sense of humor. I am familiar with April Fools and the traditional pranking that goes on during April Fools.
Yes, I am familiar with Slashdot. I have witnessed April Fools on Slashdot several times. I know the drill.
Sad as this may be to admit, I use Slashdot to keep tabs on a broad overview of what is happening in a particular substrata of technological society. This is where I get my non-specific little pokes at new Linux packages, attacks (perceived and real) on rights-- particularly of the on-line variety, additional features in existing packages, project forks, appointments in key open-source positions, etc.
Slashdot serves its purpose to me in two ways: It very often posts something that falls into one of the topics I'm interested in, and very often a comment will be added to that post that provides me with some detailed insight. This leads me off on a researching tangent, and I end up a little bit more knowledgeable than I was before. Hooray.
The value of Slashdot lies in its shotgun approach to Journalism (save that it's only loaded with certain memetic shells, with the occasional dud like Katz for speed bumps).
Now, though, on April Fools, I'm looking at the worthless front page -- great prank, guys! It only took 20 minutes to get old, and isn't even as humorous as the much better-executed Suckdot from now-defunct Suck.
I'm also thinking about all the people who mention their stories being rejected, and who link to those stories, and lead me to discover that, hrm, maybe they shouldn't have been.
What I'm getting at here is that the world dosn't stop on April 1st, and I'm amazed that you can just call off on reporting and post not-incredibly-amusing-and-obviously-fake articles to the front page all day. Is this just like a really lame vacation where you have to spend the day at your computer for you guys? Does that suck?
I don't know, one or two posts that were clever, mixed in with real news (stuff that matters) would've been funnier. (if you observed the behaviour of trolls, you'd know that the most successful ones post a somewhat plausible stance to hook the fish, not just random noise).
Are you guys pretty much saying that Slashdot provides so litle value (or is so understaffed) that when given the choice between reporting and playing dumb pranks, that you pick the dumb pranks and can't multitask efficiently enough to do both? That's really kind of pathetic.
A scene at Lothlorien, where Galadriel bestows upon each of the Fellowship a gift which will play an important role later in the Trilogy.
I wonder about that. I was wondering about it during the Fellowship, because there was a reference made earlier in the film towards rope. However, the gift-giving scene never materialized, that I saw.
Now, you mention it as being included. So, how will the Elven Cloaks, the brooches, the rope, and so on factor into the next two theatrical releases? All played important parts -- especially the phial of Galadriel and the box of seeds, one of which defeats quite a nasty monster and the other of which provides for something resembling a happy ending for hobbits.
I couldn't believe this was missing, but just assumed those later instances where the gifts proved useful would be re-written. If it was filmed, though, will that point the way to continuity errors or confusion in the minds of those who only see the theatrical release?
If so, that just seems like shoddy storyboarding and too much of a comfort with the "Well, the real film can go on DVD, anyway".
There's more profit on a DVD than on the purchase of a theater ticket. This seems somewhat dishonest.
I'm not a fish. I'm a man. A Man! I walk upright, on two legs, homo erectus. Did I just say homo? I didn't mean to. I'm not a fish. (fish-face). Where'd that come from? THOROGOOOOD!
Slashdot Mirror
The last few weeks of the course were the best because it is when they stop giving you ethical models that they punch holes in (utilitarianism, relativisim, etc), and deliver something to actually believe in. Did you show up or drop out?
I'll assume that by "last few weeks of the course", you mean "last semester of 200-level classes", as that would adequately explain your unfamiliarity with analytical marxism and the limits of liberal egalitarianism, not to mention the adherence to utilitarianism evident in the decision making of corporations and governments.
It's funny, though, I can't recall anybody suggesting that I was at school to be delivered something to actually believe in. Another tragic ethical violation in my education and upbringing, apparently. They maintained (insidiously) that the purpose of my instruction was to amass knowledge.
Aha, but Morals are based on Ethics. And Ethics is quite definitive.
Man, I wish somebody had explained that ethics are quite definitive back before I spent all that time taking ethics courses. Apparently, my professors neglected to identify that there is broad agreement over what is and is not ethical, and how to determine an ethical course of action. All their silly talk of utilitarianism, pragmatism, stoicism, normative ethics, descriptive ethical systems, subjectivism, objectivism, altruism, ad nauseum, was really just to rack up the credit hours.
Not very ethical of them, I guess.
Worth noting revenue for "Movie Companies" was 64 billion in 2003.
Model Railroad Tour - I have had hundreds of visitors to my layout. Here is a chance to take a short virtual tour.
[Emphasis mine]
And I mean, it's *right there* when you read the page. Couldn't you at least set up a Paypal account or something so that people who visit the site can kick a pity dollar for smalltime, image-heavy, hobbyist sites like this?
Did the guy get a warning, at least? Since the site hasn't buckled, I'm assuming he's bursting his metered bandwidth as I type, and paying an awful lot for the privilege.
Slashdot should at least buy one of his books.
leem
p.s. Totally amazing dedication that this guy has put into the hobby.
Shakespeare wrote virtually all of his plays in blank verse, relying on couplets to really drive home some of the important concepts (not so much end-of-scenes), although there were a few passages with end-rhymes.
Shakespearean sonnets, however, virtually always carry the rhyme scheme: ABABCDCDEFEFGG. His most famous sonnet would be:
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate,
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of may,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dim'd,
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrim'd.
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest,
Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
While in eternal lines to time thou growest.
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and gives life to thee.
The beauty of the sonnet lies in the ability to find play within the strictures of it, including the rhyming scheme. Shakespeare was a master of this, as the above indicates -- beyond being a lovely love sonnet, it's also a barb directed towards those who allow the formula of a sonnet to shape a conventional narrative within it.
Liam
In case anybody is actually confusing him with another Meestah Katz:
This should put the confusion to rest.
Actually, you wouldn't be very lucky to get ten feet with your average flashgun.
Consider that most professional photographers will "bounce" their flash to avoid glare when shooting indoors, and that typically the light is bounced off of a surface 5-10 feet away and falls onto a subject an additional 5-10 feet away, just for a typical indoors bounce-off-the-ceiling flash.
I have three flashes for my camera, a head-on one that can do about 25-30 feet without difficulty, an adjustable angled one that can do about 40 feet tops, and a shoddy little one that I have a bunch of filters for that manages about 20 feet easily.
Though I appreciate the Inverse Square Law, you do not necessarily need a tremendous amount of light falling on your subject -- just enough to catch them on the film. Shooting a subject 40 feet away with a powerful flash, and 1600 ISO film, and you should be fine.
leem
American Scientist and Nature, with a little bit of the Skeptical Inquirer and Astronomy will make you wonder why you've bothered with Popular Science since 1990 or so.
Leem
Google always seem to be early-to-market with some really highly developed software solutions, and also always seems to have the backbone to support them.
I'm curious -- what drives the innovation? Is it the hardware team advancing architecture to permit the software team more room to play, or is it the software team saying, "Hey, look what we got!" and the hardware team dropping the iron to implement it?
I understand there must be some level of synergy, but is it completely seamless or is one side of the equation effectively driving the other?
Leem
Eminem is talented in the same way as Flava Flav. Unfortunately, Eminem is center-stage and not a foil to a much more talented rhyme animal.
He's hooky, jokey, controversial, and pretty fond of swearing. His rhymes are tight. By no means does that elevate him above the hundreds of hip-hop artists who aren't doing that because they're too busy trying new things.
If it weren't for the curiousity of his being white, and furthermore for the controversy stirred up by his sophomoric masturbation-revenge fantasy lyrics, he would be nothing more than a roadside attraction, breaking it down 6th in the lineup to shake the serious out of the crowd.
l
Maybe I should go into internet journalism and write witty and insightful columns about how everything relates to the Columbine shootings and the alienation of nonconformist high-schoolers... oh, wait. That position's filled.
No, that position is open. The "Internet journalist who writes humorless and insipid columns about how everything relates to the Columbine shootings and alienation of nonconformist high-schoolers", well, that one is open.
leem
I'd like to go on the record and say that I have a mighty nice looking dick.
I've heard this comment from several people.
l
Nope.
The general public has caught on to all this brouhaha about how proprietary, closed environments are bad for business. They can even see how that might be so. Unfortuately, they still have no idea what it means.
In the last six months, there's been a definite upswing in the inclusion of sentences like the one you quoted in marketing literature. Most of the time, it's a complete misnomer.
"Our new workstation comes pre-loaded with Windows XP, Microsoft Office and the Adobe Suite, allowing you to create documents in industry-standard formats and avoid being locked into a proprietary model." Uh, what?
It's sort of like when "portability" was a big thing, and you saw references to it in the literature for virtually every product, even those that were designed to run on very specific hardware/software setups.
This is what happens when capitalism takes it up the ass from marketing. It stops being a battle of the better products and becomes a battle of the better brands.
And there is so much market-space that nobody can really claim to be an authority on everything they will buy. You and I might know something about computers, but I know virtually nothing about refrigerators (I recently bought one and was amazed at the amount of research I had to do!). Sometimes, people just don't have the time or inclination to research a purpose. The marketers target those people with nebulous claims that fall roughly in line with what they've been reading in the Business and IT sections of their newspapers (always the most whorish sections, of course).
Bleh.
l
Yes, and I understand that. I just point out that Campbell can't be used as a sort of guide to create mythology, or at least that it is no more valid than anything that pops into your head, because all relates back to the simple fact that we're all human beings, down here.
-l
agree with much of what you're saying. Do have reservations about Campbell. Have read Masks. If you would like to discuss further, drop a line, as i'm always interested.
-l
do the usual with my e-mail to make it send
I believe I was pretty careful to note both Judeo-Christian and Western influences -- the myths that permeate modern Western culture are borrowed from the Classical Mythologies as well as the Christian ones.
I may have shorthanded sometimes. Whilst I'm aware that you're almost certainly trolling me, I'll apologize for rendering my point unclear.
My points:
1) Western culture and mythology is influenced largely by Classical and Judeo-Christian mythology.
2) The confluence of Classical and Judeo-Christian myth create common elements in mythologies derived from them.
3) These common elements, when described in broad terms, can be used to describe essentially everything, since the onus is on the interpreter of these myths.
4) Because of the distinctly Western/Classical/JC influence that crafted Campbell's worldview, and due to the seeming impossibility of creating a confluence of all myth without losing at least some signal to the noise, his "hero" or "world myth" only applies to a very small subset of mythology.
Sorry if this didn't do much by way of clarifying. When I started, it looked like the compile was gonna go.
But it didn't.
-l
Nothing that I've read about Campbell in any place other than the masturbatory presses that produce quasi-intellectual asides within E! and People lauds him in any sense for his belief in the World Myth.
His vision was that there was a sort of primal myth, variations on which were the substances of our myth.
He left it open to the god-like powers of the Interpreter-of-Myths (himself in his writings) to cram other myths into his distinctly Western, Judeo-Christianic views. While the "Water-Jar Boy" myth can be made to appear to fit into those characteristics, the actual meaning imparted by it within the group of people who tell it is far removed from Campbell's heavy-handed re-interpretation.
For myths that spring from the Western Classical and are influenced heavily by Judeo-Christianity, his analyses can be held as valid in most permutations of the more popular myths. Though a sufficiently creative interpreter can make them *appear* to, by re-locating them into the Western Sphere of Thought.
A bit dishonest, to say the least, though Campbell himself never seems to have realized this. (Those of his students who emerged beyond the fun-filled days of smoking weed and having deep conversations, however, did. And wrote extensively about it.) This is not to suggest that Campbell's impact is unimportant -- he did a tremendous amount of work in collecting and (occasionally mis-) cataloguing existing myths, and as I mentioned above, his interpretations remain largely valid for a particular subset of mythology.
Anyway, the point being that of course Star Wars fits his vision -- everything does. It's one of those annoying little self-enclosed bits of ignorance. All pulp science fiction fits it, too. Of course, it's all up to who is doing the interpreting!
It is a bit valid, too, for a lot of sci fi -- most of it is heavily influenced by Classical and Christian mythology.
Sorry this post is a bit disjointed, I'm debugging in the other window.
To Summarize: Campbell's system can be made to contain any myth within it; this is due to a flaw in Campbell's system. Star wars can be made to be contained within it. Milking that gave George Lucas some intellectual credibility with the uninformed. It also gave Campbell some recognition (and he did deserve some, make no mistake.), and perpetrated a sort of urban myth about George Lucas toiling by candlelight to reproduce ancient mythologies in space.
Pah.
The examination of Lucas' sources was interesting, but the rest of this article seems to be a bit too vitriolic, and contained absolutely zero in the way of new information or refutation.
He didn't even have the grace to properly explain and debunk Campbell's theories, which I think he should have, because I found his point to wander away from time to time due to a lack of support.
-l
Indeed, Onion2k should be revered as a prophet, fearlessly and faultlessly predicting:
1) The drop in price
2) Roughly when this drop would occur
3) The value of this drop, to within reasonable error.
4) Slashdot's bent on the story regarding the price drop.
I know I'm gonna hang a plastic-moulded replica of him from my rearview mirror.
And so should you.
-l
Don't be an idiot and think before you post.
.sig. It's funny, too, because it means:
If you look at the placement, I think that's a
"If you think before you post, you are an idiot".
-l
Er. That extra "O" -- I was doing it in my head. Go 'way.
Yes, I do have a sense of humor. I am familiar with April Fools and the traditional pranking that goes on during April Fools.
Yes, I am familiar with Slashdot. I have witnessed April Fools on Slashdot several times. I know the drill.
Sad as this may be to admit, I use Slashdot to keep tabs on a broad overview of what is happening in a particular substrata of technological society. This is where I get my non-specific little pokes at new Linux packages, attacks (perceived and real) on rights-- particularly of the on-line variety, additional features in existing packages, project forks, appointments in key open-source positions, etc.
Slashdot serves its purpose to me in two ways: It very often posts something that falls into one of the topics I'm interested in, and very often a comment will be added to that post that provides me with some detailed insight. This leads me off on a researching tangent, and I end up a little bit more knowledgeable than I was before. Hooray.
The value of Slashdot lies in its shotgun approach to Journalism (save that it's only loaded with certain memetic shells, with the occasional dud like Katz for speed bumps).
Now, though, on April Fools, I'm looking at the worthless front page -- great prank, guys! It only took 20 minutes to get old, and isn't even as humorous as the much better-executed Suckdot from now-defunct Suck.
I'm also thinking about all the people who mention their stories being rejected, and who link to those stories, and lead me to discover that, hrm, maybe they shouldn't have been.
What I'm getting at here is that the world dosn't stop on April 1st, and I'm amazed that you can just call off on reporting and post not-incredibly-amusing-and-obviously-fake articles to the front page all day. Is this just like a really lame vacation where you have to spend the day at your computer for you guys? Does that suck?
I don't know, one or two posts that were clever, mixed in with real news (stuff that matters) would've been funnier. (if you observed the behaviour of trolls, you'd know that the most successful ones post a somewhat plausible stance to hook the fish, not just random noise).
Are you guys pretty much saying that Slashdot provides so litle value (or is so understaffed) that when given the choice between reporting and playing dumb pranks, that you pick the dumb pranks and can't multitask efficiently enough to do both? That's really kind of pathetic.
Feh.
-m.b. dux/RAAXE [fdAAX xQP!]
A scene at Lothlorien, where Galadriel bestows upon each of the Fellowship a gift which will play an important role later in the Trilogy.
I wonder about that. I was wondering about it during the Fellowship, because there was a reference made earlier in the film towards rope. However, the gift-giving scene never materialized, that I saw.
Now, you mention it as being included. So, how will the Elven Cloaks, the brooches, the rope, and so on factor into the next two theatrical releases? All played important parts -- especially the phial of Galadriel and the box of seeds, one of which defeats quite a nasty monster and the other of which provides for something resembling a happy ending for hobbits.
I couldn't believe this was missing, but just assumed those later instances where the gifts proved useful would be re-written. If it was filmed, though, will that point the way to continuity errors or confusion in the minds of those who only see the theatrical release?
If so, that just seems like shoddy storyboarding and too much of a comfort with the "Well, the real film can go on DVD, anyway".
There's more profit on a DVD than on the purchase of a theater ticket. This seems somewhat dishonest.
-l
The greatest Pimp action movie of all time.
La la, waiting on the comment filter because I type faster than the nerds who coded it up.
La la la.
Checked again.
This time for sure.
Hi Sllort,
I've no idea if you'll notice this reply or not, but I just wanted to ask if you'd noticed that every post you've made has had a -1 attached to it.
A -1 that falls out of bounds on standard moderation, no less, since I can't even see the moderation type used to downmod you.
I'm not a fish. I'm a man. A Man! I walk upright, on two legs, homo erectus. Did I just say homo? I didn't mean to. I'm not a fish. (fish-face). Where'd that come from? THOROGOOOOD!