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
Well, the source is still there along with more or less proof of concept server & client code. The stuff compiled and worked fine under a number of different unix like distros. Anyway, I'm also working on putting together a functional client version for the MacOS. Unfortunately for me I keep running into time problems, mainly I don't have enough.
Anyway, It isn't _dead_, but it isn't very visible either.
Uh... I don't know about you, but the main gun looks a little large to be in a helicopter, not to mention being able to go down a hill but possibly not back up. No, the main vehicle looks to be a tank or otherwise ground based.
If you'll note those screenshots are dated 1997. That's an awful long time ago computing wise. No reason to assume that the graphics will stay in that state with the increase in CPU power and 3D programming practices. Besides that, just because the graphics aren't Q2/Q3 quality doesn't mean a game can't be fun.
Slashdot Mirror
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
http://www.jabber.org/
Well, the source is still there along with more or less proof of concept server & client code. The stuff compiled and worked fine under a number of different unix like distros. Anyway, I'm also working on putting together a functional client version for the MacOS. Unfortunately for me I keep running into time problems, mainly I don't have enough.
Anyway, It isn't _dead_, but it isn't very visible either.
Hope that aswers some questions,
*Cameroon
Uh... I don't know about you, but the main gun looks a little large to be in a helicopter, not to mention being able to go down a hill but possibly not back up. No, the main vehicle looks to be a tank or otherwise ground based.
If you'll note those screenshots are dated 1997. That's an awful long time ago computing wise. No reason to assume that the graphics will stay in that state with the increase in CPU power and 3D programming practices. Besides that, just because the graphics aren't Q2/Q3 quality doesn't mean a game can't be fun.