.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/2002 8:47:15 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

These were the correct spelling until Americans re-wrote the
dictionary.

You may as well say the old English spellings were correct until middle English came along.  As true as that is, language is a living thing, not static.  Tell me, since your cars drive wrong way 'round do you drive around the building clockwise at the drive-through?  (Correct spelling drive-thru.)

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/2002 11:33:23 PM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

Matt, please. They're experts. - - - Jeff

Expert asses!
And John Williams is an expert corn flinger!

<.html

Rory <Haristas@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 10/29/02 3:17:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> alan@... writes:
>
>
> > why waste time writing a novelisation
>
> Why do you Brits and Aussies keep spelling novelization with an S?

I didn't write that bit, someone else did.

(Of course, it's still correct though...)

Alan

Matt <MTotsky@...> wrote:

> How the hell could Bernard Herrmann not be in the top 10? Randy
> Newman.....c'mon!!!!

I've not read the article, but I think it's picked from current
composers - i.e. who are the hottest composers working in Hollywood
today. That's why there are (relative) newbies like Zimmer and Shore
in there, due to their recent successes. Herrman is obviously omitted
due to being slightly too dead.

Alan

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 9:53:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

  I think the book came out in both France and America in '63 (I have the
"Time" magazine that reviews it, I think the week after Kennedy was killed)
and then in the UK in '64 as "Monkey Planet". Jacobs bought the rights
before it was published. - - - Jeff

Do you remember the gist of the "Time" magazine review.  When the movie came out the reviewer for "Time" said PLANET wasn't as good as an average episode of "Star Trek."   Can you believe that?!!!

I was in a used book store once and they had all these old copies of "Playboy."  So I spent thirty minutes trying to find the issue from '68 that might have a PLANET review.  When I did find it, it was only a paragraph long and negative!  I was so pissed.

-- Rory <.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 10:18:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

The new issue of "Film Score Monthly" has a cover story where they pick the top 40 composers for film. Here's the Top 10:

1. John Williams
2. James Horner
3. Hans Zimmer
4. Danny Elfman
5. Thomas Newman
6. James Newton Howard
7. Howard Shore
8. Alan Silvestri
9. Randy Newman
10. Jerry Goldsmith

Read 'em and weep, Rory. - - - Jeff

I subscribe to FSM and read that article nearly a month ago.  Even the editor, Lukas Kendall, said the article was "wrong."  It's criteria is based on who's in the greatest "demand" in Hollywood, and that's all based on how much the last film the composer scored made at the box-office.  Goldsmith is 72 now and slowing down and his last few films haven't been huge blockbusters.  Let's hope NEMESIS is a big hit.  John Williams isn't as good as Goldsmith, in my opinion, but he sure lucked out when Lucas and Schpealberg picked him as their composer of choice.

I have spoken!

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 10:21:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

The ads for Fox's next great sci-fi remake, "Solaris", are starting to appear. They are focusing on the love story. You wouldn't even know it takes place on a spaceship. Looks sad. Bring your hankies, Rory. - - - Jeff

I will bring my hankies, but I know YOU bring Kleenex to the movies -- and you know why!

Anyway, despite what Patrick said I'd still like to see the original SOLARIS, if I could only rent it on DVD with a good transfer.  This new SOLARIS looks like it might be a bomb.  That's what I'm smelling.  However, if it's really a romantic weeper then the chicks might make it a hit.

Remember what happened to Pee Wee, Jeff, and clean up your act, O High and Mighty!

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 11:07:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, pota@yahoogroups.com writes:

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
pota group:

What is the unit of monetary currency
on the Planet of the Apes?

  o Denarius
  o Sesterce
  o Monkey money
  o Zinj
  o Semos

Who's the one that's coming up with this stuff?  Anyway, I vote for Sesterce because I dig Roman movies.

Rome, if you want to!  Rome around the world!<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/02 11:13:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, MTotsky@... writes:

How the hell could Bernard Herrmann not be in the top 10?

He's dead, Jim.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 3:50:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

Gee Pat, for a smart guy you think up the stupidest shit.
Why do you even set your brain on a task like unflubbing
fubs?  Shouldn't you be looking for a cure for cancer?

Finding a cure for cancer will require the use of great apes so that no human will be further harmed while various cures are tested.  Of course, this require the breeding of vast numbers of apes, hence a genetic enhancement will have to be found to get the apes to breed in the kind of numbers that humans do.

It should all work out OK in the long run.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 4:15:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

Expert asses!
And John Williams is an expert corn flinger!

Alright, T!  I'm not the only one here who thinks Williams is overrated!   He did do a good theme for "Lost in Space" and "The Posiedon Adventure" though.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 5:55:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, alan@... writes:

In a message dated 10/29/02 3:17:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> alan@... writes:
>
>
> > why waste time writing a novelisation
>
> Why do you Brits and Aussies keep spelling novelization with an S?

I didn't write that bit, someone else did.

(Of course, it's still correct though...)

Alan

You spell novelize with a Z, then spell novelization with an S?  I don't get it, but then English has lots of examples of screwy spelling.

-- Rory<.html

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 5:46 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Doesn't it make ya misty? (OT)

In a message dated 10/29/02 10:21:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

The ads for Fox's next great sci-fi remake, "Solaris", are starting to appear. They are focusing on the love story. You wouldn't even know it takes place on a spaceship. Looks sad. Bring your hankies, Rory. - - - Jeff

I will bring my hankies, but I know YOU bring Kleenex to the movies -- and you know why!

Anyway, despite what Patrick said I'd still like to see the original SOLARIS, if I could only rent it on DVD with a good transfer.  This new SOLARIS looks like it might be a bomb.  That's what I'm smelling.  However, if it's really a romantic weeper then the chicks might make it a hit.

Remember what happened to Pee Wee, Jeff, and clean up your act, O High and Mighty!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 5:56 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...

In a message dated 10/30/02 3:50:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

Gee Pat, for a smart guy you think up the stupidest shit.
Why do you even set your brain on a task like unflubbing
fubs?  Shouldn't you be looking for a cure for cancer?

Finding a cure for cancer will require the use of great apes so that no human will be further harmed while various cures are tested.  Of course, this require the breeding of vast numbers of apes, hence a genetic enhancement will have to be found to get the apes to breed in the kind of numbers that humans do.

It should all work out OK in the long run.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 5:41 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Top 40 Film Composers (OT)

In a message dated 10/29/02 10:18:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

The new issue of "Film Score Monthly" has a cover story where they pick the top 40 composers for film. Here's the Top 10:

1. John Williams
2. James Horner
3. Hans Zimmer
4. Danny Elfman
5. Thomas Newman
6. James Newton Howard
7. Howard Shore
8. Alan Silvestri
9. Randy Newman
10. Jerry Goldsmith

Read 'em and weep, Rory. - - - Jeff

I subscribe to FSM and read that article nearly a month ago.  Even the editor, Lukas Kendall, said the article was "wrong."  It's criteria is based on who's in the greatest "demand" in Hollywood, and that's all based on how much the last film the composer scored made at the box-office.  Goldsmith is 72 now and slowing down and his last few films haven't been huge blockbusters.  Let's hope NEMESIS is a big hit.  John Williams isn't as good as Goldsmith, in my opinion, but he sure lucked out when Lucas and Schpealberg picked him as their composer of choice.

I have spoken!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:

> Yeah, and when he says "Jump on my bones Nova", he means Bones from

Star Trek.

>
> Patrick, again, I don't think I'm alone when I say it is a lot

harder to swallow your "Mothership" scenario than it is to accept
these flubs for what they are and get over it.

>
> How many people have told you this Patrick?
>
> Michael

*** Hmmm... lemme see... well, YOU have told me an uncountable number
of times, so if the QUANTITY of whining objections means anything,
then your multitudinous examples should count for something. Some
others, like Mlccougar & James90210, aren't too thrilled with my
scenario either. But, then again, your (plural) willingness to
just "accept" the flubs as irreconcilable mistakes is YOUR
prerogative, even if it means buying into a scientifically impossible
scenario (by which I mean, for one instance, the Brent-following-
Taylor-to-Earth scenario which I ended the posting below with--you
have YET to address the "hard to swallow" nature of that hypothesis).

I prefer to try to make the "extant filmed details" make sense. It
makes more sense, to me, that the ships seen in PLANET, BENEATH, and
ESCAPE are--like Professor Antelle's "chaloupes"/"launches"--mere
shuttlecraft, which are designed (primarily) to descend from a
bigger "mother"-ship on re-entry trajectories down to the surface of
the planet, and then are capable of taking off again at least once in
order to re-dock with the mothership. The lack of space (on the
COMPLETELY visible ship in BENEATH) for a "Mess" & a "Head" & months-
worth of cargo, etc., quite frankly demand a more plausible scenario
than the one the screenplaywrights probably intended.

Yet you go out of your way, in almost every single posting directed
at me, to condemn me for it. Hell, even Isaac Asimov altered HIS OWN
scenario regarding his "future history chronicles" (his ROBOT,
GALACTIC EMPIRE, and FOUNDATION novels). In his original "galactic
empire" novels, he has it that the planet Earth had suffered a
nuclear war which irradiated the soil, resulting in a higher mutation
rate (which figures into the plot of "Pebble in the Sky"). However,
later in his career, Asimov returned to writing more FOUNDATION
novels, as well as other novels connecting the ROBOT series to the
GALACTIC EMPIRE & FOUNDATION series... in particular, he wrote "The
Robots of Dawn" and "Robots and Empire, magnificent novels in which
he ALTERED/AMENDED HIS ORIGINAL SCENARIO (the Nuke War irradiating
the Earth), in favor of a better explanation for the Earth's eventual
uninhabitability due to radiation. In the second of those novels, an
anti-Earth citizen of the planet Aurora rigs a device called
a "nuclear amplifier" (on the site of what once was "Three Mile
Island") in order to artificially cause the Earth to become
radioactive; one of his robot characters (R. Giskard Reventlov),
despite his "Laws-of-Robotics" programming, ALLOWS this to happen due
to the unanticipated self-adaptation of the "Zeroth Law" in his
positronic brain, which allows him to ignore the 1st Law (not to harm
a human, or allow one to be harmed) in favor of Humanity as a whole,
which requires (he thinks) that Earth-bound Mankind make use of its
technology to "leave the nest" and go out to colonize the Galaxy, for
the sake of the long-term benefits of the species. By allowing
the "nuclear amplifier" to be triggered, Giskard knows that the Earth
will eventually become unlivable... but since he feels that Man needs
a "kick-in-the-pants" to get his ass off the Earth and into the
Galaxy, he doesn't do what an ordinary Asimovian robot would do (stop
the villain from triggering it), in favor of helping out Mankind as a
whole.
Asimov readily acknowledged that his ORIGINAL scenario (nuke war) no
longer worked as well for him, and so he CHANGED it slightly, coming
up with a NEW scenario which "fit the facts" of the "Asimovian
universe" (an uninhabitable, irradiated homeplanet of Humanity), yet
MADE BETTER SENSE than his original scheme of things.

The "original" POTA scenario, filmwise, is the scenario put forth in
PLANET (1968). Dehn's sequel CHANGED this, making Taylor's ship out
to be somehow "lost" in space, requiring that ANOTHER ship go out and
try to find it; Brent's ship unintentionally goes through what he
calls "a Hasslein curve", whereas in PLANET Taylor's ship
INTENTIONALLY undergoes Time Dilation "according to Dr. Hasslein's
theory".
If Dehn (and whoever else was responsible for the plots of the
sequels, as well as the nitty-gritty details) can CHANGE the scenario
implied in the 1st film to serve the needs of his sequels, then I'm
not a damn bit shy about coming up with a different scenario which
takes into account all the details given in both PLANET and its
sequels, a scenario which doesn't rely on me jettisoning prior-
produced details and which, to me, makes better sense out of it all.

So you don't like my take on it. So what? You're free to "accept the
flubs" or whatever. You're free to dream up your OWN scenario, to
make better sense of it all in your own noggin, if you wish.
Frankly, I don't care if ANYBODY else digs what I'm cookin' up. It
tastes good to ME, which is the only criterion that ever really
matters. If you think I'm going to abandon my plans to develop my
scenario into a mega-novel, or amend them just to please your
penchant for "accepting the flubs", you've got another thing coming.

Patrick

P.S. Mike, I've got a challenge for you. You keep ducking it, but I
want YOU to come up with a plausible explanation regarding the
trajectory Brent follows to miraculously wind up near Taylor's
location in the Forbidden Zone. "Taylor's trajectory" through
interstellar space ENDS at the location of the planet Earth WEEKS
before Brent's ship arrives, according to Dehn's scenario (and
yours), right? Weeks later, after the Earth has moved MILLIONS of
miles away from the end-point of Taylor's trajectory, Brent's ship
somehow is able to go that extra distance, millions of miles away to
where the Earth has travelled in its orbit... right? How!? If
Taylor's trajectory ended millions of miles away (weeks earlier in
Earth's solar orbit), how could Brent not only end up on the surface
of the same planet, but ALSO in the SAME PLACE (the Forbidden Zone)?
Make sense of that, Mike. Please. C'mon, don't be shy about it. Tell
me why I should buy into THAT implausibility, "accepting the flub",
and not prefer my own scenario which makes better sense of the extant
filmed details. C'mon, Mike! Defend "your" preferred scenario. Make
sense out of it, if you can.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@y...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 5:02
> > To: pota@y...
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...
> >
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > In a message dated 10/28/2002 6:41:17 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > whitty@c... writes:
> >
> > > > I agree...you could even argue that Nova has miscarried by

the start of Beneath, but it is not mentioned.

> >
> > > Agreed, and that'd be a good way of having her not be pregnant

in Beneath... I mean riding around in the hot desert, facing
malnutrition and dehydration could easily cause that to happen...

> >
> > > > Please don't add a mothership or an "ANSA threesome behind the
> > bushes"....
> >
> > > And one more thing about this "mothership" nonsense... If this

alleged mothership "Earth" also carried Brent and his skipper, then
why (in Beneath) would Taylor ask Brent "How in hell did you get
here?" If there "was" a mothership, Taylor would know how Brent got
down to the Planet's surface anyway... (Of course he wouldn't
neccessarily know about Brent's escapades in Ape City, and all of
that, but Taylor certainly would have at least some idea of how Brent
got to him...)

> >
> > *** Regarding "this 'mothership' nonsense"... well, you picked a
> > fight, so you hafta expect me to fight back, Mlccougarmellencamp!
> >
> > In my "mothership" scenario, I suggested that the reason that

Taylor doesn't expect to encounter any other ANSA astronauts is for
the same reason he tells Landon that "we're here to stay" earlier in
PLANET. Their ship wasn't "programmed to land in the water", and they
were supposed to wake up while still in space--NOT after splash-
landing in a lake in the middle of a friggin' desert. Taylor (in my
scenario) assumes that something catastrophic happened to his
mothership ("U.S.S. Earth"), probably a melt-down in its nuclear
power plant or something like that; and the mothership's computers--
in order to safeguard the lives of the astronauts hibernating on its
attached shuttlecraft--automatically detaches them, so that they can
get far enough away before the mothership goes >BOOM<. After waking
up, Taylor soon realizes that SOMETHING WENT WRONG, which resulted in
their shuttle detaching from a probably destroyed mothership--which,
nonetheless, he TRIES to contact, having Landon "get out a last
signal... to [the mothership] Earth, that we've landed!"--and their
quick emergency landing on this planet BEFORE THE SHIP'S COMPUTERS
HAD TIME TO REVIVE THEM FROM DRUG-INDUCED HIBERNATION. Taylor has
every reason to assume that the reason that they're on the planet "to
stay" is because the astronauts hibernating on the mothership have
been killed by whatever probably destroyed the ship in the first
place--and Brent would be among those probably dead astronauts, which
is why Taylor is surprised to see him in BENEATH. Taylor didn't have
any tracking device on his person, for Brent to "home in on", now,
did he? How COULD Brent end up there in that same cell at Grand
Central Station in the year 3955? he wonders. If you, Mlccougar,
think it's MORE plausible that Brent and Skipper flew a rather small
vehicle (ALL of which is visible in BENEATH) across hundreds of
lightyears, somehow "following Taylor's trajectory" across MILLIONS
and MILLIONS of miles of space... and miraculously not only ended up
back in the Solar System (without knowing that!), but also back at
the planet Earth (without knowing that either, despite taking
an "Earth-Time reading BEFORE re-entry"), which has continued in its
orbit around the Sun during the WEEKS between Taylor's landing and
his own landing... then, hey, if THAT works better for you, go right
on ahead! I think it's ludicrous, myself. Following "Taylor's
trajectory" (as YOU think it means) across just the Solar System
would NOT get you back to Earth, since the planet MOVES as it orbits
the Sun. The Earth orbits the Sun (at a distance of 1 AU) from
93,000,000 miles away or so, right? That would be the radius of a
near-circle which is 584 Million miles in circumference (2 x radius x
pi). Every single day, the planet goes 1/365.2422 along that big
circle. That means that the Earth is already about 1,600,000 miles
away from its location just ONE DAY LATER. Taylor, after landing in
Dead Lake (etc.) and winding up jailed after he gets his voice back,
asks Zira, "It's been WEEKS! Why didn't you come see me?" You get
that? The events of PLANET take WEEKS--all during which Brent &
Skipper have YET to land on Earth. During those "weeks", the Earth
moves along at a rate of about 1.6 Million miles per day, which
equals 11.2 Million miles per week. Multiply that by however number
of weeks you think happens between the landings of Taylor and Brent,
and ask yourself HOW THE FUCK Brent was able to follow Taylor's
trajectory through a part of space Taylor hadn't flown.

> > Answer: he COULDN'T. It ain't possible. Flying through space is

like shooting skeet. Every second the skeet moves through the air you
have to aim your gun further and further to the side, anticipating
the skeet's location in the FUTURE so that your bullet will intercept
it and shatter it, rather than fly right on by. Similarly, Brent's
ship would have to KNOW that Taylor's ship went SPECIFICALLY to the
planet orbiting 93,000,000 miles away from the star up ahead, and
that during the interim that same planet is now FURTHER ALONG in its
orbit, requiring Brent to utilize more fuel to get his ship across
those extra millions of miles of empty space.

> > My scenario--which has it that "Taylor's trajectory" is a RE-

ENTRY trajectory from orbit, from the mothership occupying the SAME
orbit--makes much more sense. At least to ME. Brent knew he was
landing not only on the same planet Taylor had landed on earlier, but
he (or his ship's computer) knew how many orbits had gone by since
then, and could calculate just when to do a "re-entry burn" in order
to land his ship relatively near the landing site of Taylor's ship.
If he didn't have that necessary info, it'd be a frickin' MIRACLE for
him to land not only on the same continent, but also the same
desert/area ON that continent as Taylor, probably within 10 or 20
miles of the Lake.

> > Brent never mentions following any "beacon" to Taylor's ship--

that's one of the things that Burton's flick addressed, where Leo's
pod somehow winds up fairly near to the site where the Oberon
crashlanded (and, similarly, the space-monkey who lands at the end
ALSO must have "homed-in" on Leo's & the Oberon's signals). But Brent
did NOT follow any "homing signal"--he tells Skipper that they "were
following Taylor's TRAJECTORY", which can ONLY refer to an orbit-to-
surface RE-ENTRY path.

> > Astronautical flight dynamics are on MY side of this argument,

Mlccougar. But, hey, this IS an argument, right? Feel free to counter-
punch with a better explanation. Please try and explain away the
Brent-to-Earth-weeks-later trajectory alterations he would have had
to make. Please! Make better sense of that, if you can. I don't think
you (or anybody else) can, since it goes against all logic, but feel
free to try.

> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >
> >

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:

> I don't blame Darwin; that's my point. Boneheads misconstrue

evolution just like they do religion (don't blame "religion"). Yeah,
I saw "Scare Straight". And yes, rape happens. I was just being
silly. "American History X" was a good movie. - - Jeff

*** Don't blame "religion"? When it is deserving of blame? I'm not
saying that Hitler didn't "twist" religion around to bolster his
arguments in favor of mistreating Jews (he did), but he ALSO took a
verse (quoted below, from "John" 8:44) which EXPLICITLY has the
supposed Son of God/Savior/Messiah character, Jesus, refer to a crowd
of Jews as being children of the Devil. Hitler's de-humanization of
Jews goes hand-in-hand with that of the "evangelist" who wrote John's
gospel. If Hitler's propaganda against the Jews is worthy of
condemnation, why the hell isn't similar propaganda written by "John"
(against the Jews & Judaism, to a Roman audience, where Pontius
Pilate is portrayed as a reluctant crucifier... and the onus on
that "Christ-killing" is the group of Jews who insist on it)?
The people who dare to write books/letters/pamphlets/diatribes
pretending to be speaking on behalf of God (i.e. "inspired" by
the "spirit of God") have a responsibility NOT to demonize people.
Yet, all too often, that is EXACTLY the motivation behind the writing
of "religious" tracts, be they Gospels, Apocalyptic/Eschatological
literature, Proverbial/Psalmic works, whatever. It's easy to ignore
the commandment "not to murder" when entire populations of people can
be demonized, said to be NOT purely human but, rather, the offspring
of demons. That was the root of the slaughter of the indigenous
Canaanites (thought to be the offspring of the wife of Ham and
a "fallen angel" named Shemhazai--obliquely referred to in "Genesis"
VI:1-6) by the Israelites. It was the root of the fight against
the "Kittim" by the Jewish Zealots in their war against Rome ("The
War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness"). It is the
root of "Christian" anti-semitism, BASED ON JOHN 8:44, which has
resulted in the pogroms against Jews throughout the last 2000 years.
It is the root of the Black Muslim doctrines which demonize
the "white" race as being the offspring of Demons and their raped
black victims (see the movie "Malcolm X" for a scene, in prison,
where Malcolm is exposed to this sort of religious-based racism).
Even now, on the Web, there are neo-Nazi sites which quote the Bible
word-for-word, to justify their hatred of Jews, Blacks, "mud-
peoples", etc.
If there IS a God up there in heaven, then He must not have much of a
problem with this situation. Evidently, He doesn't care enough for
the human race to put his foot down and say, "STOP! None of these so-
called "sacred" writings expresses My will! Nobody on Earth
is "fathered by a Devil"--you're all people! Equal in My eyes!"
But, Noooo! God is like some guy whose credit card is stolen by some
jerk who goes on to buy kiddie porn... and He doesn't even have the
sense to be outraged that the record shows such purchases to have
been made by Him. If all the religion-abusers acting in God's name to
commit atrocities can't motivate God to get off his lazy ass and put
a stop to it--if for no other reason than to save His own reputation--
then what the fuck will?
If God won't save the children who are raped by PRIESTS, or whose
clitorises are sheared off by RELIGIOUS people (in predominantly
African Muslim-dominated nations), then why should any one of us
think that He cares at all for anybody? If the suffering of helpless
children can't get God to intervene, then He isn't worthy of our
worship, let alone our belief.
Religion, Jeff, is a "meme" which--like a disease--has spread
throughout the psyche of humanity, infecting it with Illogic
and "righteous" Intolerance. It's time for the re-invigorating of
the "Age of Reason" and "Enlightenment" to scrap those medieval ways
of thinking, which don't serve the human race well anymore--not that
they EVER did. We need a "Virdon & Burke" to show up on our backward
planet to show us how to use Science to better our condition, and to
overthrow the superstitions of False Religion (as in "The
Liberator"). And, remember this: ALL Religion is False Religion. God
is a Myth; if God is "all-powerful" then why can't he create a rock
so heavy that even He can't lift it? Logic! He can't--which means
He's not all-powerful, which means He isn't a God after all.

Patrick

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
>
> > --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > Well, it's Sunday night. Time to read Pat's posts. On this one,

it's true much carnage has resulted from religion; but also from
science (the Nazis took their cue for a master race from evolution)
and TV shows, movies...people will find any reason to kill each
other. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

> > *** The Nazis weren't just a political party--they were a warrior

priesthood, with Himmler's SS acting as a neo-Templar group of "holy
warriors" bent on eradicating the lesser race of Jews, due to a
millennia-long hatred which Hitler got from the words of Christ
himself, when He referred to the Jews, in JOHN 8:44, as "...you are
of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's
desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do
with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father
of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which
of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not
believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why
you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

> > Hitler, in "MEIN KAMPF", advocated the End of "race-mixing",

saying (in Vol. II, Chapter II: "The State") that he favors "an end
to the constant and continuous ORIGINAL SIN of racial poisoning, and
to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created" (my
emphasis). Hitler's anti-semitism was THEOLOGICALLY based. His "Third
Reich" was not so different from the previous two "reichs", which
were ostensibly "Holy" and "Roman" and especially "Christian" and
intolerant towards the "killers of Christ"--the Jews. Did Hitler
misconstrue Darwinism to further his own political/religious agenda?
Sure. But don't blame Darwin for that; besides which, the "doctrine"
of "survival-of-the-fittest" is NOT an accurate depiction of
Darwinian Natural Selection. Racists have long abused the scientific
theory of Evolution by purporting that it somehow supports their
views that certain "mud-peoples" are "lesser" races, closer to the
Ape than to the True Man.

> There's also people who quietly go about their religion and find

comfort in it. Personally, I don't believe in any religion but still
manage to find God in the cracks. Especially in the irony of the
world.

> > *** I have absolutely nothing against (i.e. I'm TOLERANT towards)

people who "go about their religion and find comfort in it" as long
as they don't infringe on the rights of others who don't share their
religion (or ANY religion). The McCarthyite jerks who foisted
the "amended" version of the Pledge of Allegiance (adding "Under God"
to what the original writer intended to be a non-sectarian pledge of
patriotism) are just the sort of creeps who want to force at least
SOME kind of religiosity on ALL people--especially impressionable
children in kindergarten, who can't escape such indoctrination. Our
representatives may be "democratically" elected, but our nation is a
Constitutional Republic which holds that the unalienable Rights of
THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN are paramount, which the State has NO RIGHT
WHATSOEVER to infringe upon--that's why the Bill of Rights was added
to it: to protect EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN from the potential abuses
of the Government and "the tyranny of the majority".

>
> The Bramley book sounds interesting. As High Potentate, I proclaim

Pat our Minister of Knowledge. He provides your King with much food
for thought and the occasional good chuckle. But he's wrong about
rape in jail - - that doesn't happen. Our government runs our jails,
so obviously they put a stop to that sort of thing. It's not proper.

>
> *** You ever see "Scared Straight"? It came out, oh, sometime in

the late 1970's if I remember correctly. Peter Falk introduced it,
and it used non-censored footage of hardcore prisoners telling a
bunch of troublemaking teenagers what they could expect to experience
if they ever were imprisoned. I don't know about YOU, but it sounded
to me as if those convicts were speaking from experience! The
film "American History X" has a shower-scene that I--for one--would
not want to experience first-hand.

> >
> > Patrick
> >
> Yes, the God in the Old Testament is not quite the same as in the

New one. Even your High Potentate has mood swings, but he certainly
wouldn't allow it to be portrayed in a "bible".- - His Royal Highness

--- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:

>
> Gee Pat, for a smart guy you think up the stupidest shit.
> Why do you even set your brain on a task like unflubbing
> fubs? Shouldn't you be looking for a cure for cancer?

*** Hah!

There are better-qualified guys out there studying the telomerase-
producing genes which give cancer its ability to proliferate so
nastily. When they figure out how to control the production of
telomerase, they'll not only cure cancer, but also cure that Edenic
curse of "Death". The only reason we wear out and die ("natural
causes" & old age), is because our cells can only divide so many
times before the "end-caps" of the DNA strands wear out (the
Telomeres). If we can boost the production of Telomerase in our
cells, then we should be able to increase the longevity of human cell
division indefinitely.

Ah, Science!

Patrick

I saw Johnnie Knoxville's flick, "Jackass: The Movie", the other day.
I'd never actually seen any of his MTV shows before, but had heard
that they were hilarious and irresponsible.
The movie isn't consistently hilarious, but often enough it had me
roaring with laughter. If you go to it, make sure you sit through the
end-credits, all the way through; some people in the theater I saw it
in made the mistake of assuming the movie was over when the credits
started to roll... and they missed the funniest sequence of all.

I don't think I'll be able to stomach the thought of eating a sno-
cone anytime soon, after seeing this flick! If you've seen it, you
know what I'm talkin' about.

In my opinion, it's the funniest movie since "South Park: Bigger,
Longer, & Uncut".

Patrick

You were in a store full of Playboys and all you were interested in
was finding a review of Planet??? You really need help;-)
PS Have any of the Haitians come to visit yet?

--- In pota@y..., Haristas@a... wrote:
> I was in a used book store once and they had all these old copies
of
> "Playboy." So I spent thirty minutes trying to find the issue
from '68 that
> might have a PLANET review. When I did find it, it was only a
paragraph long
> and negative! I was so pissed.
>
> -- Rory

For once we agree. Williams is a hack. His work has no depth or
subtext.

--- In pota@y..., Haristas@a... wrote:
> Alright, T! I'm not the only one here who thinks Williams is
overrated! He
> did do a good theme for "Lost in Space" and "The Posiedon
Adventure" though.
>
> -- Rory

Patrick take a deep breath and say to yourself 'It's just a movie'.

--- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
wrote:

> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Yeah, and when he says "Jump on my bones Nova", he means Bones

from

> Star Trek.
> >
> > Patrick, again, I don't think I'm alone when I say it is a lot
> harder to swallow your "Mothership" scenario than it is to accept
> these flubs for what they are and get over it.
> >
> > How many people have told you this Patrick?
> >
> > Michael
>
> *** Hmmm... lemme see... well, YOU have told me an uncountable

number

> of times, so if the QUANTITY of whining objections means anything,
> then your multitudinous examples should count for something. Some
> others, like Mlccougar & James90210, aren't too thrilled with my
> scenario either. But, then again, your (plural) willingness to
> just "accept" the flubs as irreconcilable mistakes is YOUR
> prerogative, even if it means buying into a scientifically

impossible

> scenario (by which I mean, for one instance, the Brent-following-
> Taylor-to-Earth scenario which I ended the posting below with--you
> have YET to address the "hard to swallow" nature of that

hypothesis).

>
> I prefer to try to make the "extant filmed details" make sense. It
> makes more sense, to me, that the ships seen in PLANET, BENEATH,

and

> ESCAPE are--like Professor Antelle's "chaloupes"/"launches"--mere
> shuttlecraft, which are designed (primarily) to descend from a
> bigger "mother"-ship on re-entry trajectories down to the surface

of

> the planet, and then are capable of taking off again at least once

in

> order to re-dock with the mothership. The lack of space (on the
> COMPLETELY visible ship in BENEATH) for a "Mess" & a "Head" &

months-

> worth of cargo, etc., quite frankly demand a more plausible

scenario

> than the one the screenplaywrights probably intended.
>
> Yet you go out of your way, in almost every single posting directed
> at me, to condemn me for it. Hell, even Isaac Asimov altered HIS

OWN

> scenario regarding his "future history chronicles" (his ROBOT,
> GALACTIC EMPIRE, and FOUNDATION novels). In his original "galactic
> empire" novels, he has it that the planet Earth had suffered a
> nuclear war which irradiated the soil, resulting in a higher

mutation

> rate (which figures into the plot of "Pebble in the Sky"). However,
> later in his career, Asimov returned to writing more FOUNDATION
> novels, as well as other novels connecting the ROBOT series to the
> GALACTIC EMPIRE & FOUNDATION series... in particular, he wrote "The
> Robots of Dawn" and "Robots and Empire, magnificent novels in which
> he ALTERED/AMENDED HIS ORIGINAL SCENARIO (the Nuke War irradiating
> the Earth), in favor of a better explanation for the Earth's

eventual

> uninhabitability due to radiation. In the second of those novels,

an

> anti-Earth citizen of the planet Aurora rigs a device called
> a "nuclear amplifier" (on the site of what once was "Three Mile
> Island") in order to artificially cause the Earth to become
> radioactive; one of his robot characters (R. Giskard Reventlov),
> despite his "Laws-of-Robotics" programming, ALLOWS this to happen

due

> to the unanticipated self-adaptation of the "Zeroth Law" in his
> positronic brain, which allows him to ignore the 1st Law (not to

harm

> a human, or allow one to be harmed) in favor of Humanity as a

whole,

> which requires (he thinks) that Earth-bound Mankind make use of its
> technology to "leave the nest" and go out to colonize the Galaxy,

for

> the sake of the long-term benefits of the species. By allowing
> the "nuclear amplifier" to be triggered, Giskard knows that the

Earth

> will eventually become unlivable... but since he feels that Man

needs

> a "kick-in-the-pants" to get his ass off the Earth and into the
> Galaxy, he doesn't do what an ordinary Asimovian robot would do

(stop

> the villain from triggering it), in favor of helping out Mankind as

a

> whole.
> Asimov readily acknowledged that his ORIGINAL scenario (nuke war)

no

> longer worked as well for him, and so he CHANGED it slightly,

coming

> up with a NEW scenario which "fit the facts" of the "Asimovian
> universe" (an uninhabitable, irradiated homeplanet of Humanity),

yet

> MADE BETTER SENSE than his original scheme of things.
>
> The "original" POTA scenario, filmwise, is the scenario put forth

in

> PLANET (1968). Dehn's sequel CHANGED this, making Taylor's ship out
> to be somehow "lost" in space, requiring that ANOTHER ship go out

and

> try to find it; Brent's ship unintentionally goes through what he
> calls "a Hasslein curve", whereas in PLANET Taylor's ship
> INTENTIONALLY undergoes Time Dilation "according to Dr. Hasslein's
> theory".
> If Dehn (and whoever else was responsible for the plots of the
> sequels, as well as the nitty-gritty details) can CHANGE the

scenario

> implied in the 1st film to serve the needs of his sequels, then I'm
> not a damn bit shy about coming up with a different scenario which
> takes into account all the details given in both PLANET and its
> sequels, a scenario which doesn't rely on me jettisoning prior-
> produced details and which, to me, makes better sense out of it all.
>
> So you don't like my take on it. So what? You're free to "accept

the

> flubs" or whatever. You're free to dream up your OWN scenario, to
> make better sense of it all in your own noggin, if you wish.
> Frankly, I don't care if ANYBODY else digs what I'm cookin' up. It
> tastes good to ME, which is the only criterion that ever really
> matters. If you think I'm going to abandon my plans to develop my
> scenario into a mega-novel, or amend them just to please your
> penchant for "accepting the flubs", you've got another thing

coming.

>
> Patrick
>
> P.S. Mike, I've got a challenge for you. You keep ducking it, but I
> want YOU to come up with a plausible explanation regarding the
> trajectory Brent follows to miraculously wind up near Taylor's
> location in the Forbidden Zone. "Taylor's trajectory" through
> interstellar space ENDS at the location of the planet Earth WEEKS
> before Brent's ship arrives, according to Dehn's scenario (and
> yours), right? Weeks later, after the Earth has moved MILLIONS of
> miles away from the end-point of Taylor's trajectory, Brent's ship
> somehow is able to go that extra distance, millions of miles away

to

> where the Earth has travelled in its orbit... right? How!? If
> Taylor's trajectory ended millions of miles away (weeks earlier in
> Earth's solar orbit), how could Brent not only end up on the

surface

> of the same planet, but ALSO in the SAME PLACE (the Forbidden Zone)?
> Make sense of that, Mike. Please. C'mon, don't be shy about it.

Tell

> me why I should buy into THAT implausibility, "accepting the flub",
> and not prefer my own scenario which makes better sense of the

extant

> filmed details. C'mon, Mike! Defend "your" preferred scenario. Make
> sense out of it, if you can.
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@y...]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 5:02
> > > To: pota@y...
> > > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > > In a message dated 10/28/2002 6:41:17 PM Central Standard

Time,

> > > > whitty@c... writes:
> > >
> > > > > I agree...you could even argue that Nova has miscarried by
> the start of Beneath, but it is not mentioned.
> > >
> > > > Agreed, and that'd be a good way of having her not be

pregnant

> in Beneath... I mean riding around in the hot desert, facing
> malnutrition and dehydration could easily cause that to happen...
> > >
> > > > > Please don't add a mothership or an "ANSA threesome behind

the

> > > bushes"....
> > >
> > > > And one more thing about this "mothership" nonsense... If

this

> alleged mothership "Earth" also carried Brent and his skipper, then
> why (in Beneath) would Taylor ask Brent "How in hell did you get
> here?" If there "was" a mothership, Taylor would know how Brent got
> down to the Planet's surface anyway... (Of course he wouldn't
> neccessarily know about Brent's escapades in Ape City, and all of
> that, but Taylor certainly would have at least some idea of how

Brent

> got to him...)
> > >
> > > *** Regarding "this 'mothership' nonsense"... well, you picked a
> > > fight, so you hafta expect me to fight back,

Mlccougarmellencamp!

> > >
> > > In my "mothership" scenario, I suggested that the reason that
> Taylor doesn't expect to encounter any other ANSA astronauts is for
> the same reason he tells Landon that "we're here to stay" earlier

in

> PLANET. Their ship wasn't "programmed to land in the water", and

they

> were supposed to wake up while still in space--NOT after splash-
> landing in a lake in the middle of a friggin' desert. Taylor (in my
> scenario) assumes that something catastrophic happened to his
> mothership ("U.S.S. Earth"), probably a melt-down in its nuclear
> power plant or something like that; and the mothership's computers--
> in order to safeguard the lives of the astronauts hibernating on

its

> attached shuttlecraft--automatically detaches them, so that they

can

> get far enough away before the mothership goes >BOOM<. After waking
> up, Taylor soon realizes that SOMETHING WENT WRONG, which resulted

in

> their shuttle detaching from a probably destroyed mothership--

which,

> nonetheless, he TRIES to contact, having Landon "get out a last
> signal... to [the mothership] Earth, that we've landed!"--and their
> quick emergency landing on this planet BEFORE THE SHIP'S COMPUTERS
> HAD TIME TO REVIVE THEM FROM DRUG-INDUCED HIBERNATION. Taylor has
> every reason to assume that the reason that they're on the

planet "to

> stay" is because the astronauts hibernating on the mothership have
> been killed by whatever probably destroyed the ship in the first
> place--and Brent would be among those probably dead astronauts,

which

> is why Taylor is surprised to see him in BENEATH. Taylor didn't

have

> any tracking device on his person, for Brent to "home in on", now,
> did he? How COULD Brent end up there in that same cell at Grand
> Central Station in the year 3955? he wonders. If you, Mlccougar,
> think it's MORE plausible that Brent and Skipper flew a rather

small

> vehicle (ALL of which is visible in BENEATH) across hundreds of
> lightyears, somehow "following Taylor's trajectory" across MILLIONS
> and MILLIONS of miles of space... and miraculously not only ended

up

> back in the Solar System (without knowing that!), but also back at
> the planet Earth (without knowing that either, despite taking
> an "Earth-Time reading BEFORE re-entry"), which has continued in

its

> orbit around the Sun during the WEEKS between Taylor's landing and
> his own landing... then, hey, if THAT works better for you, go

right

> on ahead! I think it's ludicrous, myself. Following "Taylor's
> trajectory" (as YOU think it means) across just the Solar System
> would NOT get you back to Earth, since the planet MOVES as it

orbits

> the Sun. The Earth orbits the Sun (at a distance of 1 AU) from
> 93,000,000 miles away or so, right? That would be the radius of a
> near-circle which is 584 Million miles in circumference (2 x radius

x

> pi). Every single day, the planet goes 1/365.2422 along that big
> circle. That means that the Earth is already about 1,600,000 miles
> away from its location just ONE DAY LATER. Taylor, after landing in
> Dead Lake (etc.) and winding up jailed after he gets his voice

back,

> asks Zira, "It's been WEEKS! Why didn't you come see me?" You get
> that? The events of PLANET take WEEKS--all during which Brent &
> Skipper have YET to land on Earth. During those "weeks", the Earth
> moves along at a rate of about 1.6 Million miles per day, which
> equals 11.2 Million miles per week. Multiply that by however number
> of weeks you think happens between the landings of Taylor and

Brent,

> and ask yourself HOW THE FUCK Brent was able to follow Taylor's
> trajectory through a part of space Taylor hadn't flown.
> > > Answer: he COULDN'T. It ain't possible. Flying through space is
> like shooting skeet. Every second the skeet moves through the air

you

> have to aim your gun further and further to the side, anticipating
> the skeet's location in the FUTURE so that your bullet will

intercept

> it and shatter it, rather than fly right on by. Similarly, Brent's
> ship would have to KNOW that Taylor's ship went SPECIFICALLY to the
> planet orbiting 93,000,000 miles away from the star up ahead, and
> that during the interim that same planet is now FURTHER ALONG in

its

> orbit, requiring Brent to utilize more fuel to get his ship across
> those extra millions of miles of empty space.
> > > My scenario--which has it that "Taylor's trajectory" is a RE-
> ENTRY trajectory from orbit, from the mothership occupying the SAME
> orbit--makes much more sense. At least to ME. Brent knew he was
> landing not only on the same planet Taylor had landed on earlier,

but

> he (or his ship's computer) knew how many orbits had gone by since
> then, and could calculate just when to do a "re-entry burn" in

order

> to land his ship relatively near the landing site of Taylor's ship.
> If he didn't have that necessary info, it'd be a frickin' MIRACLE

for

> him to land not only on the same continent, but also the same
> desert/area ON that continent as Taylor, probably within 10 or 20
> miles of the Lake.
> > > Brent never mentions following any "beacon" to Taylor's ship--
> that's one of the things that Burton's flick addressed, where Leo's
> pod somehow winds up fairly near to the site where the Oberon
> crashlanded (and, similarly, the space-monkey who lands at the end
> ALSO must have "homed-in" on Leo's & the Oberon's signals). But

Brent

> did NOT follow any "homing signal"--he tells Skipper that

they "were

> following Taylor's TRAJECTORY", which can ONLY refer to an orbit-to-
> surface RE-ENTRY path.
> > > Astronautical flight dynamics are on MY side of this argument,
> Mlccougar. But, hey, this IS an argument, right? Feel free to

counter-

> punch with a better explanation. Please try and explain away the
> Brent-to-Earth-weeks-later trajectory alterations he would have had
> to make. Please! Make better sense of that, if you can. I don't

think

> you (or anybody else) can, since it goes against all logic, but

feel

> free to try.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> > >
> > >
> > >

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 10:06:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

  I thought that magazine was supposed to be about the art of film composing, not the commerce. Is it becoming "Entertainment Weekly"? - - - Jeff

No, but they have to find something to fill up the pages.  I only use the mag to keep me informed on what cool soundtrack CDs will be coming out.

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 11:45:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

Patrick

P.S. Mike, I've got a challenge for you. You keep ducking it, but I
want YOU to come up with a plausible explanation regarding the
trajectory Brent follows to miraculously wind up near Taylor's
location in the Forbidden Zone. "Taylor's trajectory" through
interstellar space ENDS at the location of the planet Earth WEEKS
before Brent's ship arrives, according to Dehn's scenario (and
yours), right?

Don't fall into Patrick's devious plot, Michael, he holds all the cards, and this is just he devilish way of trying to get you to follow him into the bushes of POTAdom.  Once there in the bushes with him, Michael, you know what he'll do to you!  Beware of the beast Patrick.  Shun him.  Drive him back into the bushed, for he wants to take a trip. . . .

to Uranus!

-- Roryus<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 12:26:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** Don't blame "religion"? When it is deserving of blame?

Remember what they did to Galileo, Patrick?  What was that all about?  How could the "church" be so mean to such a nice man?  Tell me why, Patrick?  Tell me why?  (Sob, sob)

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 12:32:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

The only reason we wear out and die ("natural
causes" & old age), is because our cells can only divide so many
times before the "end-caps" of the DNA strands wear out (the
Telomeres). If we can boost the production of Telomerase in our
cells, then we should be able to increase the longevity of human cell
division indefinitely.

Ah, Science!

Patrick

I thought we die basically because our bodies rust, like the Tin Man in that wonderful movie "The Wizard of Oz."  Have you ever seen it, Patrick?  Oh, it's just lovely.

-- Rory

P.S.  I'm actually serious here.  We rust to death.  That's why antioxidants are a big thing these days.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 12:52:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

I saw Johnnie Knoxville's flick, "Jackass: The Movie", the other day.

Why did you go bother to see the biography of yourself, Patrick?  You are a sick one, you know?

-- Rory (Well, give me an opening and I'm going to take it, Pat ol' bean!)<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 12:54:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

You were in a store full of Playboys and all you were interested in
was finding a review of Planet??? You really need help;-)
PS Have any of the Haitians come to visit yet?

I could say something here about the planet of the apes, but that would be in bad taste, wouldn't it?

-- Rory<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 12:56:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

For once we agree. Williams is a hack. His work has no depth or subtext.

WE AGREE! WE AGREE!  Okay, now let's tackle that map thing again!

-- Rory<.html

.html In a message dated 10/29/2002 8:47:15 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

These were the correct spelling until Americans re-wrote the
dictionary.

You may as well say the old English spellings were correct until middle English came along.  As true as that is, language is a living thing, not static.  Tell me, since your cars drive wrong way 'round do you drive around the building clockwise at the drive-through?  (Correct spelling drive-thru.)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

.html In a message dated 10/29/02 9:53:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

  I think the book came out in both France and America in '63 (I have the
"Time" magazine that reviews it, I think the week after Kennedy was killed)
and then in the UK in '64 as "Monkey Planet". Jacobs bought the rights
before it was published. - - - Jeff

Do you remember the gist of the "Time" magazine review.  When the movie came out the reviewer for "Time" said PLANET wasn't as good as an average episode of "Star Trek."   Can you believe that?!!!

I was in a used book store once and they had all these old copies of "Playboy."  So I spent thirty minutes trying to find the issue from '68 that might have a PLANET review.  When I did find it, it was only a paragraph long and negative!  I was so pissed.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

Are you a scientologist Patrick? That would axplain a LOT!

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 3:44
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Yeah, and when he says "Jump on my bones Nova", he means Bones from
> Star Trek.
> >
> > Patrick, again, I don't think I'm alone when I say it is a lot
> harder to swallow your "Mothership" scenario than it is to accept
> these flubs for what they are and get over it.
> >
> > How many people have told you this Patrick?
> >
> > Michael
>
> *** Hmmm... lemme see... well, YOU have told me an uncountable number
> of times, so if the QUANTITY of whining objections means anything,
> then your multitudinous examples should count for something. Some
> others, like Mlccougar & James90210, aren't too thrilled with my
> scenario either. But, then again, your (plural) willingness to
> just "accept" the flubs as irreconcilable mistakes is YOUR
> prerogative, even if it means buying into a scientifically impossible
> scenario (by which I mean, for one instance, the Brent-following-
> Taylor-to-Earth scenario which I ended the posting below with--you
> have YET to address the "hard to swallow" nature of that hypothesis).
>
> I prefer to try to make the "extant filmed details" make sense. It
> makes more sense, to me, that the ships seen in PLANET, BENEATH, and
> ESCAPE are--like Professor Antelle's "chaloupes"/"launches"--mere
> shuttlecraft, which are designed (primarily) to descend from a
> bigger "mother"-ship on re-entry trajectories down to the surface of
> the planet, and then are capable of taking off again at least once in
> order to re-dock with the mothership. The lack of space (on the
> COMPLETELY visible ship in BENEATH) for a "Mess" & a "Head" & months-
> worth of cargo, etc., quite frankly demand a more plausible scenario
> than the one the screenplaywrights probably intended.
>
> Yet you go out of your way, in almost every single posting directed
> at me, to condemn me for it. Hell, even Isaac Asimov altered HIS OWN
> scenario regarding his "future history chronicles" (his ROBOT,
> GALACTIC EMPIRE, and FOUNDATION novels). In his original "galactic
> empire" novels, he has it that the planet Earth had suffered a
> nuclear war which irradiated the soil, resulting in a higher mutation
> rate (which figures into the plot of "Pebble in the Sky"). However,
> later in his career, Asimov returned to writing more FOUNDATION
> novels, as well as other novels connecting the ROBOT series to the
> GALACTIC EMPIRE & FOUNDATION series... in particular, he wrote "The
> Robots of Dawn" and "Robots and Empire, magnificent novels in which
> he ALTERED/AMENDED HIS ORIGINAL SCENARIO (the Nuke War irradiating
> the Earth), in favor of a better explanation for the Earth's eventual
> uninhabitability due to radiation. In the second of those novels, an
> anti-Earth citizen of the planet Aurora rigs a device called
> a "nuclear amplifier" (on the site of what once was "Three Mile
> Island") in order to artificially cause the Earth to become
> radioactive; one of his robot characters (R. Giskard Reventlov),
> despite his "Laws-of-Robotics" programming, ALLOWS this to happen due
> to the unanticipated self-adaptation of the "Zeroth Law" in his
> positronic brain, which allows him to ignore the 1st Law (not to harm
> a human, or allow one to be harmed) in favor of Humanity as a whole,
> which requires (he thinks) that Earth-bound Mankind make use of its
> technology to "leave the nest" and go out to colonize the Galaxy, for
> the sake of the long-term benefits of the species. By allowing
> the "nuclear amplifier" to be triggered, Giskard knows that the Earth
> will eventually become unlivable... but since he feels that Man needs
> a "kick-in-the-pants" to get his ass off the Earth and into the
> Galaxy, he doesn't do what an ordinary Asimovian robot would do (stop
> the villain from triggering it), in favor of helping out Mankind as a
> whole.
> Asimov readily acknowledged that his ORIGINAL scenario (nuke war) no
> longer worked as well for him, and so he CHANGED it slightly, coming
> up with a NEW scenario which "fit the facts" of the "Asimovian
> universe" (an uninhabitable, irradiated homeplanet of Humanity), yet
> MADE BETTER SENSE than his original scheme of things.
>
> The "original" POTA scenario, filmwise, is the scenario put forth in
> PLANET (1968). Dehn's sequel CHANGED this, making Taylor's ship out
> to be somehow "lost" in space, requiring that ANOTHER ship go out and
> try to find it; Brent's ship unintentionally goes through what he
> calls "a Hasslein curve", whereas in PLANET Taylor's ship
> INTENTIONALLY undergoes Time Dilation "according to Dr. Hasslein's
> theory".
> If Dehn (and whoever else was responsible for the plots of the
> sequels, as well as the nitty-gritty details) can CHANGE the scenario
> implied in the 1st film to serve the needs of his sequels, then I'm
> not a damn bit shy about coming up with a different scenario which
> takes into account all the details given in both PLANET and its
> sequels, a scenario which doesn't rely on me jettisoning prior-
> produced details and which, to me, makes better sense out of it all.
>
> So you don't like my take on it. So what? You're free to "accept the
> flubs" or whatever. You're free to dream up your OWN scenario, to
> make better sense of it all in your own noggin, if you wish.
> Frankly, I don't care if ANYBODY else digs what I'm cookin' up. It
> tastes good to ME, which is the only criterion that ever really
> matters. If you think I'm going to abandon my plans to develop my
> scenario into a mega-novel, or amend them just to please your
> penchant for "accepting the flubs", you've got another thing coming.
>
> Patrick
>
> P.S. Mike, I've got a challenge for you. You keep ducking it, but I
> want YOU to come up with a plausible explanation regarding the
> trajectory Brent follows to miraculously wind up near Taylor's
> location in the Forbidden Zone. "Taylor's trajectory" through
> interstellar space ENDS at the location of the planet Earth WEEKS
> before Brent's ship arrives, according to Dehn's scenario (and
> yours), right? Weeks later, after the Earth has moved MILLIONS of
> miles away from the end-point of Taylor's trajectory, Brent's ship
> somehow is able to go that extra distance, millions of miles away to
> where the Earth has travelled in its orbit... right? How!? If
> Taylor's trajectory ended millions of miles away (weeks earlier in
> Earth's solar orbit), how could Brent not only end up on the surface
> of the same planet, but ALSO in the SAME PLACE (the Forbidden Zone)?
> Make sense of that, Mike. Please. C'mon, don't be shy about it. Tell
> me why I should buy into THAT implausibility, "accepting the flub",
> and not prefer my own scenario which makes better sense of the extant
> filmed details. C'mon, Mike! Defend "your" preferred scenario. Make
> sense out of it, if you can.
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@y...]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 5:02
> > > To: pota@y...
> > > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > > In a message dated 10/28/2002 6:41:17 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > > whitty@c... writes:
> > >
> > > > > I agree...you could even argue that Nova has miscarried by
> the start of Beneath, but it is not mentioned.
> > >
> > > > Agreed, and that'd be a good way of having her not be pregnant
> in Beneath... I mean riding around in the hot desert, facing
> malnutrition and dehydration could easily cause that to happen...
> > >
> > > > > Please don't add a mothership or an "ANSA threesome behind the
> > > bushes"....
> > >
> > > > And one more thing about this "mothership" nonsense... If this
> alleged mothership "Earth" also carried Brent and his skipper, then
> why (in Beneath) would Taylor ask Brent "How in hell did you get
> here?" If there "was" a mothership, Taylor would know how Brent got
> down to the Planet's surface anyway... (Of course he wouldn't
> neccessarily know about Brent's escapades in Ape City, and all of
> that, but Taylor certainly would have at least some idea of how Brent
> got to him...)
> > >
> > > *** Regarding "this 'mothership' nonsense"... well, you picked a
> > > fight, so you hafta expect me to fight back, Mlccougarmellencamp!
> > >
> > > In my "mothership" scenario, I suggested that the reason that
> Taylor doesn't expect to encounter any other ANSA astronauts is for
> the same reason he tells Landon that "we're here to stay" earlier in
> PLANET. Their ship wasn't "programmed to land in the water", and they
> were supposed to wake up while still in space--NOT after splash-
> landing in a lake in the middle of a friggin' desert. Taylor (in my
> scenario) assumes that something catastrophic happened to his
> mothership ("U.S.S. Earth"), probably a melt-down in its nuclear
> power plant or something like that; and the mothership's computers--
> in order to safeguard the lives of the astronauts hibernating on its
> attached shuttlecraft--automatically detaches them, so that they can
> get far enough away before the mothership goes >BOOM<. After waking
> up, Taylor soon realizes that SOMETHING WENT WRONG, which resulted in
> their shuttle detaching from a probably destroyed mothership--which,
> nonetheless, he TRIES to contact, having Landon "get out a last
> signal... to [the mothership] Earth, that we've landed!"--and their
> quick emergency landing on this planet BEFORE THE SHIP'S COMPUTERS
> HAD TIME TO REVIVE THEM FROM DRUG-INDUCED HIBERNATION. Taylor has
> every reason to assume that the reason that they're on the planet "to
> stay" is because the astronauts hibernating on the mothership have
> been killed by whatever probably destroyed the ship in the first
> place--and Brent would be among those probably dead astronauts, which
> is why Taylor is surprised to see him in BENEATH. Taylor didn't have
> any tracking device on his person, for Brent to "home in on", now,
> did he? How COULD Brent end up there in that same cell at Grand
> Central Station in the year 3955? he wonders. If you, Mlccougar,
> think it's MORE plausible that Brent and Skipper flew a rather small
> vehicle (ALL of which is visible in BENEATH) across hundreds of
> lightyears, somehow "following Taylor's trajectory" across MILLIONS
> and MILLIONS of miles of space... and miraculously not only ended up
> back in the Solar System (without knowing that!), but also back at
> the planet Earth (without knowing that either, despite taking
> an "Earth-Time reading BEFORE re-entry"), which has continued in its
> orbit around the Sun during the WEEKS between Taylor's landing and
> his own landing... then, hey, if THAT works better for you, go right
> on ahead! I think it's ludicrous, myself. Following "Taylor's
> trajectory" (as YOU think it means) across just the Solar System
> would NOT get you back to Earth, since the planet MOVES as it orbits
> the Sun. The Earth orbits the Sun (at a distance of 1 AU) from
> 93,000,000 miles away or so, right? That would be the radius of a
> near-circle which is 584 Million miles in circumference (2 x radius x
> pi). Every single day, the planet goes 1/365.2422 along that big
> circle. That means that the Earth is already about 1,600,000 miles
> away from its location just ONE DAY LATER. Taylor, after landing in
> Dead Lake (etc.) and winding up jailed after he gets his voice back,
> asks Zira, "It's been WEEKS! Why didn't you come see me?" You get
> that? The events of PLANET take WEEKS--all during which Brent &
> Skipper have YET to land on Earth. During those "weeks", the Earth
> moves along at a rate of about 1.6 Million miles per day, which
> equals 11.2 Million miles per week. Multiply that by however number
> of weeks you think happens between the landings of Taylor and Brent,
> and ask yourself HOW THE FUCK Brent was able to follow Taylor's
> trajectory through a part of space Taylor hadn't flown.
> > > Answer: he COULDN'T. It ain't possible. Flying through space is
> like shooting skeet. Every second the skeet moves through the air you
> have to aim your gun further and further to the side, anticipating
> the skeet's location in the FUTURE so that your bullet will intercept
> it and shatter it, rather than fly right on by. Similarly, Brent's
> ship would have to KNOW that Taylor's ship went SPECIFICALLY to the
> planet orbiting 93,000,000 miles away from the star up ahead, and
> that during the interim that same planet is now FURTHER ALONG in its
> orbit, requiring Brent to utilize more fuel to get his ship across
> those extra millions of miles of empty space.
> > > My scenario--which has it that "Taylor's trajectory" is a RE-
> ENTRY trajectory from orbit, from the mothership occupying the SAME
> orbit--makes much more sense. At least to ME. Brent knew he was
> landing not only on the same planet Taylor had landed on earlier, but
> he (or his ship's computer) knew how many orbits had gone by since
> then, and could calculate just when to do a "re-entry burn" in order
> to land his ship relatively near the landing site of Taylor's ship.
> If he didn't have that necessary info, it'd be a frickin' MIRACLE for
> him to land not only on the same continent, but also the same
> desert/area ON that continent as Taylor, probably within 10 or 20
> miles of the Lake.
> > > Brent never mentions following any "beacon" to Taylor's ship--
> that's one of the things that Burton's flick addressed, where Leo's
> pod somehow winds up fairly near to the site where the Oberon
> crashlanded (and, similarly, the space-monkey who lands at the end
> ALSO must have "homed-in" on Leo's & the Oberon's signals). But Brent
> did NOT follow any "homing signal"--he tells Skipper that they "were
> following Taylor's TRAJECTORY", which can ONLY refer to an orbit-to-
> surface RE-ENTRY path.
> > > Astronautical flight dynamics are on MY side of this argument,
> Mlccougar. But, hey, this IS an argument, right? Feel free to counter-
> punch with a better explanation. Please try and explain away the
> Brent-to-Earth-weeks-later trajectory alterations he would have had
> to make. Please! Make better sense of that, if you can. I don't think
> you (or anybody else) can, since it goes against all logic, but feel
> free to try.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html In a message dated 10/30/02 11:45:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

Patrick

P.S. Mike, I've got a challenge for you. You keep ducking it, but I
want YOU to come up with a plausible explanation regarding the
trajectory Brent follows to miraculously wind up near Taylor's
location in the Forbidden Zone. "Taylor's trajectory" through
interstellar space ENDS at the location of the planet Earth WEEKS
before Brent's ship arrives, according to Dehn's scenario (and
yours), right?

Don't fall into Patrick's devious plot, Michael, he holds all the cards, and this is just he devilish way of trying to get you to follow him into the bushes of POTAdom.  Once there in the bushes with him, Michael, you know what he'll do to you!  Beware of the beast Patrick.  Shun him.  Drive him back into the bushed, for he wants to take a trip. . . .

to Uranus!

-- Roryus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

Two words Patrick:

RAVING LUNATIC.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 4:24
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Blame on the Planet of the Apes
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > I don't blame Darwin; that's my point. Boneheads misconstrue
> evolution just like they do religion (don't blame "religion"). Yeah,
> I saw "Scare Straight". And yes, rape happens. I was just being
> silly. "American History X" was a good movie. - - Jeff
>
> *** Don't blame "religion"? When it is deserving of blame? I'm not
> saying that Hitler didn't "twist" religion around to bolster his
> arguments in favor of mistreating Jews (he did), but he ALSO took a
> verse (quoted below, from "John" 8:44) which EXPLICITLY has the
> supposed Son of God/Savior/Messiah character, Jesus, refer to a crowd
> of Jews as being children of the Devil. Hitler's de-humanization of
> Jews goes hand-in-hand with that of the "evangelist" who wrote John's
> gospel. If Hitler's propaganda against the Jews is worthy of
> condemnation, why the hell isn't similar propaganda written by "John"
> (against the Jews & Judaism, to a Roman audience, where Pontius
> Pilate is portrayed as a reluctant crucifier... and the onus on
> that "Christ-killing" is the group of Jews who insist on it)?
> The people who dare to write books/letters/pamphlets/diatribes
> pretending to be speaking on behalf of God (i.e. "inspired" by
> the "spirit of God") have a responsibility NOT to demonize people.
> Yet, all too often, that is EXACTLY the motivation behind the writing
> of "religious" tracts, be they Gospels, Apocalyptic/Eschatological
> literature, Proverbial/Psalmic works, whatever. It's easy to ignore
> the commandment "not to murder" when entire populations of people can
> be demonized, said to be NOT purely human but, rather, the offspring
> of demons. That was the root of the slaughter of the indigenous
> Canaanites (thought to be the offspring of the wife of Ham and
> a "fallen angel" named Shemhazai--obliquely referred to in "Genesis"
> VI:1-6) by the Israelites. It was the root of the fight against
> the "Kittim" by the Jewish Zealots in their war against Rome ("The
> War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness"). It is the
> root of "Christian" anti-semitism, BASED ON JOHN 8:44, which has
> resulted in the pogroms against Jews throughout the last 2000 years.
> It is the root of the Black Muslim doctrines which demonize
> the "white" race as being the offspring of Demons and their raped
> black victims (see the movie "Malcolm X" for a scene, in prison,
> where Malcolm is exposed to this sort of religious-based racism).
> Even now, on the Web, there are neo-Nazi sites which quote the Bible
> word-for-word, to justify their hatred of Jews, Blacks, "mud-
> peoples", etc.
> If there IS a God up there in heaven, then He must not have much of a
> problem with this situation. Evidently, He doesn't care enough for
> the human race to put his foot down and say, "STOP! None of these so-
> called "sacred" writings expresses My will! Nobody on Earth
> is "fathered by a Devil"--you're all people! Equal in My eyes!"
> But, Noooo! God is like some guy whose credit card is stolen by some
> jerk who goes on to buy kiddie porn... and He doesn't even have the
> sense to be outraged that the record shows such purchases to have
> been made by Him. If all the religion-abusers acting in God's name to
> commit atrocities can't motivate God to get off his lazy ass and put
> a stop to it--if for no other reason than to save His own reputation--
> then what the fuck will?
> If God won't save the children who are raped by PRIESTS, or whose
> clitorises are sheared off by RELIGIOUS people (in predominantly
> African Muslim-dominated nations), then why should any one of us
> think that He cares at all for anybody? If the suffering of helpless
> children can't get God to intervene, then He isn't worthy of our
> worship, let alone our belief.
> Religion, Jeff, is a "meme" which--like a disease--has spread
> throughout the psyche of humanity, infecting it with Illogic
> and "righteous" Intolerance. It's time for the re-invigorating of
> the "Age of Reason" and "Enlightenment" to scrap those medieval ways
> of thinking, which don't serve the human race well anymore--not that
> they EVER did. We need a "Virdon & Burke" to show up on our backward
> planet to show us how to use Science to better our condition, and to
> overthrow the superstitions of False Religion (as in "The
> Liberator"). And, remember this: ALL Religion is False Religion. God
> is a Myth; if God is "all-powerful" then why can't he create a rock
> so heavy that even He can't lift it? Logic! He can't--which means
> He's not all-powerful, which means He isn't a God after all.
>
> Patrick
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> >
> > > --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > > Well, it's Sunday night. Time to read Pat's posts. On this one,
> it's true much carnage has resulted from religion; but also from
> science (the Nazis took their cue for a master race from evolution)
> and TV shows, movies...people will find any reason to kill each
> other. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.
>
> > > *** The Nazis weren't just a political party--they were a warrior
> priesthood, with Himmler's SS acting as a neo-Templar group of "holy
> warriors" bent on eradicating the lesser race of Jews, due to a
> millennia-long hatred which Hitler got from the words of Christ
> himself, when He referred to the Jews, in JOHN 8:44, as "...you are
> of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's
> desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do
> with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
> speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father
> of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which
> of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not
> believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why
> you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
> > > Hitler, in "MEIN KAMPF", advocated the End of "race-mixing",
> saying (in Vol. II, Chapter II: "The State") that he favors "an end
> to the constant and continuous ORIGINAL SIN of racial poisoning, and
> to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created" (my
> emphasis). Hitler's anti-semitism was THEOLOGICALLY based. His "Third
> Reich" was not so different from the previous two "reichs", which
> were ostensibly "Holy" and "Roman" and especially "Christian" and
> intolerant towards the "killers of Christ"--the Jews. Did Hitler
> misconstrue Darwinism to further his own political/religious agenda?
> Sure. But don't blame Darwin for that; besides which, the "doctrine"
> of "survival-of-the-fittest" is NOT an accurate depiction of
> Darwinian Natural Selection. Racists have long abused the scientific
> theory of Evolution by purporting that it somehow supports their
> views that certain "mud-peoples" are "lesser" races, closer to the
> Ape than to the True Man.
>
> > There's also people who quietly go about their religion and find
> comfort in it. Personally, I don't believe in any religion but still
> manage to find God in the cracks. Especially in the irony of the
> world.
>
> > > *** I have absolutely nothing against (i.e. I'm TOLERANT towards)
> people who "go about their religion and find comfort in it" as long
> as they don't infringe on the rights of others who don't share their
> religion (or ANY religion). The McCarthyite jerks who foisted
> the "amended" version of the Pledge of Allegiance (adding "Under God"
> to what the original writer intended to be a non-sectarian pledge of
> patriotism) are just the sort of creeps who want to force at least
> SOME kind of religiosity on ALL people--especially impressionable
> children in kindergarten, who can't escape such indoctrination. Our
> representatives may be "democratically" elected, but our nation is a
> Constitutional Republic which holds that the unalienable Rights of
> THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN are paramount, which the State has NO RIGHT
> WHATSOEVER to infringe upon--that's why the Bill of Rights was added
> to it: to protect EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN from the potential abuses
> of the Government and "the tyranny of the majority".
> >
> > The Bramley book sounds interesting. As High Potentate, I proclaim
> Pat our Minister of Knowledge. He provides your King with much food
> for thought and the occasional good chuckle. But he's wrong about
> rape in jail - - that doesn't happen. Our government runs our jails,
> so obviously they put a stop to that sort of thing. It's not proper.
> >
> > *** You ever see "Scared Straight"? It came out, oh, sometime in
> the late 1970's if I remember correctly. Peter Falk introduced it,
> and it used non-censored footage of hardcore prisoners telling a
> bunch of troublemaking teenagers what they could expect to experience
> if they ever were imprisoned. I don't know about YOU, but it sounded
> to me as if those convicts were speaking from experience! The
> film "American History X" has a shower-scene that I--for one--would
> not want to experience first-hand.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > Yes, the God in the Old Testament is not quite the same as in the
> New one. Even your High Potentate has mood swings, but he certainly
> wouldn't allow it to be portrayed in a "bible".- - His Royal Highness
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You know, this deserves an (OT) doesn't it?

I don't have a stance on God. To indefinitely believe there is or is not a
god would require an ego the size of Patrick's.

At one point I felt that if there was a god the world would be a happier
place.

I heard an explanation that made sense, so I don't discount the possibility
now.

What does man do? Well, amongst other things he CREATES. I wonder if our
creations ponder upon whether or not WE exist...like Patrick's silly story -
if it had a conscience, would it not say "If I do have a creator, why can't
he create a mothership so silly that HE can't fathom it?".

If I was to create a Robot, and this Robot acquired consciousness, then I
would be the Creator!

Not so hard to believe, really.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 4:24
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Blame on the Planet of the Apes
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > I don't blame Darwin; that's my point. Boneheads misconstrue
> evolution just like they do religion (don't blame "religion"). Yeah,
> I saw "Scare Straight". And yes, rape happens. I was just being
> silly. "American History X" was a good movie. - - Jeff
>
> *** Don't blame "religion"? When it is deserving of blame? I'm not
> saying that Hitler didn't "twist" religion around to bolster his
> arguments in favor of mistreating Jews (he did), but he ALSO took a
> verse (quoted below, from "John" 8:44) which EXPLICITLY has the
> supposed Son of God/Savior/Messiah character, Jesus, refer to a crowd
> of Jews as being children of the Devil. Hitler's de-humanization of
> Jews goes hand-in-hand with that of the "evangelist" who wrote John's
> gospel. If Hitler's propaganda against the Jews is worthy of
> condemnation, why the hell isn't similar propaganda written by "John"
> (against the Jews & Judaism, to a Roman audience, where Pontius
> Pilate is portrayed as a reluctant crucifier... and the onus on
> that "Christ-killing" is the group of Jews who insist on it)?
> The people who dare to write books/letters/pamphlets/diatribes
> pretending to be speaking on behalf of God (i.e. "inspired" by
> the "spirit of God") have a responsibility NOT to demonize people.
> Yet, all too often, that is EXACTLY the motivation behind the writing
> of "religious" tracts, be they Gospels, Apocalyptic/Eschatological
> literature, Proverbial/Psalmic works, whatever. It's easy to ignore
> the commandment "not to murder" when entire populations of people can
> be demonized, said to be NOT purely human but, rather, the offspring
> of demons. That was the root of the slaughter of the indigenous
> Canaanites (thought to be the offspring of the wife of Ham and
> a "fallen angel" named Shemhazai--obliquely referred to in "Genesis"
> VI:1-6) by the Israelites. It was the root of the fight against
> the "Kittim" by the Jewish Zealots in their war against Rome ("The
> War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness"). It is the
> root of "Christian" anti-semitism, BASED ON JOHN 8:44, which has
> resulted in the pogroms against Jews throughout the last 2000 years.
> It is the root of the Black Muslim doctrines which demonize
> the "white" race as being the offspring of Demons and their raped
> black victims (see the movie "Malcolm X" for a scene, in prison,
> where Malcolm is exposed to this sort of religious-based racism).
> Even now, on the Web, there are neo-Nazi sites which quote the Bible
> word-for-word, to justify their hatred of Jews, Blacks, "mud-
> peoples", etc.
> If there IS a God up there in heaven, then He must not have much of a
> problem with this situation. Evidently, He doesn't care enough for
> the human race to put his foot down and say, "STOP! None of these so-
> called "sacred" writings expresses My will! Nobody on Earth
> is "fathered by a Devil"--you're all people! Equal in My eyes!"
> But, Noooo! God is like some guy whose credit card is stolen by some
> jerk who goes on to buy kiddie porn... and He doesn't even have the
> sense to be outraged that the record shows such purchases to have
> been made by Him. If all the religion-abusers acting in God's name to
> commit atrocities can't motivate God to get off his lazy ass and put
> a stop to it--if for no other reason than to save His own reputation--
> then what the fuck will?
> If God won't save the children who are raped by PRIESTS, or whose
> clitorises are sheared off by RELIGIOUS people (in predominantly
> African Muslim-dominated nations), then why should any one of us
> think that He cares at all for anybody? If the suffering of helpless
> children can't get God to intervene, then He isn't worthy of our
> worship, let alone our belief.
> Religion, Jeff, is a "meme" which--like a disease--has spread
> throughout the psyche of humanity, infecting it with Illogic
> and "righteous" Intolerance. It's time for the re-invigorating of
> the "Age of Reason" and "Enlightenment" to scrap those medieval ways
> of thinking, which don't serve the human race well anymore--not that
> they EVER did. We need a "Virdon & Burke" to show up on our backward
> planet to show us how to use Science to better our condition, and to
> overthrow the superstitions of False Religion (as in "The
> Liberator"). And, remember this: ALL Religion is False Religion. God
> is a Myth; if God is "all-powerful" then why can't he create a rock
> so heavy that even He can't lift it? Logic! He can't--which means
> He's not all-powerful, which means He isn't a God after all.
>
> Patrick
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> >
> > > --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > > Well, it's Sunday night. Time to read Pat's posts. On this one,
> it's true much carnage has resulted from religion; but also from
> science (the Nazis took their cue for a master race from evolution)
> and TV shows, movies...people will find any reason to kill each
> other. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.
>
> > > *** The Nazis weren't just a political party--they were a warrior
> priesthood, with Himmler's SS acting as a neo-Templar group of "holy
> warriors" bent on eradicating the lesser race of Jews, due to a
> millennia-long hatred which Hitler got from the words of Christ
> himself, when He referred to the Jews, in JOHN 8:44, as "...you are
> of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's
> desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do
> with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
> speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father
> of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which
> of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not
> believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why
> you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
> > > Hitler, in "MEIN KAMPF", advocated the End of "race-mixing",
> saying (in Vol. II, Chapter II: "The State") that he favors "an end
> to the constant and continuous ORIGINAL SIN of racial poisoning, and
> to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created" (my
> emphasis). Hitler's anti-semitism was THEOLOGICALLY based. His "Third
> Reich" was not so different from the previous two "reichs", which
> were ostensibly "Holy" and "Roman" and especially "Christian" and
> intolerant towards the "killers of Christ"--the Jews. Did Hitler
> misconstrue Darwinism to further his own political/religious agenda?
> Sure. But don't blame Darwin for that; besides which, the "doctrine"
> of "survival-of-the-fittest" is NOT an accurate depiction of
> Darwinian Natural Selection. Racists have long abused the scientific
> theory of Evolution by purporting that it somehow supports their
> views that certain "mud-peoples" are "lesser" races, closer to the
> Ape than to the True Man.
>
> > There's also people who quietly go about their religion and find
> comfort in it. Personally, I don't believe in any religion but still
> manage to find God in the cracks. Especially in the irony of the
> world.
>
> > > *** I have absolutely nothing against (i.e. I'm TOLERANT towards)
> people who "go about their religion and find comfort in it" as long
> as they don't infringe on the rights of others who don't share their
> religion (or ANY religion). The McCarthyite jerks who foisted
> the "amended" version of the Pledge of Allegiance (adding "Under God"
> to what the original writer intended to be a non-sectarian pledge of
> patriotism) are just the sort of creeps who want to force at least
> SOME kind of religiosity on ALL people--especially impressionable
> children in kindergarten, who can't escape such indoctrination. Our
> representatives may be "democratically" elected, but our nation is a
> Constitutional Republic which holds that the unalienable Rights of
> THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN are paramount, which the State has NO RIGHT
> WHATSOEVER to infringe upon--that's why the Bill of Rights was added
> to it: to protect EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN from the potential abuses
> of the Government and "the tyranny of the majority".
> >
> > The Bramley book sounds interesting. As High Potentate, I proclaim
> Pat our Minister of Knowledge. He provides your King with much food
> for thought and the occasional good chuckle. But he's wrong about
> rape in jail - - that doesn't happen. Our government runs our jails,
> so obviously they put a stop to that sort of thing. It's not proper.
> >
> > *** You ever see "Scared Straight"? It came out, oh, sometime in
> the late 1970's if I remember correctly. Peter Falk introduced it,
> and it used non-censored footage of hardcore prisoners telling a
> bunch of troublemaking teenagers what they could expect to experience
> if they ever were imprisoned. I don't know about YOU, but it sounded
> to me as if those convicts were speaking from experience! The
> film "American History X" has a shower-scene that I--for one--would
> not want to experience first-hand.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > Yes, the God in the Old Testament is not quite the same as in the
> New one. Even your High Potentate has mood swings, but he certainly
> wouldn't allow it to be portrayed in a "bible".- - His Royal Highness
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Don't blame religion, blame the idiotic interpretations of religious dogma.

You should understand that one Patrick....idiotic interpretations....get it?

I don't blame Planet of the Apes for idiots like you inventing motherships
to suit their own needs. Much like the Bible was written to get a message
through, so was Planet of the Apes. Both are imperfect and have
contradictions, but the problems lie in the INTERPRETATION.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 4:24
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Blame on the Planet of the Apes
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > I don't blame Darwin; that's my point. Boneheads misconstrue
> evolution just like they do religion (don't blame "religion"). Yeah,
> I saw "Scare Straight". And yes, rape happens. I was just being
> silly. "American History X" was a good movie. - - Jeff
>
> *** Don't blame "religion"? When it is deserving of blame? I'm not
> saying that Hitler didn't "twist" religion around to bolster his
> arguments in favor of mistreating Jews (he did), but he ALSO took a
> verse (quoted below, from "John" 8:44) which EXPLICITLY has the
> supposed Son of God/Savior/Messiah character, Jesus, refer to a crowd
> of Jews as being children of the Devil. Hitler's de-humanization of
> Jews goes hand-in-hand with that of the "evangelist" who wrote John's
> gospel. If Hitler's propaganda against the Jews is worthy of
> condemnation, why the hell isn't similar propaganda written by "John"
> (against the Jews & Judaism, to a Roman audience, where Pontius
> Pilate is portrayed as a reluctant crucifier... and the onus on
> that "Christ-killing" is the group of Jews who insist on it)?
> The people who dare to write books/letters/pamphlets/diatribes
> pretending to be speaking on behalf of God (i.e. "inspired" by
> the "spirit of God") have a responsibility NOT to demonize people.
> Yet, all too often, that is EXACTLY the motivation behind the writing
> of "religious" tracts, be they Gospels, Apocalyptic/Eschatological
> literature, Proverbial/Psalmic works, whatever. It's easy to ignore
> the commandment "not to murder" when entire populations of people can
> be demonized, said to be NOT purely human but, rather, the offspring
> of demons. That was the root of the slaughter of the indigenous
> Canaanites (thought to be the offspring of the wife of Ham and
> a "fallen angel" named Shemhazai--obliquely referred to in "Genesis"
> VI:1-6) by the Israelites. It was the root of the fight against
> the "Kittim" by the Jewish Zealots in their war against Rome ("The
> War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness"). It is the
> root of "Christian" anti-semitism, BASED ON JOHN 8:44, which has
> resulted in the pogroms against Jews throughout the last 2000 years.
> It is the root of the Black Muslim doctrines which demonize
> the "white" race as being the offspring of Demons and their raped
> black victims (see the movie "Malcolm X" for a scene, in prison,
> where Malcolm is exposed to this sort of religious-based racism).
> Even now, on the Web, there are neo-Nazi sites which quote the Bible
> word-for-word, to justify their hatred of Jews, Blacks, "mud-
> peoples", etc.
> If there IS a God up there in heaven, then He must not have much of a
> problem with this situation. Evidently, He doesn't care enough for
> the human race to put his foot down and say, "STOP! None of these so-
> called "sacred" writings expresses My will! Nobody on Earth
> is "fathered by a Devil"--you're all people! Equal in My eyes!"
> But, Noooo! God is like some guy whose credit card is stolen by some
> jerk who goes on to buy kiddie porn... and He doesn't even have the
> sense to be outraged that the record shows such purchases to have
> been made by Him. If all the religion-abusers acting in God's name to
> commit atrocities can't motivate God to get off his lazy ass and put
> a stop to it--if for no other reason than to save His own reputation--
> then what the fuck will?
> If God won't save the children who are raped by PRIESTS, or whose
> clitorises are sheared off by RELIGIOUS people (in predominantly
> African Muslim-dominated nations), then why should any one of us
> think that He cares at all for anybody? If the suffering of helpless
> children can't get God to intervene, then He isn't worthy of our
> worship, let alone our belief.
> Religion, Jeff, is a "meme" which--like a disease--has spread
> throughout the psyche of humanity, infecting it with Illogic
> and "righteous" Intolerance. It's time for the re-invigorating of
> the "Age of Reason" and "Enlightenment" to scrap those medieval ways
> of thinking, which don't serve the human race well anymore--not that
> they EVER did. We need a "Virdon & Burke" to show up on our backward
> planet to show us how to use Science to better our condition, and to
> overthrow the superstitions of False Religion (as in "The
> Liberator"). And, remember this: ALL Religion is False Religion. God
> is a Myth; if God is "all-powerful" then why can't he create a rock
> so heavy that even He can't lift it? Logic! He can't--which means
> He's not all-powerful, which means He isn't a God after all.
>
> Patrick
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> >
> > > --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > > Well, it's Sunday night. Time to read Pat's posts. On this one,
> it's true much carnage has resulted from religion; but also from
> science (the Nazis took their cue for a master race from evolution)
> and TV shows, movies...people will find any reason to kill each
> other. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.
>
> > > *** The Nazis weren't just a political party--they were a warrior
> priesthood, with Himmler's SS acting as a neo-Templar group of "holy
> warriors" bent on eradicating the lesser race of Jews, due to a
> millennia-long hatred which Hitler got from the words of Christ
> himself, when He referred to the Jews, in JOHN 8:44, as "...you are
> of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's
> desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do
> with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
> speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father
> of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which
> of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not
> believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why
> you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
> > > Hitler, in "MEIN KAMPF", advocated the End of "race-mixing",
> saying (in Vol. II, Chapter II: "The State") that he favors "an end
> to the constant and continuous ORIGINAL SIN of racial poisoning, and
> to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created" (my
> emphasis). Hitler's anti-semitism was THEOLOGICALLY based. His "Third
> Reich" was not so different from the previous two "reichs", which
> were ostensibly "Holy" and "Roman" and especially "Christian" and
> intolerant towards the "killers of Christ"--the Jews. Did Hitler
> misconstrue Darwinism to further his own political/religious agenda?
> Sure. But don't blame Darwin for that; besides which, the "doctrine"
> of "survival-of-the-fittest" is NOT an accurate depiction of
> Darwinian Natural Selection. Racists have long abused the scientific
> theory of Evolution by purporting that it somehow supports their
> views that certain "mud-peoples" are "lesser" races, closer to the
> Ape than to the True Man.
>
> > There's also people who quietly go about their religion and find
> comfort in it. Personally, I don't believe in any religion but still
> manage to find God in the cracks. Especially in the irony of the
> world.
>
> > > *** I have absolutely nothing against (i.e. I'm TOLERANT towards)
> people who "go about their religion and find comfort in it" as long
> as they don't infringe on the rights of others who don't share their
> religion (or ANY religion). The McCarthyite jerks who foisted
> the "amended" version of the Pledge of Allegiance (adding "Under God"
> to what the original writer intended to be a non-sectarian pledge of
> patriotism) are just the sort of creeps who want to force at least
> SOME kind of religiosity on ALL people--especially impressionable
> children in kindergarten, who can't escape such indoctrination. Our
> representatives may be "democratically" elected, but our nation is a
> Constitutional Republic which holds that the unalienable Rights of
> THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN are paramount, which the State has NO RIGHT
> WHATSOEVER to infringe upon--that's why the Bill of Rights was added
> to it: to protect EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN from the potential abuses
> of the Government and "the tyranny of the majority".
> >
> > The Bramley book sounds interesting. As High Potentate, I proclaim
> Pat our Minister of Knowledge. He provides your King with much food
> for thought and the occasional good chuckle. But he's wrong about
> rape in jail - - that doesn't happen. Our government runs our jails,
> so obviously they put a stop to that sort of thing. It's not proper.
> >
> > *** You ever see "Scared Straight"? It came out, oh, sometime in
> the late 1970's if I remember correctly. Peter Falk introduced it,
> and it used non-censored footage of hardcore prisoners telling a
> bunch of troublemaking teenagers what they could expect to experience
> if they ever were imprisoned. I don't know about YOU, but it sounded
> to me as if those convicts were speaking from experience! The
> film "American History X" has a shower-scene that I--for one--would
> not want to experience first-hand.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > Yes, the God in the Old Testament is not quite the same as in the
> New one. Even your High Potentate has mood swings, but he certainly
> wouldn't allow it to be portrayed in a "bible".- - His Royal Highness
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 3:53:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

I pity the poor stupid bastards who think you are intelligent.

Michael



Have pity on me, Michael.  I think Patrick is intelligent, just not very wise, otherWISE why would he go see "Jackass: the movie"?

-- Rory<.html

Yeah Patrick, nothing to do with the fact that you can only take so much of
this world and allowing new life to exist requires the vacation of space.
If we all live forever they'll ban childbirth!

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 4:33
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Cancer on the Planet of the Monkeys

The only reason we wear out and die ("natural causes" & old age), is because
our cells can only divide so many times before the "end-caps" of the DNA
strands wear out (the Telomeres).

.html In a message dated 10/30/02 12:52:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

I saw Johnnie Knoxville's flick, "Jackass: The Movie", the other day.

Why did you go bother to see the biography of yourself, Patrick?  You are a sick one, you know?

-- Rory (Well, give me an opening and I'm going to take it, Pat ol' bean!)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

.html In a message dated 10/30/02 3:53:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

I pity the poor stupid bastards who think you are intelligent.

Michael



Have pity on me, Michael.  I think Patrick is intelligent, just not very wise, otherWISE why would he go see "Jackass: the movie"?

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/2002 7:48:17 AM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

Anyway, despite what Patrick said I'd still like to see the original SOLARIS

No you wouldn't.  Well, maybe you would.  Since you thought 2001 was Action Packed, Pee Wee.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/2002 7:55:05 AM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

Who's the one that's coming up with this stuff?  Anyway, I vote for Sesterce because I dig Roman movies.

Rome, if you want to!  Rome around the world!

Their names and culture did seem Roman based. 
Though Sestersi's sounds cool too.<.html

.html
Did I say Sesterses?
I meant Denari<.html

.html

Alright, T!  I'm not the only one here who thinks Williams is overrated! 

I believe I mentioned it before. But when Williams took over the Boston Pops after Arthur Fiedler died, the orchestra walked out and refused to play his stuff because it was too corny.  I don't know if it's true, but the person who told me is a classically trained musician, so he should know.  I like some of his stuff, but it is pretty trite.  It can evoke the emotions it intends to, but sometimes feels forced or heavy-handed.  I guess the best way to express it Williams is overblown, while Goldsmith is subtle.<.html

.html

In my opinion, it's the funniest movie since "South Park: Bigger,
Longer, &Uncut".

"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
                                                     ~~~Willy Wonka~~~~

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/2002 2:09:40 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

P.S.  I'm actually serious here.  We rust to death.  That's why antioxidants are a big thing these days.

Too true.  The very thing that gives us life is killing us.  We're an ice cube falling through a blast furnace.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/2002 2:14:14 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

I could say something here about the planet of the apes, but that would be in bad taste, wouldn't it?

It never stopped you before?
Or has it.  Good Lord!
What must the unedited Rory be like?<.html

.html
You mean you have to reach over the stick shift to get your take aways?  How inconvenient!  You poor bastards!  I thought the UK was civilized!  Making your passenger handle the transaction is barbaric!  Even Canadians wouldn't do that!

Good one T!!!
 
Drive-Thru is still anti clockwise....and I have shocked many a Drive-Thru attendant by driving a Left Hand Drive 1969 Cadillac through it (they think there is no driver!).
 
There are not a lot of Left Hand Drive cars here so you can have great fun with them.
 
Michael


<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/2002 2:53:22 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

Listen Patrick you fake intellectual

Oh he may be a long winded pseudo-intellectual, but I wish I could borrow him for the essay questions on my history exams.  I'd bore the grader into giving me an A.  By the time he got to the end of my answer he'd forget what the quiestion was.<.html

Attachments :

.html

If I was to create a Robot, and this Robot acquired consciousness, then I
would be the Creator!

If I were to creat a robot it would look like Chii.
All robots should look like her.

<.html

.html

Yeah Patrick, nothing to do with the fact that you can only take so much of
this world and allowing new life to exist requires the vacation of space.
If we all live forever they'll ban childbirth!

Ship them out into space would be better.  If we're going to have new colonies will 6 billion people be enough.  I imagine some of them will croak in space like Stewart.

<.html

Attachments :

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/02 7:37:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

If I were to creat a robot it would look like Chii.
All robots should look like her.

I don't know, that looks like a little girl, T.  I'm not into that Humbert Humbert thing.  How about this for a robot?                <.html

.html
You mean you have to reach over the stick shift to get your take aways?  How inconvenient!  You poor bastards!  I thought the UK was civilized!  Making your passenger handle the transaction is barbaric!  Even Canadians wouldn't do that!

Good one T!!!
 
Drive-Thru is still anti clockwise....and I have shocked many a Drive-Thru attendant by driving a Left Hand Drive 1969 Cadillac through it (they think there is no driver!).
 
There are not a lot of Left Hand Drive cars here so you can have great fun with them.
 
Michael




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

.htmlIf he were intelligent, Rory, he would know that to fluke a mathematical proof is a fluke, not a proof.
 
But then again, maybe he is a little intelligent and VERY insane....or on acid......or heroin.....

He seems more like a speedfreak.  Just look at those posts!<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/2002 7:17:49 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

I'm not into that Humbert Humbert thing.

What's that?  The big eyed paintings?
That's in all anime.  I comes from Disney films.
In Japan cartoon characters with bigger eyes are
considered friendlier.<.html

.htmlNah, they are anti clockwise but when you get to the window it is on the driver's side - something about where they place the building....

Now you're starting to sound like Patrick.  The only way to go counterclockwise around a building and have the right side of the car next to the window in in reverse!<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/29/2002 2:50:39 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

> *** Regarding "this 'mothership' nonsense"... well, you picked a
> fight, so you hafta expect me to fight back, Mlccougarmellencamp!

Aww, poor lil' Patty has to resort to "name calling" and accusing people of "picking a fight"cause they think the idea of a mothership is nonsense... Shows who is really the instigator here doesn't it?

And Patty, you have NO IDEA what my name means, (and it's NOTHING to do with that singer) so until you find out, I suggest you keep your smart a** comments to yourself....<.html

> Who's the one that's coming up with this stuff?

Ô Singes!
Well, I guess I'm the one who came up with the poll on ape currency,
but I shouldn't reveal my choice for best pick in case I influence
the voting! There is a "correct" answer to the question, so let's
see how many can guess it. Get your votes in!

Winter fast approaches Mount Garr, so I must depart.
Yours,
Menluth.


¡¡Check out the "Saru no Gundan/Time of the Apes" Yahoo mailing
list
on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sarunogundan !!


- In pota@y..., Haristas@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/29/02 11:07:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> pota@y... writes:
>
>
> > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
> > pota group:
> >
> > What is the unit of monetary currency
> > on the Planet of the Apes?
> >
> > o Denarius
> > o Sesterce
> > o Monkey money
> > o Zinj
> > o Semos
>
> Who's the one that's coming up with this stuff? Anyway, I vote

for Sesterce

> because I dig Roman movies.
>
> Rome, if you want to! Rome around the world!

Fair enough, but "reason" and "enlightenment" can't give people eternal
life and stoke their need to feel superior. There was a good episode of
"Nova" last night (Noooov--a!) about Galileo. What was true in his time is
true today. People need something beyond what's tangible. We were all for
space travel until it showed us there's nothing but rocks as far as the eye
can see. People are impatient with science. Carl Sagan felt that was what is
behind the UFO craze, which he found laughable. And you obviously don't. Not
that there's anything wrong with that. Just that Sagan would see that as
wishful thinking instead facing the scientific "facts". We want magic and
miracles (and talking apes). - - - Jeff

P.S.: Keep on keeping on. I find your posts interesting and challenging.
Don't listen to the "get a life"ers.

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Blame on the Planet of the Apes


> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > I don't blame Darwin; that's my point. Boneheads misconstrue
> evolution just like they do religion (don't blame "religion"). Yeah,
> I saw "Scare Straight". And yes, rape happens. I was just being
> silly. "American History X" was a good movie. - - Jeff
>
> *** Don't blame "religion"? When it is deserving of blame? I'm not
> saying that Hitler didn't "twist" religion around to bolster his
> arguments in favor of mistreating Jews (he did), but he ALSO took a
> verse (quoted below, from "John" 8:44) which EXPLICITLY has the
> supposed Son of God/Savior/Messiah character, Jesus, refer to a crowd
> of Jews as being children of the Devil. Hitler's de-humanization of
> Jews goes hand-in-hand with that of the "evangelist" who wrote John's
> gospel. If Hitler's propaganda against the Jews is worthy of
> condemnation, why the hell isn't similar propaganda written by "John"
> (against the Jews & Judaism, to a Roman audience, where Pontius
> Pilate is portrayed as a reluctant crucifier... and the onus on
> that "Christ-killing" is the group of Jews who insist on it)?
> The people who dare to write books/letters/pamphlets/diatribes
> pretending to be speaking on behalf of God (i.e. "inspired" by
> the "spirit of God") have a responsibility NOT to demonize people.
> Yet, all too often, that is EXACTLY the motivation behind the writing
> of "religious" tracts, be they Gospels, Apocalyptic/Eschatological
> literature, Proverbial/Psalmic works, whatever. It's easy to ignore
> the commandment "not to murder" when entire populations of people can
> be demonized, said to be NOT purely human but, rather, the offspring
> of demons. That was the root of the slaughter of the indigenous
> Canaanites (thought to be the offspring of the wife of Ham and
> a "fallen angel" named Shemhazai--obliquely referred to in "Genesis"
> VI:1-6) by the Israelites. It was the root of the fight against
> the "Kittim" by the Jewish Zealots in their war against Rome ("The
> War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness"). It is the
> root of "Christian" anti-semitism, BASED ON JOHN 8:44, which has
> resulted in the pogroms against Jews throughout the last 2000 years.
> It is the root of the Black Muslim doctrines which demonize
> the "white" race as being the offspring of Demons and their raped
> black victims (see the movie "Malcolm X" for a scene, in prison,
> where Malcolm is exposed to this sort of religious-based racism).
> Even now, on the Web, there are neo-Nazi sites which quote the Bible
> word-for-word, to justify their hatred of Jews, Blacks, "mud-
> peoples", etc.
> If there IS a God up there in heaven, then He must not have much of a
> problem with this situation. Evidently, He doesn't care enough for
> the human race to put his foot down and say, "STOP! None of these so-
> called "sacred" writings expresses My will! Nobody on Earth
> is "fathered by a Devil"--you're all people! Equal in My eyes!"
> But, Noooo! God is like some guy whose credit card is stolen by some
> jerk who goes on to buy kiddie porn... and He doesn't even have the
> sense to be outraged that the record shows such purchases to have
> been made by Him. If all the religion-abusers acting in God's name to
> commit atrocities can't motivate God to get off his lazy ass and put
> a stop to it--if for no other reason than to save His own reputation--
> then what the fuck will?
> If God won't save the children who are raped by PRIESTS, or whose
> clitorises are sheared off by RELIGIOUS people (in predominantly
> African Muslim-dominated nations), then why should any one of us
> think that He cares at all for anybody? If the suffering of helpless
> children can't get God to intervene, then He isn't worthy of our
> worship, let alone our belief.
> Religion, Jeff, is a "meme" which--like a disease--has spread
> throughout the psyche of humanity, infecting it with Illogic
> and "righteous" Intolerance. It's time for the re-invigorating of
> the "Age of Reason" and "Enlightenment" to scrap those medieval ways
> of thinking, which don't serve the human race well anymore--not that
> they EVER did. We need a "Virdon & Burke" to show up on our backward
> planet to show us how to use Science to better our condition, and to
> overthrow the superstitions of False Religion (as in "The
> Liberator"). And, remember this: ALL Religion is False Religion. God
> is a Myth; if God is "all-powerful" then why can't he create a rock
> so heavy that even He can't lift it? Logic! He can't--which means
> He's not all-powerful, which means He isn't a God after all.
>
> Patrick
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> >
> > > --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > > Well, it's Sunday night. Time to read Pat's posts. On this one,
> it's true much carnage has resulted from religion; but also from
> science (the Nazis took their cue for a master race from evolution)
> and TV shows, movies...people will find any reason to kill each
> other. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.
>
> > > *** The Nazis weren't just a political party--they were a warrior
> priesthood, with Himmler's SS acting as a neo-Templar group of "holy
> warriors" bent on eradicating the lesser race of Jews, due to a
> millennia-long hatred which Hitler got from the words of Christ
> himself, when He referred to the Jews, in JOHN 8:44, as "...you are
> of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's
> desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do
> with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
> speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father
> of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which
> of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not
> believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why
> you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
> > > Hitler, in "MEIN KAMPF", advocated the End of "race-mixing",
> saying (in Vol. II, Chapter II: "The State") that he favors "an end
> to the constant and continuous ORIGINAL SIN of racial poisoning, and
> to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created" (my
> emphasis). Hitler's anti-semitism was THEOLOGICALLY based. His "Third
> Reich" was not so different from the previous two "reichs", which
> were ostensibly "Holy" and "Roman" and especially "Christian" and
> intolerant towards the "killers of Christ"--the Jews. Did Hitler
> misconstrue Darwinism to further his own political/religious agenda?
> Sure. But don't blame Darwin for that; besides which, the "doctrine"
> of "survival-of-the-fittest" is NOT an accurate depiction of
> Darwinian Natural Selection. Racists have long abused the scientific
> theory of Evolution by purporting that it somehow supports their
> views that certain "mud-peoples" are "lesser" races, closer to the
> Ape than to the True Man.
>
> > There's also people who quietly go about their religion and find
> comfort in it. Personally, I don't believe in any religion but still
> manage to find God in the cracks. Especially in the irony of the
> world.
>
> > > *** I have absolutely nothing against (i.e. I'm TOLERANT towards)
> people who "go about their religion and find comfort in it" as long
> as they don't infringe on the rights of others who don't share their
> religion (or ANY religion). The McCarthyite jerks who foisted
> the "amended" version of the Pledge of Allegiance (adding "Under God"
> to what the original writer intended to be a non-sectarian pledge of
> patriotism) are just the sort of creeps who want to force at least
> SOME kind of religiosity on ALL people--especially impressionable
> children in kindergarten, who can't escape such indoctrination. Our
> representatives may be "democratically" elected, but our nation is a
> Constitutional Republic which holds that the unalienable Rights of
> THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN are paramount, which the State has NO RIGHT
> WHATSOEVER to infringe upon--that's why the Bill of Rights was added
> to it: to protect EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN from the potential abuses
> of the Government and "the tyranny of the majority".
> >
> > The Bramley book sounds interesting. As High Potentate, I proclaim
> Pat our Minister of Knowledge. He provides your King with much food
> for thought and the occasional good chuckle. But he's wrong about
> rape in jail - - that doesn't happen. Our government runs our jails,
> so obviously they put a stop to that sort of thing. It's not proper.
> >
> > *** You ever see "Scared Straight"? It came out, oh, sometime in
> the late 1970's if I remember correctly. Peter Falk introduced it,
> and it used non-censored footage of hardcore prisoners telling a
> bunch of troublemaking teenagers what they could expect to experience
> if they ever were imprisoned. I don't know about YOU, but it sounded
> to me as if those convicts were speaking from experience! The
> film "American History X" has a shower-scene that I--for one--would
> not want to experience first-hand.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > Yes, the God in the Old Testament is not quite the same as in the
> New one. Even your High Potentate has mood swings, but he certainly
> wouldn't allow it to be portrayed in a "bible".- - His Royal Highness
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:51 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Top 40 Film Composers (OT)

In a message dated 10/30/02 10:06:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

  I thought that magazine was supposed to be about the art of film composing, not the commerce. Is it becoming "Entertainment Weekly"? - - - Jeff

No, but they have to find something to fill up the pages.  I only use the mag to keep me informed on what cool soundtrack CDs will be coming out.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Whitty

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:45 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Pathetic Mother of all ships...

Yes Rory. he's a joke.

 

Listen Patrick you fake intellectual, Brent followed Taylor because the script was not scientifically correct.  Simple.  The IS no plausible scientific explanation, you dip shit.

 

So why invent one?

 

You might as well say it was all a dream.  I don't know what would be more pathetic.

 

It only works if you are stupid enough to let yourself believe in a mothership, and I ain't taking that pill.

 

I have a challenge for you Patrick.  Get rid of your dick headed mothership and make it all work.  You can't, can you?  So that's why you rush to defend your insanity.  And, by the way, challenge 2 is to keep your responses under 100 words.  It's easy, just stay focussed on the TOPIC and stop trying to tie in your knowledge of irrelevant garbage in attempt to either bore people into submission or make them think you have a clue.

 

I pity the poor stupid bastards who think you are intelligent.

 

Michael

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Haristas@... [Haristas@...]
Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 7:01
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...

In a message dated 10/30/02 11:45:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

Patrick

P.S. Mike, I've got a challenge for you. You keep ducking it, but I
want YOU to come up with a plausible explanation regarding the
trajectory Brent follows to miraculously wind up near Taylor's
location in the Forbidden Zone. "Taylor's trajectory" through
interstellar space ENDS at the location of the planet Earth WEEKS
before Brent's ship arrives, according to Dehn's scenario (and
yours), right?

Don't fall into Patrick's devious plot, Michael, he holds all the cards, and this is just he devilish way of trying to get you to follow him into the bushes of POTAdom.  Once there in the bushes with him, Michael, you know what he'll do to you!  Beware of the beast Patrick.  Shun him.  Drive him back into the bushed, for he wants to take a trip. . . .

to Uranus!

-- Roryus




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

Attachments :

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 5:15 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Blame on the Planet of the Apes (OT)

In a message dated 10/30/02 7:37:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

If I were to creat a robot it would look like Chii.
All robots should look like her.

I don't know, that looks like a little girl, T.  I'm not into that Humbert Humbert thing.  How about this for a robot?               

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html Nah, they are anti clockwise but when you get to the window it is on the driver's side - something about where they place the building....

Now you're starting to sound like Patrick.  The only way to go counterclockwise around a building and have the right side of the car next to the window in in reverse!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/2002 8:48:50 PM Central Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:

Aww, poor lil' Patty has to resort to "name calling" and accusing people of "picking a fight"cause they think the idea of a mothership is nonsense... Shows who is really the instigator here doesn't it?

Now!  Fight like apes!<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/2002 11:15:57 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

Trust me T - I'll draw you a map.

Or you could drive through the middle of th building, or have one of those trays on a belt.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/30/2002 10:02:32 PM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

You guys are making me want to watch "Weird Science" again. - - - Jeff

Why?
Because of that piece of ass with the rebreather?
Look at the size of her . . . brain! 
Yeah, that's it, brain.  That's the ticket.

Weeeeiiirrrd Science!  Bit's & Pieces  Bit's & Pieces...
Or was that tits and pizzas?

<.html

Maybe he can just email you Jeff?

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: veetus@... [veetus@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 14:39
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com

> P.S.: Keep on keeping on. I find your posts interesting and challenging.
> Don't listen to the "get a life"ers.

.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Whitty

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:45 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Pathetic Mother of all ships...

Yes Rory. he's a joke.

 

Listen Patrick you fake intellectual, Brent followed Taylor because the script was not scientifically correct.  Simple.  The IS no plausible scientific explanation, you dip shit.

 

So why invent one?

 

You might as well say it was all a dream.  I don't know what would be more pathetic.

 

It only works if you are stupid enough to let yourself believe in a mothership, and I ain't taking that pill.

 

I have a challenge for you Patrick.  Get rid of your dick headed mothership and make it all work.  You can't, can you?  So that's why you rush to defend your insanity.  And, by the way, challenge 2 is to keep your responses under 100 words.  It's easy, just stay focussed on the TOPIC and stop trying to tie in your knowledge of irrelevant garbage in attempt to either bore people into submission or make them think you have a clue.

 

I pity the poor stupid bastards who think you are intelligent.

 

Michael

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Haristas@... [Haristas@...]
Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 7:01
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...

In a message dated 10/30/02 11:45:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

Patrick

P.S. Mike, I've got a challenge for you. You keep ducking it, but I
want YOU to come up with a plausible explanation regarding the
trajectory Brent follows to miraculously wind up near Taylor's
location in the Forbidden Zone. "Taylor's trajectory" through
interstellar space ENDS at the location of the planet Earth WEEKS
before Brent's ship arrives, according to Dehn's scenario (and
yours), right?

Don't fall into Patrick's devious plot, Michael, he holds all the cards, and this is just he devilish way of trying to get you to follow him into the bushes of POTAdom.  Once there in the bushes with him, Michael, you know what he'll do to you!  Beware of the beast Patrick.  Shun him.  Drive him back into the bushed, for he wants to take a trip. . . .

to Uranus!

-- Roryus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

.html In a message dated 10/30/2002 11:15:57 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

Trust me T - I'll draw you a map.

Or you could drive through the middle of th building, or have one of those trays on a belt.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 10/31/2002 1:02:58 AM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

You drive round and through the car park to the side of the building.
 


Yeah, clockwise.<.html

Be careful. Rory and Patrick may turn it sideways and get lost.

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> Trust me T - I'll draw you a map.
>
> Michael

.html In a message dated 10/31/2002 1:02:58 AM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

You drive round and through the car park to the side of the building.
 


Yeah, clockwise.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
<.html

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:

> Are you a scientologist Patrick? That would axplain a LOT!
>
> Michael

*** Why does it NOT surprise me that you have ducked--once again--my
challenge to defend that Brent-to-Earth-via-Taylor's-trajectory
scenario!

As for this "scientologist" stuff... what the f*** are you babblin'
about? Are you, perhaps, confusing Isaac Asimov with L. Ron Hubbard?
It was Hubbard--not Asimov--who wrote "Dianetics" and started his own
religion based on it ("scientology"); Asimov was a writer from the
same "Golden Age of SF" as Hubbard, but Asimov didn't have any nice
things to say about L. Ron's pseudo-scientific religion.
Asimov's writings (his SF--the "Robot", "Galactic Empire"
and "Foundation" series) have nothing whatsoever to do with
Scientology... and why would you think that I--who have blasted
Religion numerous times on this site, and advocated agnostic
rationalism--would endorse ANY religion, even IF it has pseudo-
scientific overtones (as Hubbards folly does)? Why don't you,
Mikey, "axplain" this to me?!

Patrick

P.S. I don't want to give the impression that I loathe everything
whatsoever that has to do with Hubbard. I think his "Dianetics"
& "Scientology" stuff is horseshit, but I did read "BATTLEFIELD
EARTH" and the first 4 books of his "Mission Earth" Dekalogy (I
believe that the last 6 and a half of those 10 books were ghost-
written, since the quality level drops like an anvil somewhere in the
4th book of the series); I, for one, thought that the BOOK
of "BATTLEFIELD EARTH" was terrific. It's a damn shame that
Travolta's horrid film adaptation was ever made, since there just
MIGHT be people who WOULD have read the book (or were thinking about
reading it) who now won't go anywhere near it... just because the
movie stunk so bad. You'd think that a guy (Travolta, who IS a
scientologist) who liked the book enough to make a movie out of it
would have bothered to make a GOOD one--or, better yet, a GREAT one.
But, oh, how rancid that piece-of-shit was! Travolta still wants to
make "the second half" of the novel, to "finish" the story... yet he
changed so much of what was in the book that I couldn't recognize the
source novel anywhere on the screen. I read somewhere that a
Japanese "anime" version of the novel--done as a multi-episode series-
-is in the works. If it could stay true to the book, and if the
animation was at least half as good as "AKIRA", then THAT project
might be worth a viewing.

.htmlIn a message dated 10/31/2002 2:27:49 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

No, anti clockwise

Prove it!  Take a picture or something.<.html

This is it. I got my 4 year old to draw it up for you.

http://users.cyberone.com.au/whitty/Map.jpg

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: james611102 [JamesA1102@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 23:12
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Anti-Clockwise (OT)
>
>
> Be careful. Rory and Patrick may turn it sideways and get lost.
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Trust me T - I'll draw you a map.
> >
> > Michael

I guess you would be as surprised as I would be if you did not accept my
challenge to perform sex-change surgery upon yourself.

But I would not be so foolish as to say that you have "ducked" my
"challenge".

Try it on some people with lower intellectual capacity Patrick.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Friday, 1 November 2002 7:35
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Are you a scientologist Patrick? That would axplain a LOT!
> >
> > Michael
>
> *** Why does it NOT surprise me that you have ducked--once again--my
> challenge to defend that Brent-to-Earth-via-Taylor's-trajectory
> scenario!

No, where do you draw this conclusion from?

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Friday, 1 November 2002 7:35
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...

>
> As for this "scientologist" stuff... what the f*** are you babblin'
> about? Are you, perhaps, confusing Isaac Asimov with L. Ron Hubbard?

Because you are a goose Pat.

Pattie, you are a goose.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Friday, 1 November 2002 7:35
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...

.. and why would you think that I--who have blasted Religion numerous times
on this site, and advocated agnostic rationalism--would endorse ANY
religion, even IF it has pseudo-scientific overtones (as Hubbards folly
does)? Why don't you, Mikey, "axplain" this to me?!

Patrick

It's OK Patty

Nobody got THAT impression!

HaHaHaHaHa!

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Friday, 1 November 2002 7:35
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Mother of all ships...
>
> P.S. I don't want to give the impression that I loathe everything

whatsoever that has to do with Hubbard

.htmlIn a message dated 10/31/2002 2:53:53 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

http://users.cyberone.com.au/whitty/Map.jpg

Just as I thought!
You aren't driving around the building.
You probably said that at some point,
but badly.  j/k  My bad, if in fact it was!

<.html

Map not good enough?

--- LordTZer0@... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/31/2002 2:27:49 PM Central Standard Time,
> whitty@... writes:
>
> > No, anti clockwise
>
> Prove it! Take a picture or something.
>

That's OK - it is difficult to understand these concepts unless you
experience them.

Not nearly as bad as the girl at KFC in Ohio who asked how long it
took for me to drive there from Australia....she would have been the
perfect date!

Michael

--- LordTZer0@... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/31/2002 2:53:53 PM Central Standard Time,
> whitty@... writes:
>
> > http://users.cyberone.com.au/whitty/Map.jpg
> >
>
> Just as I thought!
> You aren't driving around the building.
> You probably said that at some point,
> but badly. j/k My bad, if in fact it was!
>

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:

> Yes Rory. he's a joke.
>
> Listen Patrick you fake intellectual, Brent followed Taylor because

the script was not scientifically correct. Simple. The IS no
plausible scientific explanation, you dip shit.

>
> So why invent one?
>
> You might as well say it was all a dream. I don't know what would

be more pathetic.

>
> It only works if you are stupid enough to let yourself believe in a

mothership, and I ain't taking that pill.

>
> I have a challenge for you Patrick. Get rid of your dick headed

mothership and make it all work. You can't, can you? So that's why
you rush to defend your insanity. And, by the way, challenge 2 is to
keep your responses under 100 words. It's easy, just stay focussed
on the TOPIC and stop trying to tie in your knowledge of irrelevant
garbage in attempt to either bore people into submission or make them
think you have a clue.

>
> I pity the poor stupid bastards who think you are intelligent.
>
> Michael

*** Ah, Mikey, back to the name-calling, now, aren't ya! "... fake
intellectual", "dip shit", etc.

Why, you ask, should I invent a "plausible scientific explanation"
for the details of the POTA saga? I gave my reason for that from the
get-go: I got the idea, years ago, of writing a novelization of the
first POTA film, since it hadn't been released as a novel, as had the
4 sequel movies and 8 of the TV episodes (and 9 of the cartoon
episodes, which are of less concern to me). The more I thought about
it, the more I contemplated RE-NOVELIZING the 4 sequels (and
novelizing all 14 of the TV eps), since the details that ended up on
the screen often were mis-represented by the works of Avallone,
Pournelle, Jakes, and Gerrold (not to mention Effinger). So, I
thought, why not write one big-ass mega-novel which tells the ENTIRE
saga as one huge story, each of the films & episodes being "chapters"
in it? My love of those films was the primary reason I decided
to "have a go" at it, that and the knowledge that it is perfectly
valid for OTHER writers to come along and ADD TO a pre-existing
story, as Dehn & Abrahams did when they cooked up BENEATH, and then
added more and more sequels. Some people don't dig any of the sequels
(Heston thought that PLANET was "the only story" and that any sequel
would be just "adventures among the monkeys"), and they're free to
disregard them (just as you and your ilk, if my novel should ever be
published, will be free to disregard it). But I don't think there are
many PLANET fans who despise Dehn for daring to write sequels,
though, since they--despite their flaws & "flubs"--are entertaining
and thought-provoking. Even if I'm the only one who enjoys the stuff
I'm adding to the mix, that's reason enough for me to write my book.

BUT! In order to tell "one big story" it became necessary for me to
figure out a way to reconcile the opposing scenarios presented in
PLANET and BENEATH. Dehn's sequel CHANGED the scenario of PLANET, and
for the longest time I couldn't think of a way to reconcile his
changed version (Taylor's ship UNINTENTIONALLY "disappearing" and
Brent's ship going off after it on a rescue mission) from what was
done in PLANET (Taylor's ship INTENTIONALLY zipping out 320
lightyears away and into the far future, about 2000 years of Earth-
Time later).
But after cogitating on it, rolling it around & around & around in my
noggin, I happened to recall the scenario Boulle put forth in his
source novel: a MOTHERSHIP from which a SHUTTLECRAFT (1 of 3) flew,
down to the surface of Soror, and from which one of the other two
shuttles lands back on Earth at Orly airport in the penultimate
chapter.
Hmmm... a Mothership... (I thought) Maybe I could re-interpret the 3
ships seen in PLANET, BENEATH, and ESCAPE as being 3 shuttles which
all came from ONE SINGLE BIG SHIP. The more I thought about it, the
more sense it made. It better explained the details given in the
films (such as the "cargo" Taylor mentions, the rather small size of
Brent's ship, the DIFFERENT "3rd" ship from ESCAPE which is smaller &
has no hibernacula & has a gull-wing-hatch on its portside, etc.).
I've gone into exhaustive detail, in prior postings, listing the
details as given in the films and re-interpreting them in light of
my "mothership" scenario, so I won't regurgitate them here. But,
suffice it to say, my scenario made these "flubs" make SENSE (at
least, to ME).
I felt that I OWED it to myself and to other POTA fans out there to
be faithful to the details as they were presented on-screen. I wasn't
about to do what Alan Dean Foster did in his novelization of "STAR
WARS" (Lucas didn't really write it, ADF ghost-wrote it), when he
CHANGED lines of "flub" dialogue in order to "correct" Lucas (he has
Han Solo refer to doing the Kessel Run in less than X number
of "standard time parts" (Ugh!) rather than in "parsecs"; other guys
who've written novels in the "Star Wars" universe have retained the
dialogue from the film (the "parsecs" line) and "unflubbed" it,
coming up with a science-fictional explanation for why Han would use
a unit of DISTANCE rather than a unit of TIME). Similarly, I intended
my scenario to MAKE USE OF the filmed details as much as was humanly
possible, which required concocting a scenario which WAS
scientifically (or, science-fictionally) plausible. Only THEN, after
getting my scenario set in place (as a 'skeleton'), would I then work
in other details to further "flesh out" the story that I wanted to
tell.
My scenario (which you, I'll repeat, are FREE TO IGNORE) is not only
USEFUL to me, for the purposes of writing my novel, but it was a PRE-
REQUISITE, a "speed bump" which I had to get over before I could get
up to speed on MY story.

You "challenge" me to ditch my "mothership" scenario and THEN try to
make the flub-details "work". Why the FUCK should I? Because YOU
don't like it? I must bow and scrape to your whiney fucking tantrums
in order to get on your good side? Yeesh! If I thought my scenario
were "insanity" (as you label it), and if I could concoct a "better"
scenario to "unflub" the POTA details, then perhaps I'd bother. But I
do NOT think it's "stupid", as do you; it makes a hell of a lot of
sense to me. I've never claimed that my "mothership" idea was what
Serling and/or Dehn intended, and I can understand how people who
don't give a baboon's sphincter that the Saga has "flubs" and who
choose to ignore the mistakes, might be discombobulated wrapping
their minds around a re-think of the scenario. But I'm not going to
compromise my own integrity by doing something that doesn't rub me
the right way; to write a POTA novel with the extant filmed details,
just PRETENDING that they made sense (which they--being "flubs"--
DON'T), would be impossible for me. I need the story I tell to be
told against a backdrop which has no glaring mistakes mucking up the
works. And I care too much about the 5 films & 14 episodes to alter
the details in them just to force them to fit in the CHANGED scenario
which Dehn concocted for BENEATH. Without ditching any of Dehn's
added details (i.e. his EXACT lines of dialogue), I've worked up a
scenario which utilizes them and makes them make more sense than they
did when he wrote them down to begin with.

Patrick

P.S. You also challenged me to keep my responses down to 100 words,
as if there's some fucking LAW that requires it. Each month there are
over a THOUSAND postings on this Yahoo site, and the vast majority of
them are mere one-sentence responses. It takes time to click through
1000 or more small postings, clicking the "Next" button (and those
damned "Continue to Message" buttons on the interrupting AD pages);
many of those postings are, quite frankly, non-substantive. Bordering
on a waste of time. I let it slide, because there are those who like
to hold entire fucking conversations with each other on this site,
which takes up scads of those 1000+ postings. But I prefer to go into
more depth when I have something to say about POTA. So what if I take
more than 100 words to say what I want to say? At least I HAVE
something to say that isn't just a snide, worthless insult. I'd
rather post a lengthier message which includes quotes from the Saga
which back up what I'm saying--and THAT, you bloody baboon, requires
added verbiage. Your inability to see the relevance of what I'm
talking about in my postings is a testament to your blindness.

Feel free to whine some more, Mikey. Or to call me names again. It
really shows how much more "intelligent" you are.

_________

.htmlIn a message dated 10/31/02 5:06:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, whitty@... writes:

Map not good enough?

ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<.html

Have you finished Chapter 2 yet, HairyAss....I mean Haristas?

This whole clockwise/anti-clockwise thing inspired a Simpsons
episode, you know!

Michael

--- Haristas@... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/31/02 5:06:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> whitty@... writes:
>
>
> > Map not good enough?
> >
> >
>
> ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Boy, Pat has gone quiet....you don't think he's attempting that sex
change operation on himself do you?

Wonderful thing science....

Michael

--- Haristas@... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/31/02 5:06:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> whitty@... writes:
>
>
> > Map not good enough?
> >
> >
>
> ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

--- In pota@y..., Haristas@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/30/02 3:53:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> whitty@c... writes:
>
>
> > I pity the poor stupid bastards who think you are intelligent.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
>
> Have pity on me, Michael. I think Patrick is intelligent, just not

very

> wise, otherWISE why would he go see "Jackass: the movie"?
>
> -- Rory

*** Because, Rory ol' bean, that movie had the virtue of being funny--
it had the PROMISE of hilarity and it DELIVERED on that promise. It
was infinitely more worth spending around 2 hours of my time than
trying to see what passes for Mikey's sad attempts at humor. Perhaps
I should just go "boo-hoo" and weep like a little girl at
Mikey's "withering" insults--I think he'd like that.
As for whether or not I'm "wise", well, I admit it's not too wise for
me to expect civility from that kangaroo-raping koala molestor, but
then again I don't really expect that.
Oooo, have I sunk to his level, now? Slinging worthless insults? I
guess there's a little Cartman inside all of us.

Patrick

You would know Patrick, you are a funny guy...or are you a girl now?
Still ducking my challenge? Shock me.

Michael

--- "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...> wrote:

that movie had the virtue of being funny-- it had the PROMISE of
hilarity and it DELIVERED on that promise

> Patricia

--- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:

>
> > Alright, T! I'm not the only one here who thinks Williams is

overrated!

>
> I believe I mentioned it before. But when Williams took over the

Boston Pops after Arthur Fiedler died, the orchestra walked out and
refused to play his stuff because it was too corny. I don't know if
it's true, but the person who told me is a classically trained
musician, so he should know. I like some of his stuff, but it is
pretty trite. It can evoke the emotions it intends to, but sometimes
feels forced or heavy-handed. I guess the best way to express it
Williams is overblown, while Goldsmith is subtle.

*** Not every Williams score is overblown. And sometimes the type of
movie REQUIRES that the music be overblown. I can't imagine the
original "STAR WARS" with subtler music--it just wouldn't work. Space
opera requires a grand operatic score, which is what he delivered.
And what about classics like "JAWS"? Not since "PSYCHO" had there
been a scare-flick score which was so memorable and effective,
supplementing the visuals on-screen.
Williams deserves a place on the Top 10. Hell, on the Top 3. I'd
place Goldsmith in there, too. I'd also make room for John Barry: his
Bond scores alone helped make them as effective as they were.

Patrick

How would you find the time when you are obviously beating away all
the chicks who want to date you? What's that Patty, you're a
virgin? Take my challenge and you'll lose your virginity! Stop
ducking, start ****ing!

Michael


--- "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...> wrote:

I should just go "boo-hoo" and weep like a little girl at

> Mikey's "withering" insults--

> Patricia