I said the reason was NOT because cinema is an inferior medium. This is why reading is such an important skill... it could have save me from looking like an idiot up there.:-\
Cinema isn't an inferior medium -- it is a different medium, with different rules, functionalities, and advantages and disadvantages.
For one: written works are not constrained by time, whereas films tend to run somewhere between 90 and 180 minutes. This allows novels to tell longer, more detailed stories, and this allows movies to tell complete narratives in of one sitting.
(Short stories tend to adapt better into film... the shorter the better. "The Night Bus," a great little story by Samuel Hopkins Adams, was adapted into "It Happened One Night," one of the greatest movies ever made. "It's a Wonderful Life" was adapted from a christmas card(itself an adaptation of a short story).)
1: "Shoot High, Aim Low" by Yes 2: "A View to a Kill" by Duran Duran 3: "Shoot Me Again" by Metallica 4: "Here I Am" by Emmylou Harris 5: "Contrecoup" by They Might Be Giants
Just because it's not an officaly army sanctioned activity doesn't mean there's not an army way of doing things.
Mental Image You Didn't Need For Today: A bunch of Privates standing around in a circle-jerk, with their Sargent calling out a cadence. What was that about the sargent's privates?
Changing the language to make their actions "more palatable", or "less hopeful" is silly. The people who do this will call themselves whatever they want (Jihadist, Freedom Fighter, martyr, etc.). Likewise we get to call them whatever WE want (thug, terrorist, idiot, etc.)
Sugar coating it is pointless. And yet there is a coating being applied whenever a name is used. "Terrorist" is meant to evoke a certain reaction, just as "Freedom Fighter" is. Whatever you call them, you're making a statement.
The politics of nomenclature have become particularly notable here in the U.S. in the past few years, what with "homicide-bombers," and overuse of the word "terrorist" itself.
There are a lot of people in the world who believe that unarmed Israeli civilians somehow deserve to be shelled.
And there are just as many idiots that believe that unarmed Palestinians deserve to be shelled. A Jewish soldier shoots and kills a few Muslims boys playing football so a Muslim soldier (we call them terrorists because we don't like Muslims) fires a rocket at a Jewish village so the Jewish army send in a helicopter to blow up a Muslim market and the Muslims go and blow up a Jewish market...
and the plebs take sides. Why can't people see that until we stop killing each other there will never be peace. The people in power, both Jewish and Muslim, do not want peace. They are not stupid. They make their money from the fighting. All the shouts of "He started it" just sound like 10 year old boys fighting in the playground. They are both killing each others children and the fighting will not stop until those in power give peace a chance. This is a gross oversimplification of the problems there. Hell, internal politics for either Israel or the Palestinian territories alone are more complex than that. Furthermore, it seems to me that you took observations made about other situations or stories and plastered them onto this one, without regard for whether or not they actually fit. Israel's government is a parliament, and they have open elections. The Palestinian territories have, more or less, two different power structures(one controlled by Hamas, the other by the PLO). Belting out "they make money from fighting" doesn't encapsulate the problems.
Also: "Until we stop killing each other there will never be peace." Seriously? That's like saying that until we have money, we will never be rich. It's a tautology. To state it more ironically: it's an obvious tautology.
Hamas blow up people sitting in cafés near military barracks. Israel bulldozes the houses around where the bomber lived.
Neither side looks particularly good in all this. A couple differences: The cafe is not where the Israeli military is based out of, but;those homes might be where the Hamas fighter is. Also, Israel doesn't bulldoze the houses without giving people warning to get out first.
But in war, do the sides involved ever manage to escape any manner of guilt?
He could've made this even greener by incorporating a small bird or monkey whose job it was to crank this to the top. This way, the people of the world are motivated to preserve wildlife so that they can read novels at night. I'll take that job.
Pharmaceutical data, my ass. We're looking at "Playboy 3D" material here, and a reason to go back to print media for everyone's monkey-stroking needs! 2d porn gives way to 3d porn, which eventually gives way to the next stage of technology: prostitutes.
You leave home, wish your kids a good day at school, and drive to work. You stop at Starbucks on the way, arrest someone with not-a-bomb at gun point, smoke some weed, and clock in.
No. Don't arrest someone at gun point with not-a-bomb.
Ey ded nut meen tou ensilt yuo. Mie entinteon wos nat tuo eastablush ir rainfores sume cense ov mintil sepirioity. Ih hwas juiced tying toe bay healpfil.
This Nicholas anon let fle a fart As gret as it had be a thonder dent That with the strook he was almost y blent And he was redy with his yren hoot And Nicholas amyd the ers he smoot
... but it is not 100% rediculious. "Ridiculous." When spelling it, think of the word "ridicule." For some reason(likely having to do with pronunciation), people have far less trouble spelling the latter correctly than the former. I think it might also have to do with people not connecting the two words. (It wasn't until I did that I stopped spelling it the way you did)
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, I know we succeeded and everything, but doesn't it suck a little bit to be VHS?
save -> saved.
*Shreds keyboard*
Cinema isn't an inferior medium -- it is a different medium, with different rules, functionalities, and advantages and disadvantages.
For one: written works are not constrained by time, whereas films tend to run somewhere between 90 and 180 minutes. This allows novels to tell longer, more detailed stories, and this allows movies to tell complete narratives in of one sitting.
(Short stories tend to adapt better into film... the shorter the better. "The Night Bus," a great little story by Samuel Hopkins Adams, was adapted into "It Happened One Night," one of the greatest movies ever made. "It's a Wonderful Life" was adapted from a christmas card(itself an adaptation of a short story).)
1: "Shoot High, Aim Low" by Yes
2: "A View to a Kill" by Duran Duran
3: "Shoot Me Again" by Metallica
4: "Here I Am" by Emmylou Harris
5: "Contrecoup" by They Might Be Giants
I thought we already had these? I mean, they have a different name, but Washington Mutual named their bank after them.
Sugar coating it is pointless. And yet there is a coating being applied whenever a name is used. "Terrorist" is meant to evoke a certain reaction, just as "Freedom Fighter" is. Whatever you call them, you're making a statement.
The politics of nomenclature have become particularly notable here in the U.S. in the past few years, what with "homicide-bombers," and overuse of the word "terrorist" itself.
And there are just as many idiots that believe that unarmed Palestinians deserve to be shelled. A Jewish soldier shoots and kills a few Muslims boys playing football so a Muslim soldier (we call them terrorists because we don't like Muslims) fires a rocket at a Jewish village so the Jewish army send in a helicopter to blow up a Muslim market and the Muslims go and blow up a Jewish market...
and the plebs take sides. Why can't people see that until we stop killing each other there will never be peace. The people in power, both Jewish and Muslim, do not want peace. They are not stupid. They make their money from the fighting. All the shouts of "He started it" just sound like 10 year old boys fighting in the playground. They are both killing each others children and the fighting will not stop until those in power give peace a chance. This is a gross oversimplification of the problems there. Hell, internal politics for either Israel or the Palestinian territories alone are more complex than that. Furthermore, it seems to me that you took observations made about other situations or stories and plastered them onto this one, without regard for whether or not they actually fit. Israel's government is a parliament, and they have open elections. The Palestinian territories have, more or less, two different power structures(one controlled by Hamas, the other by the PLO). Belting out "they make money from fighting" doesn't encapsulate the problems.
Also: "Until we stop killing each other there will never be peace." Seriously? That's like saying that until we have money, we will never be rich. It's a tautology. To state it more ironically: it's an obvious tautology.
Neither side looks particularly good in all this. A couple differences: The cafe is not where the Israeli military is based out of, but
But in war, do the sides involved ever manage to escape any manner of guilt?
Luckily we have Heroin Hero to take the edge off.
. . .
I'm gonna catch that dragon!
That'd be The Clash.
That'd be The Joke
*sigh* It's a living.
You might change their minds if you give them a shot or two.
Even if it is obligatory, you shouldn't make it that transparent. I could see right through that.
---
This is my post. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things.
Karma: 20% bad pun, 80% trying too hard.
She wrote her own vows. I cried like a baby. A hungry, angry baby.
How can you love anything above Zapp Brannigan's line?
"Now that's a wave of destruction that's easy on the eyes!"
You leave home, wish your kids a good day at school, and drive to work. You stop at Starbucks on the way, arrest someone with not-a-bomb at gun point, smoke some weed, and clock in.
No. Don't arrest someone at gun point with not-a-bomb.
____-----------_______
The More You Know *
"The governor lady said, 'I'm sending in more trains!'"
Ey ded nut meen tou ensilt yuo. Mie entinteon wos nat tuo eastablush ir rainfores sume cense ov mintil sepirioity. Ih hwas juiced tying toe bay healpfil.
Eht ez oded thet yoo ahr dugmiticully opossed two emmbigenninng yohr ywn vokubewlary, oar eht leets yore sintse uf spiling, uhn thas wey.
-- Geoffrey Chaucer
This Nicholas anon let fle a fart
As gret as it had be a thonder dent
That with the strook he was almost y blent
And he was redy with his yren hoot
And Nicholas amyd the ers he smoot
--
... but it is not 100% rediculious. "Ridiculous." When spelling it, think of the word "ridicule." For some reason(likely having to do with pronunciation), people have far less trouble spelling the latter correctly than the former. I think it might also have to do with people not connecting the two words. (It wasn't until I did that I stopped spelling it the way you did)