I really hate to say this, but the guy's opening a nightclub. End of story. This seeming need to put a messiah spin on someone's business venture after they quit what made them famous, when their next venture is just plain mundane.....it's silly.
I actually laughed most of the way through that article. (sarcasm) OMG! He's opening a bar! HOW REVOLUTIONARY OF HIM! (/sarcasm)
Having purchased both MySQL and the O'Reilly MySQL & mSQL book, I just have to say...
I come from a somewhat limited programming background. The MySQL book not only takes you step by step through dealing with MySQL, it also provides well thought out and nice documentation for the various ways to program apps to use it. I'd used PHP before, but have started playing with Perl, and I have to say...of the two books, MySQL gets picked up daily for reference, and the O'Reilly book just sits on my shelf unused.
Definitely a book you'll want in your collection. Now if MySQL would just do things like subselects, I'd be a really happy camper. Oy. Patience, I guess. Although I do see why, in retrospect, all my friends suggested I start with another DB system as I learn more and more.
Still, pick up this book. You won't be sorry. Friendly enough for the newbie, good enough for my perl programmer that he is always borrowing my copy to look up how to do stuff. A well done book.
Because of course, if it's true for you, it MUST be true for the rest of the world.
Take it from someone who spent 6 years in the rooms of AA and could never find that "magic" answer there that made everyone else in the rooms so glassy eyed and happy. I used to think I was just stupid that I couldn't "get it", and finally, after 6 years, I said goodbye, left, and shortly after that, began working with a behavior modification group. To date, after all this time, I am very much a social drinker, and haven't abused booze in any of my "old patterns", because I've addressed those old patterns....and not just with some brainwashy BS wanna-be mysticism that AA tries to be.
I actually wouldn't mind the AA folks all that much if they'd just accept the fact that simply because they say "We are the only way! If you go elsewhere, you will return to drinking and die!!!" DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.
I'm living proof of that.
Sorry. You just hit one of my hot buttons.
And for informations sake... Moderation Management...not that it matters. I didn't see this article til it almost scrolled. No one will read this anyway:oP
Code isn't speech, how dare we suggest that? Commenting on businesses isn't speech, you can't say whatever you want.
Dear god. Do these people *really* hear what they are saying? America land of the Free indeed.
The funniest part of it, in a sadly ironic way, is to consider exactly what today's soceity would have done to our founding fathers. Psych wards and jails...you get the idea.
Maybe Heinlien had it right. Any soceity that grows to the point of requiring IDs is a soceity to leave behind.
You missed the point I was making. The internet is nothing more than society. All its good AND bad. Nothing more. The reference to anger, hatred, and bitterness was in direct reply to the article Katz wrote, and meant simply "I'm not surprised it's there", which is exactly what I wrote.
Before you go accusing me of throwing forth stereotypes, be sure I said what you think you read;o) (And as for the American thing...like it or not...the internet IS dominated by American presence. No speculation there. Simple fact.)
I've always found the net to be an interesting litmus test of a person, or even, in some cases, a society. Take away the onus of personal responsibility, and see what truly lies beneath the "nicey nicey" exterior. Am I surprised that the American dominated internet is full of seething anger, bitterness, and outright hatred at times? Not really. But by the same coin, using that same litmus test, there are some people, when there was no responsibility checks, who went above and beyond the call of duty to be genuinely caring, thinking, feeling, human beings.
So I tend to view the internet as not a solution or a problem, but like one of those fun house mirrors. It still shows you what was there all along, but sometimes in a really warped and twisted fashion. You never know until you look.
Sure, an email would have answered the questions, but the awe of the way he's fought his condition and lived 30 years longer than his doctors thought he would, that awe doesn't come across in an email. A 4-hour interview will have had an effect on the interviewer - that effect is as crucial is the content. His views are interesting, but frankly, not unusual - nothing new in the realms of futurology. If you want his opinions, you'll not get them in an interview, you'll get them through his books....
This argument doesn't scan. The article wasn't HAWKING: All About Him. It was an article to get his views on the future. And quite frankly, I find the replies that say because of his condition, he is somehow more stunning to listen to, a tad baffling. The article struck me as someone wanting to interview me about computers, but focusing on the fact that I'm gay. One has absolutely zip to do with the other.
If he wanted to write an article about what Mr. Hawkings life is like, what he has been through, etc. He should have done just that. I would have found it facinating myself. The man has indeed dealt with great hardship and managed to do great things.
But quite frankly, I think Mr. Hawking would be a little offended that you thought because of his condition, he was more qualified to speak on the future, than because of his scientific accomplishments.
Wasn't it Harlan Ellison who once said the life of a man should not overshadow his work? Unfortunately, if what you say above is what most people believe, both he and Ellison failed at that particular bit of wisdom.
But if I knew that the interview process face to face would limit the ability of my article to have actual content rather than a few cute quips, I might have composed an email of questions, topics, and stuff I'd like to hear from him about...and let him type them up at will. Being there in person accomplished a) a chance to see his Monroe pic, b) a chance to meet him c) little else.
>'Folks, a tech making fun of someone >learning how to operate a computer is >like a school teacher making fun of a >child learning how to read. It's just >plain wrong.'
First of all, let me say, that taking your moral indignation out on a comic strip is rather silly. Comics are known to mock, ridicule, and hold the parts of our soceity up to light that most people wouldn't. Same with comedians.
Secondly, without any moral value placed on it, I'd like to explain why this "Once upon a Time" tech support guy used to mock his users so badly.
I started out my tech support gig with 3com. I was paid $6 an hour to do "pre sales" tech support....essentially configuring entire networks for salesmen calling in that didn't have the first clue how this stuff worked. Finally, one day in frustration of having to hear "rooter" one too many times, I asked the guy how much he made a year. It was something in the realm of $50k (or so he claimed). "Isn't it nice to know that your big fat paycheck is solidly built on the back of someone who knows what they are doing and is being paid slave wages?"
And that's what tech support is.
I've had to deal with insurance agencies and blue haired old ladies afraid of their keyboards, New Yorkers and their "I'm right, you're wrong, fix it now goddamitbecauseIamthemostimportantpersonintheworld !" mile a minute attitude, and a whole host of others.
What kept me sane?
Mocking them. I had no other real choice. Its the curse of the "Customer is always right", you can't SAY the things you want to directly to the customer, unless you don't mind losing your job. So outside on cigarette breaks we'd have out 15 minutes mocking session, laugh, and let some of the venom out. (That and all the nickelodeon toys like Gak, Smud, and floam. Those are pretty darn good stress relivievers, and perfect to strangle while you cheerfully tell the customer "Annoy me? Not at all! Let me fix that right up!")
So I cheer the comics for giving the frustrated techs out there a release. And still think it's a little odd for someone to get bent out of shape for.
Despite failures, despite bugs and glitches, despite an apatheic country to their success (yet who is all too eager to point out their faults)....these are the people who put Man on the moon. The ones responsible for my entire elementary school crowding around one little tv to watch the space shuttle shoot off into space.
They were, even if people don't see them so now..the makers of dreams, for quite a few people. And so as an entity, I nominate them.
I'm not sure about anyone else, but the main thing that keeps me where I live is the cost of living there. I've lived in a lot of places across the US over the years...From Iowa, to Chicago, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Nashville, Boston....and it always boils down to the same thing for me.
Sure, Boston is a neat city, but with the salary, living in Nashville, it goes 8x as far. I want to be able to afford my "toys" and pay my bills, and not worry about rents that are $2k a month for a decent place in a nice neighborhood.
(For what it's worth, I adored Boston. But in the end, paying almost 2 grand a month for a house was simply painful. Every time I wrote a check I was cringing inside and thinking about the fact it would be cheaper to just buy. Now I live in Nashville, work across the net, make the same salary, and have so much more money to afford the things in life that keep me happy.)
Perhaps I got spoiled by Iowa and the fact that I was renting a 3 bedroom farmhouse for $250 a month. But when I look at the price of living in a city, no matter what my salary is, paying over a certain amount to live somewhere is just not worth it to me. I can find the same opportunities anywhere...I used to joke that I picked the new city I was going to move to by throwing a dart at a map, and that I could have a job in 3 days of moving there. It wasn't really that much of a joke.
So for a town to keep me, it's got to be reasonably affordable. Because if it's not, there is one somewhere and I can have the same sort of job there, just as easily. It's as simple as that.
what did he do that was so new? Ever heard of Don Rickles?
I get really tired of seeing this argument. Using this same logic I could, with a wide sweep of my brush, dismiss just about any story ever told by saying "Geez. What's so new about this? Haven't you ever read Shakespeare?"
Newness isn't at question here. As a people, we're pretty hard pressed to find something that can't be considered derivative of something else. Greatness is at question here, and that's a different matter entirely.
What's the difference between seeing Patrick Stewart perform a one man version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL and the same show being done by Joe Bob Briggs? Passion, intensity, drive, and the ability to touch people in ways that others, despite their best intentions, lack. (and I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide which of those two I am talking about;o) ) Why do Matisse paintings deserve the cheers they get? After all, someone's painted flowers before...and will continue to paint flowers today. Because he touched people, even with something so everyday as flowers. And it makes all the difference in the world.
Sure, we all are familiar with the archtypes of Guy Who Falls Down (tm), Guy Who Wants Girl But Girl Thinks He's Friend/Gay (tm), Angry Young Man Who Swears and Offends Everyone He Can (tm), and a whole host of others....what's important is the face, the person, and the talent that brings those archtypes beyond just something we all know, and makes it, for just a shining moment, a reality, not just an archtype.
Your post, in my opinion, misses the point of why Andy causes such heated defense and critique from different people...it's not a question of "Oh my god, he did something I've never seen before", but a question of "Oh my god, that guy made me laugh and squirm, maybe even think...and I love/hate him for it."
You can say what you will about him, but the sheer fact that a discussion of him brings up such heated debate as to his worth and talent says a lot in and of itself.
>but truth of the matter is, we didn't like Andy - >and yet, he's regarded today as a legend.
That's not really as uncommon as you might think. It happens in varying degrees at various levels of any "Art"...and while I, by no means, attempt to compare myself to Andy, let me offer an example from my own life.
In my theatre, I was pretty much hated. Why? Because I knew what I wanted to do, how I wanted to do it, and by god, no one was going to stand in my way. During senior reviews, where my fellow classmates were allowed to give critique of my work (which had just gotten the first two standing ovations in my theatre's history, btw, one of my proudest "Screw you" moments to my theatre prof who failed me for the work in question, even after the two standing Os), one of those people who disliked me the strongest made the comment
"A brilliant piece of work. But a loose cannon who can not play by the rules, in the end, can not play at all." and gave me a very low rating. During the session where we discussed these comments, I looked right at the guy and told him, and I still mean it as strongly today. "No one ever built a statue to someone who played it safe."
Andy, if you liked it or not, liked HIM or not, was into his thing or simply couldn't bear to watch 20 seconds of it.....he was a man driven to follow his own road. If the people followed was not important, because in the end, if you are true to that desire and drive? The people will come.
The hardest part about art, is that it's a very lonely thing...It doesn't have to be. You can go be Patrick Swayze, or any other number of people who are pre-pressed and delivered to the masses by the entertainment gurus of the world, and have a nice safe existence......and the only compass you have is that inner fire that tells you "Don't sell out, keep believing, keep going...just one more step." and the chance, that maybe someday, even after you're dead...you could have made a difference. Your life, your work could have meant something beyond a tattered old forgotten 99 cent rental in some cheap video store bargain bin.
Like Andy or not, he did make a difference. And deserves... no, earned, his slot in history.
There's a reason good art is hated. It scares people because it's not the pre-pressed safe stuff they are used to. But like moths, people are drawn to it anyway because it's created with fire, and it can burn. Here's to ya, Andy.
>If NASA found aliens from Mars most >people wouldn't give a damn anyway, >they'd be too worried with their jobs, >taxes, finding food and all sorts of >everyday problems.
Actually, I disagree. I think (and agree with the many who've said it before me, this is by no means an original thought), that the discovery of life somewhere else may well be one of the larger ticking time bombs there is for *Christians*. Now, while admittedly, the world is much larger than Christianity; in America, all sorts of hubbub could erupt....and all from one little line. "Made in his image". The chances of life elsewhere being (as in Star Trek) just like us, with a funky thing on the forehead, is really *not* a reality. And it will lead to all sorts of questions that for people who are used to NOT questioning.
I'm all for it. Shake them suckers up.
I do have to admit, ludicrious as it is, I keep thinking of Ray Bradbury's MARTIAN CHRONICALS and how the martians kept earth away for so long, when I read things like this/. article.
I've been a major SP fan for some time. We have a group of friends that get together to see this show every week, and a damn good time is had by all. So it was with some excitement that my partner and I headed to this movie.
First of all, I was amused at watching two 14 year olds trying to buy tickets, getting carded, and buying tickets to something else saying "She's just a bitch. We'll sneak in." and then watching those two same 14 year olds curse out loud and throw a tantrum worthy of Cartman when they got to the door of the theatre and there was an usher right outside, checking IDs and tickets before he would let anyone in to sit down.
So I had to chuckle when the movie started.
I liked some of the themes of the film, I thought they were truly timely, as does Jon Katz. I just wasn't as impressed with the movie as I have been with the tv show. Why? Maybe it was the shotgun swearing at every turn. Maybe I am secretly some puritan in my heart, and it just turned my mind off. You could probably come up with all sorts of reasons why I didn't "get it". But to be honest, no matter what the reason was, this fan of South park left the movie feeling really let down.
Slashdot Mirror
I really hate to say this, but the guy's opening a nightclub. End of story. This seeming need to put a messiah spin on someone's business venture after they quit what made them famous, when their next venture is just plain mundane.....it's silly. I actually laughed most of the way through that article. (sarcasm) OMG! He's opening a bar! HOW REVOLUTIONARY OF HIM! (/sarcasm)
I come from a somewhat limited programming background. The MySQL book not only takes you step by step through dealing with MySQL, it also provides well thought out and nice documentation for the various ways to program apps to use it. I'd used PHP before, but have started playing with Perl, and I have to say...of the two books, MySQL gets picked up daily for reference, and the O'Reilly book just sits on my shelf unused.
Definitely a book you'll want in your collection. Now if MySQL would just do things like subselects, I'd be a really happy camper. Oy. Patience, I guess. Although I do see why, in retrospect, all my friends suggested I start with another DB system as I learn more and more.
Still, pick up this book. You won't be sorry. Friendly enough for the newbie, good enough for my perl programmer that he is always borrowing my copy to look up how to do stuff. A well done book.
Take it from someone who spent 6 years in the rooms of AA and could never find that "magic" answer there that made everyone else in the rooms so glassy eyed and happy. I used to think I was just stupid that I couldn't "get it", and finally, after 6 years, I said goodbye, left, and shortly after that, began working with a behavior modification group. To date, after all this time, I am very much a social drinker, and haven't abused booze in any of my "old patterns", because I've addressed those old patterns....and not just with some brainwashy BS wanna-be mysticism that AA tries to be.
I actually wouldn't mind the AA folks all that much if they'd just accept the fact that simply because they say "We are the only way! If you go elsewhere, you will return to drinking and die!!!" DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.
I'm living proof of that.
Sorry. You just hit one of my hot buttons.
And for informations sake... Moderation Management ...not that it matters. I didn't see this article til it almost scrolled. No one will read this anyway :oP
Code isn't speech, how dare we suggest that? Commenting on businesses isn't speech, you can't say whatever you want.
Dear god. Do these people *really* hear what they are saying? America land of the Free indeed.
The funniest part of it, in a sadly ironic way, is to consider exactly what today's soceity would have done to our founding fathers. Psych wards and jails...you get the idea.
Maybe Heinlien had it right. Any soceity that grows to the point of requiring IDs is a soceity to leave behind.
You missed the point I was making. The internet is nothing more than society. All its good AND bad. Nothing more. The reference to anger, hatred, and bitterness was in direct reply to the article Katz wrote, and meant simply "I'm not surprised it's there", which is exactly what I wrote.
;o) (And as for the American thing...like it or not...the internet IS dominated by American presence. No speculation there. Simple fact.)
Before you go accusing me of throwing forth stereotypes, be sure I said what you think you read
So I tend to view the internet as not a solution or a problem, but like one of those fun house mirrors. It still shows you what was there all along, but sometimes in a really warped and twisted fashion. You never know until you look.
he would, that awe doesn't come across in an email. A 4-hour interview will have had an effect on the interviewer - that effect is as crucial is the content. His views are interesting, but frankly, not unusual - nothing new in the realms of futurology. If you want his opinions, you'll not get them in an interview, you'll get them through his books
This argument doesn't scan. The article wasn't HAWKING: All About Him. It was an article to get his views on the future. And quite frankly, I find the replies that say because of his condition, he is somehow more stunning to listen to, a tad baffling. The article struck me as someone wanting to interview me about computers, but focusing on the fact that I'm gay. One has absolutely zip to do with the other.
If he wanted to write an article about what Mr. Hawkings life is like, what he has been through, etc. He should have done just that. I would have found it facinating myself. The man has indeed dealt with great hardship and managed to do great things.
But quite frankly, I think Mr. Hawking would be a little offended that you thought because of his condition, he was more qualified to speak on the future, than because of his scientific accomplishments.
Wasn't it Harlan Ellison who once said the life of a man should not overshadow his work? Unfortunately, if what you say above is what most people believe, both he and Ellison failed at that particular bit of wisdom.
I dunno, maybe it's just me.
But if I knew that the interview process face to face would limit the ability of my article to have actual content rather than a few cute quips, I might have composed an email of questions, topics, and stuff I'd like to hear from him about...and let him type them up at will. Being there in person accomplished a) a chance to see his Monroe pic, b) a chance to meet him c) little else.
>'Folks, a tech making fun of someone
d !" mile a minute attitude, and a whole host of others.
>learning how to operate a computer is
>like a school teacher making fun of a
>child learning how to read. It's just
>plain wrong.'
First of all, let me say, that taking your moral indignation out on a comic strip is rather silly. Comics are known to mock, ridicule, and hold the parts of our soceity up to light that most people wouldn't. Same with comedians.
Secondly, without any moral value placed on it, I'd like to explain why this "Once upon a Time" tech support guy used to mock his users so badly.
I started out my tech support gig with 3com. I was paid $6 an hour to do "pre sales" tech support....essentially configuring entire networks for salesmen calling in that didn't have the first clue how this stuff worked. Finally, one day in frustration of having to hear "rooter" one too many times, I asked the guy how much he made a year. It was something in the realm of $50k (or so he claimed). "Isn't it nice to know that your big fat paycheck is solidly built on the back of someone who knows what they are doing and is being paid slave wages?"
And that's what tech support is.
I've had to deal with insurance agencies and blue haired old ladies afraid of their keyboards, New Yorkers and their "I'm right, you're wrong, fix it now goddamitbecauseIamthemostimportantpersonintheworl
What kept me sane?
Mocking them. I had no other real choice. Its the curse of the "Customer is always right", you can't SAY the things you want to directly to the customer, unless you don't mind losing your job. So outside on cigarette breaks we'd have out 15 minutes mocking session, laugh, and let some of the venom out. (That and all the nickelodeon toys like Gak, Smud, and floam. Those are pretty darn good stress relivievers, and perfect to strangle while you cheerfully tell the customer "Annoy me? Not at all! Let me fix that right up!")
So I cheer the comics for giving the frustrated techs out there a release. And still think it's a little odd for someone to get bent out of shape for.
NASA.
Despite failures, despite bugs and glitches, despite an apatheic country to their success (yet who is all too eager to point out their faults)....these are the people who put Man on the moon. The ones responsible for my entire elementary school crowding around one little tv to watch the space shuttle shoot off into space.
They were, even if people don't see them so now..the makers of dreams, for quite a few people. And so as an entity, I nominate them.
I'm not sure about anyone else, but the main thing that keeps me where I live is the cost of living there. I've lived in a lot of places across the US over the years...From Iowa, to Chicago, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Nashville, Boston....and it always boils down to the same thing for me.
Sure, Boston is a neat city, but with the salary, living in Nashville, it goes 8x as far. I want to be able to afford my "toys" and pay my bills, and not worry about rents that are $2k a month for a decent place in a nice neighborhood.
(For what it's worth, I adored Boston. But in the end, paying almost 2 grand a month for a house was simply painful. Every time I wrote a check I was cringing inside and thinking about the fact it would be cheaper to just buy. Now I live in Nashville, work across the net, make the same salary, and have so much more money to afford the things in life that keep me happy.)
Perhaps I got spoiled by Iowa and the fact that I was renting a 3 bedroom farmhouse for $250 a month. But when I look at the price of living in a city, no matter what my salary is, paying over a certain amount to live somewhere is just not worth it to me. I can find the same opportunities anywhere...I used to joke that I picked the new city I was going to move to by throwing a dart at a map, and that I could have a job in 3 days of moving there. It wasn't really that much of a joke.
So for a town to keep me, it's got to be reasonably affordable. Because if it's not, there is one somewhere and I can have the same sort of job there, just as easily. It's as simple as that.
what did he do that was so new? Ever heard of Don Rickles?
;o) ) Why do Matisse paintings deserve the cheers they get? After all, someone's painted flowers before...and will continue to paint flowers today. Because he touched people, even with something so everyday as flowers. And it makes all the difference in the world.
I get really tired of seeing this argument. Using this same logic I could, with a wide sweep of my brush, dismiss just about any story ever told by saying "Geez. What's so new about this? Haven't you ever read Shakespeare?"
Newness isn't at question here. As a people, we're pretty hard pressed to find something that can't be considered derivative of something else. Greatness is at question here, and that's a different matter entirely.
What's the difference between seeing Patrick Stewart perform a one man version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL and the same show being done by Joe Bob Briggs? Passion, intensity, drive, and the ability to touch people in ways that others, despite their best intentions, lack. (and I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide which of those two I am talking about
Sure, we all are familiar with the archtypes of Guy Who Falls Down (tm), Guy Who Wants Girl But Girl Thinks He's Friend/Gay (tm), Angry Young Man Who Swears and Offends Everyone He Can (tm), and a whole host of others....what's important is the face, the person, and the talent that brings those archtypes beyond just something we all know, and makes it, for just a shining moment, a reality, not just an archtype.
Your post, in my opinion, misses the point of why Andy causes such heated defense and critique from different people...it's not a question of "Oh my god, he did something I've never seen before", but a question of "Oh my god, that guy made me laugh and squirm, maybe even think...and I love/hate him for it."
You can say what you will about him, but the sheer fact that a discussion of him brings up such heated debate as to his worth and talent says a lot in and of itself.
>but truth of the matter is, we didn't like Andy -
>and yet, he's regarded today as a legend.
That's not really as uncommon as you might think. It happens in varying degrees at various levels of any "Art"...and while I, by no means, attempt to compare myself to Andy, let me offer an example from my own life.
In my theatre, I was pretty much hated. Why? Because I knew what I wanted to do, how I wanted to do it, and by god, no one was going to stand in my way. During senior reviews, where my fellow classmates were allowed to give critique of my work (which had just gotten the first two standing ovations in my theatre's history, btw, one of my proudest "Screw you" moments to my theatre prof who failed me for the work in question, even after the two standing Os), one of those people who disliked me the strongest made the comment
"A brilliant piece of work. But a loose cannon who can not play by the rules, in the end, can not play at all." and gave me a very low rating. During the session where we discussed these comments, I looked right at the guy and told him, and I still mean it as strongly today. "No one ever built a statue to someone who played it safe."
Andy, if you liked it or not, liked HIM or not, was into his thing or simply couldn't bear to watch 20 seconds of it.....he was a man driven to follow his own road. If the people followed was not important, because in the end, if you are true to that desire and drive? The people will come.
The hardest part about art, is that it's a very lonely thing...It doesn't have to be. You can go be Patrick Swayze, or any other number of people who are pre-pressed and delivered to the masses by the entertainment gurus of the world, and have a nice safe existence......and the only compass you have is that inner fire that tells you "Don't sell out, keep believing, keep going...just one more step." and the chance, that maybe someday, even after you're dead...you could have made a difference. Your life, your work could have meant something beyond a tattered old forgotten 99 cent rental in some cheap video store bargain bin.
Like Andy or not, he did make a difference. And deserves... no, earned, his slot in history.
There's a reason good art is hated. It scares people because it's not the pre-pressed safe stuff they are used to. But like moths, people are drawn to it anyway because it's created with fire, and it can burn. Here's to ya, Andy.
>people wouldn't give a damn anyway,
>they'd be too worried with their jobs,
>taxes, finding food and all sorts of
>everyday problems.
Actually, I disagree. I think (and agree with the many who've said it before me, this is by no means an original thought), that the discovery of life somewhere else may well be one of the larger ticking time bombs there is for *Christians*. Now, while admittedly, the world is much larger than Christianity; in America, all sorts of hubbub could erupt....and all from one little line. "Made in his image". The chances of life elsewhere being (as in Star Trek) just like us, with a funky thing on the forehead, is really *not* a reality. And it will lead to all sorts of questions that for people who are used to NOT questioning.
I'm all for it. Shake them suckers up.
I do have to admit, ludicrious as it is, I keep thinking of Ray Bradbury's MARTIAN CHRONICALS and how the martians kept earth away for so long, when I read things like this
I've been a major SP fan for some time. We have a group of friends that get together to see this show every week, and a damn good time is had by all. So it was with some excitement that my partner and I headed to this movie.
First of all, I was amused at watching two 14 year olds trying to buy tickets, getting carded, and buying tickets to something else saying "She's just a bitch. We'll sneak in." and then watching those two same 14 year olds curse out loud and throw a tantrum worthy of Cartman when they got to the door of the theatre and there was an usher right outside, checking IDs and tickets before he would let anyone in to sit down.
So I had to chuckle when the movie started.
I liked some of the themes of the film, I thought they were truly timely, as does Jon Katz. I just wasn't as impressed with the movie as I have been with the tv show. Why? Maybe it was the shotgun swearing at every turn. Maybe I am secretly some puritan in my heart, and it just turned my mind off. You could probably come up with all sorts of reasons why I didn't "get it". But to be honest, no matter what the reason was, this fan of South park left the movie feeling really let down.
Big thumbs down from me.