.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/21/2005 1:05:45 PM Central Standard Time, claudenolen@... writes:

It also occurs to me that Dr Zaius is depicted as
living in both cities.

Dr. Zaius and Councilor Zaius are NOT the same ape, nor are they supposed to be... I think they just used the Zaius name on the TV series because it was something familiar... I agree though that they should have given the TV character a new name to avoid any of this type of confusion...

<.html <.html

.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/21/2005 1:04:53 PM Central Standard Time, brindlepit2002@... writes:

based on my understanding of what i read in eric green's book, the conquest riot cinematography was based on newsreel footage

Correct, the way it was shot, etc. was based on the riot footage... BUT, the Apes revolt (in political and social terms) was NOT based on it...

<.html<.html

.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/21/05 7:44:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

Now look at Conquest. The humans aren't slaugtering or butchering
the apes. They aren't even enslaving them. You can't enslave
something that isn't human. All you can do is train it. And that's
what they are doing. They're just training the apes.

YIKES!!!!  What's with this mentality?

-- Rory<.html <.html

In a message dated 3/21/05 7:44:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

Now look at Conquest. The humans aren't slaugtering or butchering
the apes. They aren't even enslaving them. You can't enslave
something that isn't human. All you can do is train it. And that's
what they are doing. They're just training the apes.

YIKES!!!!  What's with this mentality?

-- Rory

Be sure to visit the Group's Internal Website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/files/MainPage.htm for Original POTA One Sheets & Lobby Cards, Trailers & Rare Videos, Trading Cards and much, much more...

http://home.earthlink.net/~thepittbull/

go vegetarian!

In a message dated 3/21/2005 1:05:45 PM Central Standard Time, claudenolen@... writes:

It also occurs to me that Dr Zaius is depicted as
living in both cities.

Dr. Zaius and Councilor Zaius are NOT the same ape, nor are they supposed to be... I think they just used the Zaius name on the TV series because it was something familiar... I agree though that they should have given the TV character a new name to avoid any of this type of confusion...

Be sure to visit the Group's Internal Website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/files/MainPage.htm for Original POTA One Sheets & Lobby Cards, Trailers & Rare Videos, Trading Cards and much, much more...

http://home.earthlink.net/~thepittbull/

go vegetarian!

> Regardless of their filming sequence, I have to say
> I disagree with you that
> they "improved" over time... As I watch that series,
> I look at how good it
> started out, and then got weaker as it aired.
> Episodes like "The Horse Race" and
> the horrible "Up Above the World So High" should not
> have even been made...

I somewhat agree with you on the hang glider episode.
Although they may not have known that that would be
the last episode to air, I did think it fitting that
the plot of the final show would focus on stranded
astronauts building a flying machine. It's analogous
to Gilligan deciding to build a boat. The other thing
that makes the final episode special is that (I think)
it's the only time Galen had a love interest. Unless
you count the doctor in "The Surgeon" (but that's an
old flame).

I strongly disagree on "The Horse Race," however.
Check out chapter 8 (An Expert Horseman). Even in the
haze, those mountains in the background are beautiful.
I'd like to build a house right there! I thought the
plot was plausible (if not completely predictable).

> is not true... Mikal in
> "The Tyrant" episode was a revolutionary in a way
> and died because of it...
> And, in "The Legacy", there's a line of dialog about
> a human named Tomar who was
> a rebel

Thanks for the correction! I guess I missed those
lines. Where would we be without DVD?!




           
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Hey, it's good to see you back in the neighborhood, CBN.

I like the directions your brain goes. You've got some good
questions and some interesting food for thought.

It's funny, I was watching the Pota2001 Backstory last night and
noticed that they had filmed at Lake Powell, also. (I did know this
already, but it is now fresh in my mind!) It would be fun to have
some time to find "matching" scenes and line them up and see how
they compare. I'm guessing not much has changed there. I wouldn't
have recognized it, but I am not as versed as some of you are.

I'm wondering... Jeff, are you around? Was there once (1977ish) a
small sign on Zuma Beach mentioning the filming of Planet on that
beach? It's in my memory, actually, but it may be (as Michael
Whitty puts it) a "fake memory." If it exists, the cave I slept in
is just a few feet actually to the south of that small sign. (Well
if you stand in the water looking straight ahead to the sign that I
am imagining, the cave I was in would be behind it and to the right
a bit.) The sign was on the edge of some rocks, in my memory. It's
all VERY foggy. It would be fun, though, to go back there. Maybe
one day we should all fly out for a picnic on the beach. (You could
organize that for us some summer, okay Jeff?)

Helen



--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "C.B. Nolen III" <claudenolen@y...>
wrote:

>
> This is probably a good example of strange circles my
> brain turns in...

> Another semi-geographical question. Has anyone gone
> out to the Lake Powell area and photographed some
> "then & now" type pictures? For that matter, has
> anyone been to Malibu Creek State Park or Zuma Beach
> to see if anything is still there? I've seen several
> pictures on the web showing rusty MASH vehicles at the
> old Fox Ranch, but none of the Ape City site recently.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________

> Dr. Zaius and Councilor Zaius are NOT the same ape

Wow! I didn't realize that there were two Zaius characters. I think
what threw me was scene seven of "Escape from Tomorrow." Zauis,
Galen and Urko are discussing the arrival of Virdon and Burke. They
speak of "another" ship that landed "ten years ago." They say they
killed the previous astronauts. Somehow, this just sounded like
something Dr Zaius would say. But in the timeline, Taylor doesn't
land for another 893 (?) years in the Ape era future; so I should
have figured that something was screwy. The TV series is new stuff
for me (hey, I'm only 30 years behind the curve). Are there any
theories about who or what astronauts Counselor Zaius was talking
about?

Not being the most quick witted homo-sapiens, I only recently
realized that the name "Galen" was also used in the original movie.
I remember the character, but the name didn't stick with me.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 3/21/05 7:44:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> thaddeus40@h... writes:
>
>
> > Now look at Conquest. The humans aren't slaugtering or

butchering

> > the apes. They aren't even enslaving them. You can't enslave
> > something that isn't human. All you can do is train it. And

that's

> > what they are doing. They're just training the apes.
>
> YIKES!!!! What's with this mentality?
>
> -- Rory

WISDOM:
A righteous man regards the life of his animal,
But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Proverbs 12:10

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, ron kenner <brindlepit2002@y...> wrote:

> i dont understand it either.
> it seems contrary to one of the major themes of the apes movies

which is "extending equal rights to all, regardless of ape-pearance.

> thaddeus- can you explain?
>
> rob/ron

Equal rights are based on human equality, that all people are
fundamentally equal. They don't extend to the animal world. Dog
trainers aren't enslaving their dogs.

Right from the begining of Conquest the apes are depicted as
slaves, ie; as already human. And that combined with the not-so-
subtle clues as the ape riots being based visually on the watts
riots, and Macdonald, a black man, being basically in league with
the apes, the nasty idea that black people likewise themselves a sub-
species is pretty hard to avoid. Another thing that bugs me about
the film is that the Macdonald character seems to help the apes
because he wants to be a slave again, and in the next movie, ( and
even worse in the original unfilmed Dehn version ) he actually seems
to enjoy his status as Ceaser's servant/lackey. So I think this
movie, while on the surface pretending to be about equality...etc,
is actually about the opposite. Its about violence and suppression.


The original films were about human degeneration, moral and
physical, not slavery. They were about the conflict between science
and religion, ( or put another way, between progress and
stability ). Those same themes could have been re-examined to great
effect in any sequels/prequels. They didn't have to go off on such a
different 180 degree tangent like they did in Conquest. Its a
particularily ugly movie, and even worse, the whole thing is dumbed-
down for children's consumption via the "Ceaser the hero" plot
device.

.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/21/05 2:06:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, claudenolen@... writes:

In Planet, Cornelius points to a place on
his map roughly around Mount Freedom NJ (ironic, isn't
it). Are there any more specific geographic clues? 

I've always contended that the "inland sea" that's shown on Cornelius' map is what remains of Chesapeake Bay.  Turn a map of the east coeast of the US sideways and that's the only body of water it could be!

James disagrees, of course.

-- Rory<.html <.html

.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/21/05 7:37:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

Equal rights are based on human equality, that all people are
fundamentally equal. They don't extend to the animal world.

Not yet anyaway, but it's coming.

Are you going to try and tell me that a horse made to carry a man on its back, or pull a wagon, isn't slavery made of that animal?

Do you think you're better than other creatures of this planet, that there's something about Man that gives him rights over all other creatures?

-- Rory<.html <.html

Yes, it's coming. A local veterinarian told me of this bill in
Rhode Island. It actually has HUGE implications for people who keep
animals...


Full Text - House Bill 6119 (Rhode Island People Are Guardians of
Companion Animals) can be found at:
http://www.birdmag.com/riguardian.htm

Citation: Rhode Island H.6119 (2001)


Summary:
This Rhode Island bill created the term "guardian" to mean a person
who possesses, has title to or an interest in, harbors or has
control, custody or possession of an animal and who is responsible
for an animal's safety and well-being. In adopting this term, Rhode
Island became the first state to recognize that an individual is the
guardian of a companion animal (not merely owner).




Helen

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/21/05 7:37:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> thaddeus40@h... writes:
>
>
> > Equal rights are based on human equality, that all people are
> > fundamentally equal. They don't extend to the animal world.
>
> Not yet anyaway, but it's coming.
>
> Are you going to try and tell me that a horse made to carry a man
on its
> back, or pull a wagon, isn't slavery made of that animal?
>
> Do you think you're better than other creatures of this planet,
that there's
> something about Man that gives him rights over all other creatures?
>
> -- Rory

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@a... wrote:

>
> James disagrees, of course.
>

I'm such a bastard;-)

We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

M. Emmet Walsh's Birthday� �

Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Time: All Day

.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/21/2005 6:37:36 PM Central Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

Another thing that bugs me about
the film is that the Macdonald character seems to help the apes
because he wants to be a slave again, and in the next movie, ( and
even worse in the original unfilmed Dehn version ) he actually seems
to enjoy his status as Ceaser's servant/lackey.

The MacDonald in CONQUEST is the older brother of the one in BATTLE... They aren't meant to be the same guy...

<.html <.html

.html

In a message dated 3/19/2005 9:15:51 A.M. Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

Conquest is the most different and far removed from the original of
any of the sequels. So I can see why it didn't click with many fans.

 

Different uniforms, and only one talking ape . . . it was doomed.

 

<.html

We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

M. Emmet Walsh's Birthday� �

Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Time: All Day

.html

In a message dated 3/19/2005 2:46:16 P.M. Central Standard Time, taebokitti@... writes:

I felt there should have been more to the story, it felt cut off. Elaine

Yeah, I wanted to see the bombs and all the cities being taken over

by apes, etc . . . but that would have required Fox to actually spend

some of the money we gave then, and as you know Apes fans are

sub-human, and are only good for taking money from, not giving back.

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 3/19/2005 9:23:57 P.M. Central Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

Beneath just doesn't have a masterpiece
type of vibe to it. Especially the first half of the movie might as
well have been one of those Italian westerns.

 

Hey!  Segio Leone's trilogy is a masterpiece!

<.html

.html

In a message dated 3/20/2005 9:29:59 A.M. Central Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

Why is the human race suddenly evil, stupid, and
lazy. All the dogs and cats are dead so lets train giant gorillas to
come into our homes to wash the dishes,

What do you mean suddenly?

Slavery wasn't that long ago.

Not even 5 generations.

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 3/20/2005 12:18:14 P.M. Central Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:

RETURN could have been good, had they cut the stupid dialog out and concentrated on just the storyline itself...

Return?  That isn't even a movie.

 

<.html

> Are you going to try and tell me that a horse made to carry a man

on its

> back, or pull a wagon, isn't slavery made of that animal?

No, not at all. You're not depriving the horse of any right or
privelege it would enjoy as a human. Its not like the horse would
get a job as a professor at a university if it wasn't pulling your
wagon. An animal's life isn't so wonderful. They live in constant
fear and hunger, so much so that their minds function virtually by
instinct. Their lives consist almost entirely of searching for food,
avoiding predators, and sleeping. A life of pulling humans on a
wagon is a big step up for them; it guarentees food and safety.

> Do you think you're better than other creatures of this planet,

that there's

> something about Man that gives him rights over all other creatures?

Everything that lives exerts the same perogative over all other life
forms; the perogative to survive. The animals kill each other
without a second's hesitation. There is no mercy in nature. We kill
animals too. And eat them. And we do it by the same right.

But we are much more than animals. We have a moral component to our
actions. You can speak and write, and offer arguments based on
abstract concepts, like democracy or equality. Humans build
spaceships, hospitals, read poety. We're guided by ideals such as
friendship, duty, and love. I've never met anyone who has murdered
anyone else. And even the most violent episodes in our history pale
in comparison to the day-in-day-out violence found in the animal
kingdom.

Animals are food. Or they exist to serve some function to benifit
mankind.

That's why the original POTA was such a shocking film. It was an
upside down world. It was intended to be creepy, like a horrorshow.
A world of total hostility.

.html

In a message dated 3/21/2005 6:44:48 A.M. Central Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

Its too bad. They could have made quite a good film, even with a low
budget. They could have made a kind of "Night of the Living Dead"

 

That's how I pictured it, ending with a nuclear holocaust.

Whether it was too dark or too expensive it didn't get made.

 

<.html

.html

In a message dated 3/21/2005 4:42:27 P.M. Central Standard Time, sand_hill_school@... writes:

the cave I slept in

How many can say that sentence?

Were there signs of carnivorous

gorillas?  Or just hermit crabs?

 

<.html

> The MacDonald in CONQUEST is the older brother of the one in

BATTLE... They

> aren't meant to be the same guy...

Whats different about them?

Electric shock conditioning, flamethrowers, batons, electric
prods,guns, whips---sounds a lot like slavery to me. The argument
that these Apes aren't sentient does not hold up.Mankind is aware of
Zira and Cornelius and knows the potential of the Apes.Isn't it Breck
who reverts to type with the 'shoot to kill' order--a bit extreme
when dealing with mere animals? I think MacDonald's colour is a valid
choice, as it highlights racism on the part of the white
population.MacDonald is identifying with the quest for freedom, and
clearly recognises that very human desire in Caesar--it's got nothing
to do with colour, in my humble opinion.John, Scrolls.

There is an excellent interview with Neal Adams in Spooky no1 vol 2,
which just happens to be published by an Apes fan.More details from
PIERS@.... I've wndered whether that art is pure
Adams,as he had a studio of Adams clones at the time replicating his
style, and he did a lot of marketing stuff like this? Other greats
who did at least one page of Apes are Starlin, Marshall Rogers and,
for a planned animated series based on the TV Series, the one and
only Jack Kirby!John, Scrolls.

I'm was a bit confused by this conversation when it happened on the
old and unrevised Pota group. Aren't the landmarks clearly New York
City? I've been to Chesapeake Bay and, although I was quite a bit
younger, it seems to be quite a ways from New York City. It makes
sense to me that it would be a bit closer. The map just wasn't that
big! I remember someone did a map overlay, but even so, don't the
landmarks count for more than the shape of the bay?

Helen

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/21/05 2:06:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> claudenolen@y... writes:
>
>
> > In Planet, Cornelius points to a place on
> > his map roughly around Mount Freedom NJ (ironic, isn’t
> > it). Are there any more specific geographic clues?
> >
>
> I've always contended that the "inland sea" that's shown on
Cornelius' map is
> what remains of Chesapeake Bay. Turn a map of the east coeast of
the US
> sideways and that's the only body of water it could be!
>
> James disagrees, of course.
>
> -- Rory

Maybe a crabby hermit. I remember a guy called Radar lived on the
beach and cleaned the beach for the food that the people brought
him. (Somebody who existed during this time period and frequented
the beach would know this piece of my story is true.) I suppose he
was a bit of a hermit and might have gotten crabby.

I was a tad younger at the time and I don't remember a lot of it. I
know if I could go back it would bring back a lot of memories. But
for now, I just remember bits and pieces.

Helen

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@A... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/21/2005 4:42:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> sand_hill_school@y... writes:
>
> the cave I slept in
>
>
>
> How many can say that sentence?
> Were there signs of carnivorous
> gorillas? Or just hermit crabs?

> Electric shock conditioning, flamethrowers, batons, electric
> prods,guns, whips---sounds a lot like slavery to me. The argument
> that these Apes aren't sentient does not hold up.Mankind is aware

of

> Zira and Cornelius and knows the potential of the Apes.Isn't it

Breck

> who reverts to type with the 'shoot to kill' order--a bit extreme
> when dealing with mere animals? I think MacDonald's colour is a

valid

> choice, as it highlights racism on the part of the white
> population.MacDonald is identifying with the quest for freedom,

and

> clearly recognises that very human desire in Caesar--it's got

nothing

> to do with colour, in my humble opinion.

You can torture an animal John, but you can't enslave it. A slave is
by definition a human. And you can't be racist against an animal.
Race referes to human race. Apes are not human. They're a different
species. If you think black people are also a different species,
then yes, Macdonald's color is a valid choice. But I doubt too many
black people would agree with your appraisal. I'm sure they find the
movie insulting and degrading, which, in fact, it is.

Anyway, though, I'm going to get off this topic as I've said my fill
on it, and its up to each person however they view any movie.

I may have stumbled across an answer to one of my own questions. I
sent an e-mail to someone who I think was (or perhaps still is) a
Park Docent at Malibu Creek State Park. Apparently, the human cage
from the first movie is still there, except it's rolled up. Although
this person didn't indicate that any other props or structures
remained, it is apparently common knowledge where Taylor and the
boys went skinny-dipping (a place called the Rock Pool), and where
Ape City was (along the shore of Century Lake on the fire road).

Hmmm.... Now the wheels start turning. I could ride the motorcycle
out there. It's 1,500 miles one-way, my sister-in-law lives in LA,
and I could squeeze a mini-vacation into my schedule. Hmmmm.

Certain types of ant, when they capture other ants, use a chemical on
them to make them into slave ants.Slavery is a concept that I,
personally, would not limit to humans.If the characters of Zira and
Cornelius were put into forced, unpaid, brutal labour, I'd have no
problem thinking of them as slaves.I regard the apes in Conquest to
be slaves and' likewise, the humans in Ape City in Battle.As the
astronauts say in the TV Series, all thinking creatures deserve
respect and a group of creatures capable of an organised, successful
rebellion must, by definition, be a 'thinking' group.I'm enjoying
this debate a lot, because it's really got me thinking about the
definition of 'human'.It shows that Apes continues to have levels of
meaning and relevance.John, Scrolls.

In a message dated 3/21/2005 6:44:48 A.M. Central Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

Its too bad. They could have made quite a good film, even with a low
budget. They could have made a kind of "Night of the Living Dead"

 

That's how I pictured it, ending with a nuclear holocaust.

Whether it was too dark or too expensive it didn't get made.

 

Be sure to visit the Group's Internal Website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/files/MainPage.htm for Original POTA One Sheets & Lobby Cards, Trailers & Rare Videos, Trading Cards and much, much more...

http://home.earthlink.net/~thepittbull/

go vegetarian!

> Certain types of ant, when they capture other ants, use a chemical

on

> them to make them into slave ants.Slavery is a concept that I,
> personally, would not limit to humans.If the characters of Zira

and

> Cornelius were put into forced, unpaid, brutal labour, I'd have no
> problem thinking of them as slaves.I regard the apes in Conquest

to

> be slaves and' likewise, the humans in Ape City in Battle.As the
> astronauts say in the TV Series, all thinking creatures deserve
> respect and a group of creatures capable of an organised,

successful

> rebellion must, by definition, be a 'thinking' group.I'm enjoying
> this debate a lot, because it's really got me thinking about the
> definition of 'human'.It shows that Apes continues to have levels

of

> meaning and relevance.

A slave ant isn't a slave anymore than a carpenter ant is a
carpenter. Ants are just ants, and we describe their behavior using
human terms, but the use of those terms doesn't equate them with
humans. Apes are no more capable of armed organized revolt than dogs
or chickens are. The movie doesn't hold up as plausible science-
fiction in any way. It only holds up on an allegorical level, and
its on that level that it stinks the most.

> City? I've been to Chesapeake Bay and, although I
> was quite a bit
> younger, it seems to be quite a ways from New York
> City.

The northern tip of the bay is about 160 miles from
NYC. The mouth of the bay is about 350 miles from NYC.


I grew up living all over Virginia, including some
time on the shores of the bay. If you hit the traffic
around the metro areas right, it was about 5.5 or 6
hours from New York; but culturally, it may as well
have been a million miles away.

I pulled out my map of Virginia, and looked at it on
it's side. I can see some vague correlation to the
Cornelius map; but I still think the geography around
New York is closer.



__________________________________

.html I suppose it would depend on one's definition of slavery but many groups of animals from apes to insects have a hierarchy in their society. There are always dominant individuals and other members who are subserviant to them, like the ants John mentioned. As animal behaviorsts continue to learn more from observation of various animal groups, we are seeing more similarities to humans. For example, Killer whales off the coast of Washington exhibit gang behavior, elephants go through a grieving process after a loss etc. Slavery may not be unique to humans. Elaine<.html

.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/22/05 7:40:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

> Are you going to try and tell me that a horse made to carry a man
on its
> back, or pull a wagon, isn't slavery made of that animal?


No, not at all. You're not depriving the horse of any right or
privelege it would enjoy as a human. Its not like the horse would
get a job as a professor at a university if it wasn't pulling your
wagon. An animal's life isn't so wonderful. They live in constant
fear and hunger, so much so that their minds function virtually by
instinct. Their lives consist almost entirely of searching for food,
avoiding predators, and sleeping. A life of pulling humans on a
wagon is a big step up for them; it guarentees food and safety.

Oh, brother!  Dude, you're a piece of work.

-- Rory<.html <.html

.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/22/2005 6:43:10 AM Central Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:

Return?  That isn't even a movie.

No, it's not... But the point had been brought up about how dumb it was having Caesar say "The Birth of the Planet of the Apes" inCONQUEST... And because of that stupid line, I threw in RETURN, because in it they're constantly referring to themselves as the "Planet of the Apes".... By that, I am saying having dialog in any of the APES projects where they refer to themselves (or the planet) as the POTA is just useless...<.html <.html

.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/22/2005 6:42:24 AM Central Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

>The MacDonald in CONQUEST is the older brother of the one in
BATTLE... They
>aren't meant to be the same guy...



Whats different about them?

They are different actors for one thing... Secondly, the CONQUEST MacDonald was the personal assistant to Governor Breck, while his younger brother wasn't.

<.html <.html

> I suppose it would depend on one's definition of slavery but many

groups of

> animals from apes to insects have a hierarchy in their society.

There are

> always dominant individuals and other members who are subserviant

to them, like the

> ants John mentioned. As animal behaviorsts continue to learn more

from

> observation of various animal groups, we are seeing more

similarities to humans. For

> example, Killer whales off the coast of Washington exhibit gang

behavior,

> elephants go through a grieving process after a loss etc. Slavery

may not be

> unique to humans.

Its a human word Elain that comes out of the politics of ancient
times. And even the way you are using it is to describe behavior of
in-group species actions. An ant can be a slave to other ants, a dog
to other dogs. But it would be inappropriate to say because your dog
comes when you call it that it is your slave. You can't enslave an
animal, all you can do is train it. Animals just function on
instinct. Not politically. There are no nazi dogs, or ants. When a
dog is dominant in its pack it doesn't think to itself," I'm
depriving these other dogs of their equal rights".

.html <.html

> > Whats different about them?
>
> They are different actors for one thing... Secondly, the CONQUEST

MacDonald

> was the personal assistant to Governor Breck, while his younger

brother wasn't.


I mean what is different about them in terms of their personalities.

Just to be clear, there is nothing in the definition of slavery that
says it only applies to humans:

slav•ery \"slA-v(€-)rE\ noun (1551)
1 : drudgery, toil
2 : submission to a dominating influence
(C)1997, 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved


--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "lawbody2003" <thaddeus40@h...> wrote:>

>
> Its a human word Elain that comes out of the politics of ancient
> times. And even the way you are using it is to describe behavior

of

> in-group species actions. An ant can be a slave to other ants, a

dog

> to other dogs. But it would be inappropriate to say because your

dog

> comes when you call it that it is your slave. You can't enslave an
> animal, all you can do is train it. Animals just function on
> instinct. Not politically. There are no nazi dogs, or ants. When a
> dog is dominant in its pack it doesn't think to itself," I'm
> depriving these other dogs of their equal rights".

Great minds think alike:

Dictionary.com

2 entries found for Slavery.
slav·er·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder
or household.

The practice of owning slaves.
A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work
force.
The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.


[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Slavery

n 1: the state of being under the control of another person [syn:
bondage, thrall, thralldom, thraldom] 2: the practice of owning
slaves [syn: slaveholding] 3: work done under harsh conditions for
little or no pay

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "James" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:

>
>
> Just to be clear, there is nothing in the definition of slavery

that

> says it only applies to humans:
>
> slav•ery \"slA-v(€-)rE\ noun (1551)
> 1 : drudgery, toil
> 2 : submission to a dominating influence
> (C)1997, 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved

Bad dictionary. Most of the newer ones are dumbed-down versions.

.html One of the key elements of slavery is that slaves can be sold, they are considered property. I haven't read any animal studies where animals trade animals in exchange for something. I am just speculating that with all the similarities animal behaviorists are seeing between animals and humans, slavery may appear at some point. Or you maybe correct, slavery maybe uniquely human. Elaine<.html

Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)

> n. pl. slav·er·ies
> The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a

slaveholder

> or household.

The "one" refers to one person,ie; some one.

>
> Slavery
>
> n 1: the state of being under the control of another person [syn:
> bondage, thrall, thralldom, thraldom] 2: the practice of owning
> slaves [syn: slaveholding] 3: work done under harsh conditions for
> little or no pay

"Of another person".....the word "another" implys that the one
enslaved is also a person.

I agree that the word slavery only applies to humans once only humans are
supposed to receive some kind of reward for something done as a job. An animal
would not be a slave because it doesn´t need money to make a living - only food
and sometimes shelter to that it can survive.

When an animal is not treated well, it implies cruelty, not slavery. That´s
what I think.




Citando lawbody2003 <thaddeus40@...>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "James" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Just to be clear, there is nothing in the definition of slavery
>
> that
>
> > says it only applies to humans:
>
> >
>
> > slav•ery \"slA-v(€-)rE\ noun (1551)
>
> > 1 : drudgery, toil
>
> > 2 : submission to a dominating influence
>
> > (C)1997, 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bad dictionary. Most of the newer ones are dumbed-down versions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Be sure to visit the Group's Internal Website
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/files/MainPage.htm for Original POTA One
> Sheets & Lobby Cards, Trailers & Rare Videos, Trading Cards and much, much
> more...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> pota-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________

That's very very close-minded. Just because you don't like what it
says, you just dismiss it.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "lawbody2003" <thaddeus40@h...> wrote:
>
> Bad dictionary. Most of the newer ones are dumbed-down versions.

And that would depend on your definition of what a person is. Just
because your own narrow & subjective opinion of slavery only
includes other humans, it does not mean everyone else's does. There
are a great many SF stories of robots, holograms or aliens being
made slaves or humans being made slaves by them.
In fact, the argument your making is the classic argument that is
used to justify slavery. I.E. They are different and inferior to us,
thus it is our right to own them.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "lawbody2003" <thaddeus40@h...> wrote:
>
> "Of another person".....the word "another" implys that the one
> enslaved is also a person.

"the life of an animal is misery and slavery"

-Old Major (Animal Farm)

Why does your moral component not allow you to email me back?

Mark,
in beautiful, sunny Florida!

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Kassidy Rae <valwp@y...> wrote:

...humans have a moral component. Hopefully that extends to the animal world (of which
we are a part).
> Kass

There´s also something that makes us different from animals: we can reason,
think, we have a more developed inteligence whereas other animals can only
count on their instincts. It does imply on the fact that we are allowed to
mistreat them, but to protect them as living beings.


Citando ArturF <afaf@...>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree that the word slavery only applies to humans once only humans are
>
> supposed to receive some kind of reward for something done as a job. An
> animal
>
> would not be a slave because it doesn´t need money to make a living - only
> food
>
> and sometimes shelter so that it can survive.
>
>
>
> When an animal is not treated well, it implies cruelty, not slavery. That´s
>
> what I think.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Citando lawbody2003 <thaddeus40@...>:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "James" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Just to be clear, there is nothing in the definition of slavery
>
> >
>
> > that
>
> >
>
> > > says it only applies to humans:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > slav•ery \"slA-v(€-)rE\ noun (1551)
>
> >
>
> > > 1 : drudgery, toil
>
> >
>
> > > 2 : submission to a dominating influence
>
> >
>
> > > (C)1997, 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Bad dictionary. Most of the newer ones are dumbed-down versions.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Be sure to visit the Group's Internal Website
>
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/files/MainPage.htm for Original POTA One
>
> > Sheets & Lobby Cards, Trailers & Rare Videos, Trading Cards and much, much
>
> > more...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/
>
> >
>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
> > pota-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> >
>
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________ _______________________

.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/23/05 11:13:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, thaddeus40@... writes:

Bad dictionary. Most of the newer ones are dumbed-down versions.

That's not the only thing around here that's dumbed-down.

-- Rory
<.html<.html

.html.htmlIn a message dated 3/23/05 11:59:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, rkid67@... writes:

"the life of an animal is misery and slavery"
        
                                           -Old Major (Animal Farm)

"Man is a nuisance."

                                    -Dr. Zaius (POTA)<.html <.html

Correction: I mean, "it does NOT imply on the fact that we are allowed to
mistreat them,..."

So, I am totally against cruelty on animals.

Citando ArturF <afaf@...>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There´s also something that makes us different from animals: we can reason,
>
> think, we have a more developed inteligence whereas other animals can only
>
> count on their instincts. It does imply on the fact that we are allowed to
>
> mistreat them, but to protect them as living beings.
>
>
>
>
>
> Citando ArturF <afaf@...>:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I agree that the word slavery only applies to humans once only humans are
>
> >
>
> > supposed to receive some kind of reward for something done as a job. An
>
> > animal
>
> >
>
> > would not be a slave because it doesn´t need money to make a living - only
>
> > food
>
> >
>
> > and sometimes shelter so that it can survive.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > When an animal is not treated well, it implies cruelty, not slavery.
> That´s
>
> >
>
> > what I think.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Citando lawbody2003 <thaddeus40@...>:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "James" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Just to be clear, there is nothing in the definition of slavery
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > that
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > says it only applies to humans:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > slav•ery \"slA-v(€-)rE\ noun (1551)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 1 : drudgery, toil
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 2 : submission to a dominating influence
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > (C)1997, 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Bad dictionary. Most of the newer ones are dumbed-down versions.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Be sure to visit the Group's Internal Website
>
> >
>
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/files/MainPage.htm for Original POTA
> One
>
> >
>
> > > Sheets & Lobby Cards, Trailers & Rare Videos, Trading Cards and much,
> much
>
> >
>
> > > more...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
> >
>
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
> >
>
> > > pota-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>

_______________________ _______________________ _______________________

I think POTA does make us think of what we have been doing to animals which,
im my opinion, has nothing to do with slavery, but to cruelty and maltreatment.
These are bad things, but it does not mean they are the same thing.
_______________________

The name orangutan means "Person of the Forest" in Malay and
Indonesian.


Helen

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "James" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
>
>
> And that would depend on your definition of what a person is. Just
> because your own opinion of slavery only
> includes other humans, it does not mean everyone else's does.
There
> are a great many SF stories of robots, holograms or aliens being
> made slaves or humans being made slaves by them.
> In fact, the argument your making is the classic argument that is
> used to justify slavery. I.E. They are different and inferior to
us,
> thus it is our right to own them.
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "lawbody2003" <thaddeus40@h...> wrote:
> >
> > "Of another person".....the word "another" implys that the one
> > enslaved is also a person.

Hello
I have not yet seen Beneath the Planet of the Apes but i know the
basic story. One question
Are the Mutants from Beneath the descendants of the ones from Battle.
I have only seen the Planet of the Apes and the Behind the Planet of
the Apes documentary
Any thoughts?

slav-er-y (slav-re, slavre)n.pl. slav-er-ies. 1. The
state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or
household. See Synonyms at servitude. 2. The practice of owning
slaves. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal
work force. 3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a
specified influence. 4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage
slavery.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.---


In pota@yahoogroups.com, "lawbody2003" <thaddeus40@h...> wrote:

>
>
> Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)
> > n. pl. slav·er·ies
> > The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a
> slaveholder
> > or household.
>
> The "one" refers to one person,ie; some one.
>
>
> >
> > Slavery
> >
> > n 1: the state of being under the control of another person [syn:
> > bondage, thrall, thralldom, thraldom] 2: the practice of owning
> > slaves [syn: slaveholding] 3: work done under harsh conditions

for

> > little or no pay
>
>
> "Of another person".....the word "another" implys that the one
> enslaved is also a person.

There is an extended version of Battle for the Planet of the Apes
where you see that the Mutants have the Alpha-Omega bomb from Beneath
and that the Mutants from Beneath are decendents from those in
Battle. Mendez claims that the bomb is and has made them beautiful
laying the foundation for the Mutants beliefs. The extended version
was only a Japanese Laser-disc for some time but AMC has shown this
version recently. It makes Battle make more sense and helps it to be
a better movie.

> ++Yes, but as you said, humans have a moral component. Hopefully

that extends to the animal world (of which we are a part).

Of course it does. And morally speaking I would agree that a
vegatarian is superior to someone who eats meat. But do I think
someone who eats a hamburger is a murderer? No. Do I think he
deserves to be slaughtered by enraged cows? No. Do I think those
people in Conquest deserved to be killed? No. So its a nasty movie
because under the guise of peace and equality it is asking its
audience to cheer for murder.

And as to your second point it is true we belong to the biological
world, its not necessarily true we belong to the animal world. It
depends on what you think people are.

I personally feel that either to elevate animals to human status, or
lower humans to animal status, is immoral.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "lawbody2003" <thaddeus40@h...> wrote:

>
>
>

... And morally speaking I would agree that a

> vegatarian is superior to someone who eats meat. .

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. [Thinking]

I'm am one of the world's most serious carnivores. That hurts!

Does that make the lion morally inferior to the caterpillar?


(Name withheld to protect the guilty)

I think the "slavery" debate has long since started
spinning in circles; fueled by the age-old problem of
definitions.

In my opinion, the following are issues of fact:

The difference between exploiting an animal, and
adopting it as its care-giver is pretty obvious. If my
dogs honestly wanted to live in the wild, I would
sadly let them go. However, I doubt Llahsa Apsos would
survive very long. I am relatively sure that they
prefer the shelter, food and love that they have here.


Dictionaries vary widely. There is no value in
debating definitions. That is analogous to having a
doctor treat a symptom rather than the disease.

Like it or not, we *are* members of the animal
kingdom. Just because we are (currently) the most
intelligent, does not make us "above animal." We are
not even the only sentient animals on Earth.

Warning: some of this is my opinion, and as such, may
not also be factual. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't
consider myself "morally superior." Although the
underlying reason for my vegetarianism was not
humanitarian when I began, it is probably a valid
reason now. I think of it as a "shade of gray" issue.
I lived in Asia for a year, in a place where dog is a
normal meal. Those of you who have dogs as pets know
that they are capable of semi-intelligent thought, as
well as a broad spectrum of genuine emotions. The idea
of eating one is repugnant to most Westerners. Well,
many of the animals that are part of most people's
diet also posses some level of intelligence, and the
capacity for some emotion. What they lack in math
skills, they make up in instincts. It's all shades of
gray; and our culture has made arbitrary decisions
about what animals we should love, and what animals go
well on a tomato sandwich. I would challenge anyone to
closely compare the mental abilities of a pig to those
of a dog. I'm not talking about training an animal,
I'm talking about its ability to process information,
and its emotions. That darn pig on Green Acres could
have probably scored better on the SATs than I did.
There are other animals on our dinner tables that are
clearly much less intelligent (Chickens, for instance,
have been known to cross the road for no reason at
all). I will not deny that our teeth are designed for
eating meat. But then again, you could argue that we
aren't designed to be monogamous. Sometimes you have
to one-up nature for the good of everyone. My only
other pitch for vegetarianism is... if a human can be
one, and be healthy... why not? It reduces the killing
of animals to the level of unnecessary sport. I know
I'm not going to change the world; but after a dozen
years of being asked "why are you a vegetarian?" I
guess I finally decided to share some of it.

Society has an almost offensive ability to mold and
twist its rules to meet its mores. Examples of this
hypocrisy are nearly endless, and permeate religion,
politics, social norms and the pigs we eat. I have no
doubt that thousands of years from now, people will
look back on us as a bunch of silly clowns who watched
moronic reality-TV and overdosed on drugs to give us
erections. But hey, I'm no Shakespearean Soothsayer...
I'm just a Joe who enjoys football and beer, and has
some opinions.





__________________________________

.html <.html

Althogh I might not agree with you in every single opinion, I must say you
were brilliant.

Citando "C.B. Nolen III" <claudenolen@...>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think the "slavery" debate has long since started
>
> spinning in circles; fueled by the age-old problem of
>
> definitions.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, the following are issues of fact:
>
>
>
> The difference between exploiting an animal, and
>
> adopting it as its care-giver is pretty obvious. If my
>
> dogs honestly wanted to live in the wild, I would
>
> sadly let them go. However, I doubt Llahsa Apsos would
>
> survive very long. I am relatively sure that they
>
> prefer the shelter, food and love that they have here.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dictionaries vary widely. There is no value in
>
> debating definitions. That is analogous to having a
>
> doctor treat a symptom rather than the disease.
>
>
>
> Like it or not, we *are* members of the animal
>
> kingdom. Just because we are (currently) the most
>
> intelligent, does not make us "above animal." We are
>
> not even the only sentient animals on Earth.
>
>
>
> Warning: some of this is my opinion, and as such, may
>
> not also be factual. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't
>
> consider myself "morally superior." Although the
>
> underlying reason for my vegetarianism was not
>
> humanitarian when I began, it is probably a valid
>
> reason now. I think of it as a "shade of gray" issue.
>
> I lived in Asia for a year, in a place where dog is a
>
> normal meal. Those of you who have dogs as pets know
>
> that they are capable of semi-intelligent thought, as
>
> well as a broad spectrum of genuine emotions. The idea
>
> of eating one is repugnant to most Westerners. Well,
>
> many of the animals that are part of most people's
>
> diet also posses some level of intelligence, and the
>
> capacity for some emotion. What they lack in math
>
> skills, they make up in instincts. It's all shades of
>
> gray; and our culture has made arbitrary decisions
>
> about what animals we should love, and what animals go
>
> well on a tomato sandwich. I would challenge anyone to
>
> closely compare the mental abilities of a pig to those
>
> of a dog. I'm not talking about training an animal,
>
> I'm talking about its ability to process information,
>
> and its emotions. That darn pig on Green Acres could
>
> have probably scored better on the SATs than I did.
>
> There are other animals on our dinner tables that are
>
> clearly much less intelligent (Chickens, for instance,
>
> have been known to cross the road for no reason at
>
> all). I will not deny that our teeth are designed for
>
> eating meat. But then again, you could argue that we
>
> aren't designed to be monogamous. Sometimes you have
>
> to one-up nature for the good of everyone. My only
>
> other pitch for vegetarianism is... if a human can be
>
> one, and be healthy... why not? It reduces the killing
>
> of animals to the level of unnecessary sport. I know
>
> I'm not going to change the world; but after a dozen
>
> years of being asked "why are you a vegetarian?" I
>
> guess I finally decided to share some of it.
>
>
>
> Society has an almost offensive ability to mold and
>
> twist its rules to meet its mores. Examples of this
>
> hypocrisy are nearly endless, and permeate religion,
>
> politics, social norms and the pigs we eat. I have no
>
> doubt that thousands of years from now, people will
>
> look back on us as a bunch of silly clowns who watched
>
> moronic reality-TV and overdosed on drugs to give us
>
> erections. But hey, I'm no Shakespearean Soothsayer...
>
> I'm just a Joe who enjoys football and beer, and has
>
> some opinions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think the "slavery" debate has long since started
spinning in circles; fueled by the age-old problem of
definitions.

In my opinion, the following are issues of fact:

The difference between exploiting an animal, and
adopting it as its care-giver is pretty obvious. If my
dogs honestly wanted to live in the wild, I would
sadly let them go. However, I doubt Llahsa Apsos would
survive very long. I am relatively sure that they
prefer the shelter, food and love that they have here.


Dictionaries vary widely. There is no value in
debating definitions. That is analogous to having a
doctor treat a symptom rather than the disease.

Like it or not, we *are* members of the animal
kingdom. Just because we are (currently) the most
intelligent, does not make us "above animal." We are
not even the only sentient animals on Earth.

Warning: some of this is my opinion, and as such, may
not also be factual. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't
consider myself "morally superior." Although the
underlying reason for my vegetarianism was not
humanitarian when I began, it is probably a valid
reason now. I think of it as a "shade of gray" issue.
I lived in Asia for a year, in a place where dog is a
normal meal. Those of you who have dogs as pets know
that they are capable of semi-intelligent thought, as
well as a broad spectrum of genuine emotions. The idea
of eating one is repugnant to most Westerners. Well,
many of the animals that are part of most people's
diet also posses some level of intelligence, and the
capacity for some emotion. What they lack in math
skills, they make up in instincts. It's all shades of
gray; and our culture has made arbitrary decisions
about what animals we should love, and what animals go
well on a tomato sandwich. I would challenge anyone to
closely compare the mental abilities of a pig to those
of a dog. I'm not talking about training an animal,
I'm talking about its ability to process information,
and its emotions. That darn pig on Green Acres could
have probably scored better on the SATs than I did.
There are other animals on our dinner tables that are
clearly much less intelligent (Chickens, for instance,
have been known to cross the road for no reason at
all). I will not deny that our teeth are designed for
eating meat. But then again, you could argue that we
aren't designed to be monogamous. Sometimes you have
to one-up nature for the good of everyone. My only
other pitch for vegetarianism is... if a human can be
one, and be healthy... why not? It reduces the killing
of animals to the level of unnecessary sport. I know
I'm not going to change the world; but after a dozen
years of being asked "why are you a vegetarian?" I
guess I finally decided to share some of it.

Society has an almost offensive ability to mold and
twist its rules to meet its mores. Examples of this
hypocrisy are nearly endless, and permeate religion,
politics, social norms and the pigs we eat. I have no
doubt that thousands of years from now, people will
look back on us as a bunch of silly clowns who watched
moronic reality-TV and overdosed on drugs to give us
erections. But hey, I'm no Shakespearean Soothsayer...
I'm just a Joe who enjoys football and beer, and has
some opinions.




           

http://home.earthlink.net/~thepittbull/

go vegetarian!

Thanks to Dario, I've added a scan of an advertisement for the 35th
anniversary DVD release of PotA to my "Misc" page.

http://www.goatley.com/pota/

Hunter
------
Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/
<goathunter@...> http://www.goatley.com/hunter/

Nolen,

Thanks for expressing your opinion...I have to agree with most of
it...
Incidentally, I usually don't tell people, "I'm a vegetarian", I
usually say, "I don't eat anything that has a face"...I get into more
interesting conversations that way...=)

G

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "C.B. Nolen III" <claudenolen@y...>
wrote:

>
> I think the "slavery" debate has long since started
> spinning in circles; fueled by the age-old problem of
> definitions.
>
> In my opinion, the following are issues of fact:
>
> The difference between exploiting an animal, and
> adopting it as its care-giver is pretty obvious. If my
> dogs honestly wanted to live in the wild, I would
> sadly let them go. However, I doubt Llahsa Apsos would
> survive very long. I am relatively sure that they
> prefer the shelter, food and love that they have here.
>
>
> Dictionaries vary widely. There is no value in
> debating definitions. That is analogous to having a
> doctor treat a symptom rather than the disease.
>
> Like it or not, we *are* members of the animal
> kingdom. Just because we are (currently) the most
> intelligent, does not make us "above animal." We are
> not even the only sentient animals on Earth.
>
> Warning: some of this is my opinion, and as such, may
> not also be factual. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't
> consider myself "morally superior." Although the
> underlying reason for my vegetarianism was not
> humanitarian when I began, it is probably a valid
> reason now. I think of it as a "shade of gray" issue.
> I lived in Asia for a year, in a place where dog is a
> normal meal. Those of you who have dogs as pets know
> that they are capable of semi-intelligent thought, as
> well as a broad spectrum of genuine emotions. The idea
> of eating one is repugnant to most Westerners. Well,
> many of the animals that are part of most people's
> diet also posses some level of intelligence, and the
> capacity for some emotion. What they lack in math
> skills, they make up in instincts. It's all shades of
> gray; and our culture has made arbitrary decisions
> about what animals we should love, and what animals go
> well on a tomato sandwich. I would challenge anyone to
> closely compare the mental abilities of a pig to those
> of a dog. I'm not talking about training an animal,
> I'm talking about its ability to process information,
> and its emotions. That darn pig on Green Acres could
> have probably scored better on the SATs than I did.
> There are other animals on our dinner tables that are
> clearly much less intelligent (Chickens, for instance,
> have been known to cross the road for no reason at
> all). I will not deny that our teeth are designed for
> eating meat. But then again, you could argue that we
> aren't designed to be monogamous. Sometimes you have
> to one-up nature for the good of everyone. My only
> other pitch for vegetarianism is... if a human can be
> one, and be healthy... why not? It reduces the killing
> of animals to the level of unnecessary sport. I know
> I'm not going to change the world; but after a dozen
> years of being asked "why are you a vegetarian?" I
> guess I finally decided to share some of it.
>
> Society has an almost offensive ability to mold and
> twist its rules to meet its mores. Examples of this
> hypocrisy are nearly endless, and permeate religion,
> politics, social norms and the pigs we eat. I have no
> doubt that thousands of years from now, people will
> look back on us as a bunch of silly clowns who watched
> moronic reality-TV and overdosed on drugs to give us
> erections. But hey, I'm no Shakespearean Soothsayer...
> I'm just a Joe who enjoys football and beer, and has
> some opinions.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________

"But bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood." -
Jules (sorry, just had to throw that in there - I
would totally be a vegetarian if I didn't like bacon
so much :)

That was a brilliantly worded post, although I do not
agree on some of your points. I most strongly disagree
with this one statement: "But then again, you could
argue that we aren't designed to be monogamous.
Sometimes you have to one-up nature for the good of
everyone." And the question of the day is: Who
decides what is "for the good of everyone"??

I am of the opinion that we should not breed animals
*solely* for the purpose of eating them, but I do
believe that humans should eat animals if they want to
- and that's any animal they so choose, including cats
and dogs (as long as they don't belong to anyone! -
oh, and no endangered species :).... like you said,
who are we to judge which animals are "better" or
"more intelligent" than others?

I think it's just another facet of freedom. Let the
animals be free and let us be free to eat them if we
want. Of course it will never work like this because
there's just too much money to be made by breeding
animals just for eating, unfortunately.

BTW, I am also of the belief that if people want to
be polygamous and *they are up front and open about it
from the beginning* (this is key), then so be it. It
shouldn't be forced upon a person to share his/her
partner with others (like in a harem), but if he/she
chooses to love him/her despite of the fact that
he/she has multiple
wives/husbands/girlfriends/boyfriends/etc, then that
is his/her own choice. Who are we to say that it's
"illegal" or "not morally right"? Unfortunately, as
good as this looks on paper, most people are just so
messed up these days that they can't take
responsibility for their own actions/choices -
therefore society must take measures to protect
everyone from the scary unknowns that may topple our
entire culture (!) - thus we (in America) have laws
banning polygamy, same-sex marriages, and eating dogs
and cats.

Like you said we're just spinning in circles here and
there's no ONE TRUE ANSWER to any of these issues.
The only semi-truth here is that human beings will
most likely never stop eating animals, just like they
will most likely never stop having "weird" sexual
preferences that have been practised since the
beginning of time. (I say "most likely" because I
guess you never really can tell what will happen in
the future!)

Sorry, if this post starts some sort of flame war -
I'm not being disrespectful of anyone's beliefs, I'm
just stating my own! - and I got kinda carried away.
*sheepishly peeks out from beneath desk*

-Barb


--- "C.B. Nolen III" <claudenolen@...> wrote:

>
> I think the "slavery" debate has long since started
> spinning in circles; fueled by the age-old problem
> of
> definitions.
>
> In my opinion, the following are issues of fact:
>
> The difference between exploiting an animal, and
> adopting it as its care-giver is pretty obvious. If
> my
> dogs honestly wanted to live in the wild, I would
> sadly let them go. However, I doubt Llahsa Apsos
> would
> survive very long. I am relatively sure that they
> prefer the shelter, food and love that they have
> here.
>
>
> Dictionaries vary widely. There is no value in
> debating definitions. That is analogous to having a
> doctor treat a symptom rather than the disease.
>
> Like it or not, we *are* members of the animal
> kingdom. Just because we are (currently) the most
> intelligent, does not make us "above animal." We are
> not even the only sentient animals on Earth.
>
> Warning: some of this is my opinion, and as such,
> may
> not also be factual. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't
> consider myself "morally superior." Although the
> underlying reason for my vegetarianism was not
> humanitarian when I began, it is probably a valid
> reason now. I think of it as a "shade of gray"
> issue.
> I lived in Asia for a year, in a place where dog is
> a
> normal meal. Those of you who have dogs as pets know
> that they are capable of semi-intelligent thought,
> as
> well as a broad spectrum of genuine emotions. The
> idea
> of eating one is repugnant to most Westerners. Well,
> many of the animals that are part of most people's
> diet also posses some level of intelligence, and the
> capacity for some emotion. What they lack in math
> skills, they make up in instincts. It's all shades
> of
> gray; and our culture has made arbitrary decisions
> about what animals we should love, and what animals
> go
> well on a tomato sandwich. I would challenge anyone
> to
> closely compare the mental abilities of a pig to
> those
> of a dog. I'm not talking about training an animal,
> I'm talking about its ability to process
> information,
> and its emotions. That darn pig on Green Acres could
> have probably scored better on the SATs than I did.
> There are other animals on our dinner tables that
> are
> clearly much less intelligent (Chickens, for
> instance,
> have been known to cross the road for no reason at
> all). I will not deny that our teeth are designed
> for
> eating meat. But then again, you could argue that we
> aren't designed to be monogamous. Sometimes you have
> to one-up nature for the good of everyone. My only
> other pitch for vegetarianism is... if a human can
> be
> one, and be healthy... why not? It reduces the
> killing
> of animals to the level of unnecessary sport. I know
> I'm not going to change the world; but after a dozen
> years of being asked "why are you a vegetarian?" I
> guess I finally decided to share some of it.
>
> Society has an almost offensive ability to mold and
> twist its rules to meet its mores. Examples of this
> hypocrisy are nearly endless, and permeate religion,
> politics, social norms and the pigs we eat. I have
> no
> doubt that thousands of years from now, people will
> look back on us as a bunch of silly clowns who
> watched
> moronic reality-TV and overdosed on drugs to give us
> erections. But hey, I'm no Shakespearean
> Soothsayer...
> I'm just a Joe who enjoys football and beer, and has
> some opinions.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________

__________________________________

MACDONALD:
I could eat a horse.

LISA:
A horse....?

CAESAR:
You remember, Lisa. The used to
eat all sorts of things; dead
cattle...dead chickens...
dead pigs...dead fish...

MACDONALD:
Now we live and chew nuts
at our masters' command.

> And the question of the day is: Who
> decides what is "for the good of everyone"??

Barb, thanks for the reply. My answer to that question
would be "each of us does." I think it's an
imperative, in fact.

My comment about monogamy was not an indictment of the
institution; but rather a comment on instinctual human
behavior. Scientists think that monogamous animals are
that way because of stuff that goes on in the brain
(something about the "nucleus accumbens and the
ventral pallidum" whatever the heck that is). I don't
know how much of that goes on in humans, compared to
Penguins and such... but I did once see a documentary
on Sperm Competition (it's a real thing, I'm not
making this stuff up). To make a long story short...
if you're a Sea Bass, you need to fertilize as many
eggs as possible to ensure you reproduce. I think we
have all run into enough men who think they're Sea
Bass to understand that there is a biological impetus
there. Don't get me wrong, I don't care what two
consenting apes do in the privacy of their home (or a
Holiday Inn). When I said that monogamy was "for the
good of everyone" I was not speaking of the sexual
implications, but the entire social culture that comes
along with it. Look at how difficult it is for a
single parent to raise a child and have a career.

> therefore society must take measures to protect
> everyone from the scary unknowns that may topple our
> entire culture (!) - thus we (in America) have laws
> banning polygamy, same-sex marriages, and eating
> dogs
> and cats.

I may have missed the sarcasm here... but I don't
think any of those things would topple our culture...
despite what the Red States think.

What's completely amazing to me is that these
exchanges are all spin-offs of a discussion about
Conquest. I doubt many would deny that it had a tiny
budget and a plot that was less than inspirational.
Yet, it has instigated some real thought provoking
posts in the Group!

C.B. (still not eating dead animals)

Macdonald chews nuts?


Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:20:07 -0000
From: "James" <JamesA1102@...>
Subject: Re: Micky Dee's is evil?

MACDONALD:
Now we live and chew nuts
at our masters' command.

I'd never use that stuff.
It would be like playing baseball with a corked bat!

Dan

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, <veetus@e...> wrote:
> I want to lodge a complaint about the current homepage picture.
That's very offensive! But I love it. - - - Jeff

This week's Lesson is now available for viewing. And instead of just
one lesson, this week includes a bonus lesson. Thanks to both Elaine
and Mark for their contributions.

The lesson can be viewed directly via this link:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/files/LFTL.htm or by
clicking the banner on the Yahoo Home Page:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/pota

> Like it or not, we *are* members of the animal
> kingdom. Just because we are (currently) the most
> intelligent, does not make us "above animal." We are
> not even the only sentient animals on Earth.

No we're not. We created the word "animal" to distinguish other
species from ourselves. There is alot of variation between species;
obviously, they are not all the same, but we are the most different.
I think the world's religions, and many of the more famous
philosophers, such as Plato and Socrates, and even movies like 2001:
A Space Odyssey, argue that humankind has duel parantage, ie; their
mother is the earth, but their father is the universe ( or some
otherworldly abstraction like God ), whereas animals are only
earthly. So humanity is always trying to elevate itself, either
through religion, or science, or just intellection. The main
difference then is that animals function in harmony with the
environment, whereas people naturally reject it, and seek to improve
upon it.

> Society has an almost offensive ability to mold and
> twist its rules to meet its mores. Examples of this
> hypocrisy are nearly endless, and permeate religion,
> politics, social norms and the pigs we eat. I have no
> doubt that thousands of years from now, people will
> look back on us as a bunch of silly clowns who watched
> moronic reality-TV and overdosed on drugs to give us
> erections. But hey, I'm no Shakespearean Soothsayer...
> I'm just a Joe who enjoys football and beer, and has
> some opinions.

Rules and mores don't exist outside society, so society doesn't
twist them. Religion and politics and art are all aspects of the
same thing; they are the symbolic representation of our identities.
If you take the cocepts of "good" and "bad" ( or right and wrong )
out of our phyches we would be incapable of interacting with others,
and even expressing thought inwardly to ourselves. Everything we say
is an expression of good and bad; a good movie, heroes and villians,
such and such is the right idea, or the wrong one...etc.

For sure we are degenerating, and as that process accelerates there
are all kinds of signs in our society, for example the decline of
politics and religion, the break up of the family, and all kinds of
art based on the theme of human moral and physical decline. Of
course POTA is right up there as an example such art. ( So are films
like the Possieden Adventure, Toweing Inferno, Dawn of the
Dead ...etc...just to stay in the 70's ) But whereas the first apes
movie is kind of a warning, the latter films are saying something
much worse, in effect, embrace decline as a positive thing, embrace
violence and domination, cheer for it. Its a DEVO type of theme,
where everything is upside down, and sickness is worshiped as
health, and ugliness as beauty.

Apparently Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead) is in some movie that is re-
using an old ANSA spacesuit.

http://p078.ezboard.com/fsideshowfreaksfrm7.showMessage?
topicID=1801.topic

When was the last time one of those was used? 1974? On the TV show
pilot?
Man, that must be musty.

-Ray

.html <.html

I can see that you and I have fairly different
perspectives on things.

Using the Linnean hierarchy, humans are in the Kingdom
Animalia; commonly known as "animals." Right beside
that definition, you can find one that supports your
views.

Humans are far more advanced that any other animal...
in some ways. Dogs have a sense of smell that's
between 300 to 10,000 times more sensitive than our
own. A cheetah can run 46 mph. Houseflies have
compound vision, and can see things almost directly
behind themselves. But, none of these animals has the
mental or physical ability to mow my yard, or talk to
telemarketers on the phone (unfortunately). Our
ability to create and understand theology, art,
politics, science, philosophy and drive-thru liquor
stores is completely amazing. But, it is a somewhat
arbitrary decision to place a higher value on these
attributes... compared to a salamander's ability to
regenerate a tail.

That pretty much exhausts my interest in debating a
"definition." You can say that the word "subway" means
a fast food sandwich restaurant, and I can say it
means an underground train. That sort of silly
exercise could go on forever.

> Rules and mores don't exist outside society, so
> society doesn't
> twist them.

Yes, society does. Since you introduced the concept of
religion to the discussion, I'll give you an example
in that area. The Christian Bible warns followers not
to mutilate their body (a "rule"). However, it is
normal convention in Western society for women to
pierce their ears (a "more"). So, we have
simultaneously created guidance, and decided it's okay
to disregard it.

> If you take the cocepts of "good" and "bad" ( or
> right and wrong )
> out of our phyches we would be incapable of
> interacting with others,

I can't speak for everyone, but I think I could figure
out the difference between good/bad and right/wrong
without assistance from organized religion or
politics. I may not be able to regenerate my tail, but
I can do that.

> art. ( So are films
> like the Possieden Adventure, Toweing Inferno, Dawn
> of the
> Dead

Towering Inferno is an example of art that counters
the decline of society? That's a bridge too far for
me. Sure, the contractor shouldn't have used cheap
wiring. This is just a guess on my part, but I'd bet
that most people came out of the theater remembering
the action scenes more than the moral lesson.

Regards
C.B. (a happy animal)






__________________________________

I think we agree more than we realize! (and thank you
for the response as well - I love this stuff). Let me
addess one thing:

> > therefore society must take measures to protect
> > everyone from the scary unknowns that may topple
> our
> > entire culture (!) - thus we (in America) have
> laws
> > banning polygamy, same-sex marriages, and eating
> > dogs
> > and cats.
>
> I may have missed the sarcasm here... but I don't
> think any of those things would topple our
> culture...
> despite what the Red States think.

Yes, that was sarcasm (I tried to describe it with the
(!) - but I guess it didn't work as well as I
planned!). I was just taking a *slight* dig at the
thinking in those Red States. I wasn't directing
anything at you (or anyone in particular), just BSing
about our society in general.

I also took your "for the good of everyone" comment
differently than I think you intended for it to be
taken! I think I just automatically interpreted it as
a "moral" or "societal" remark, rather than a
scientific one. I read (past-tense) it to mean that
you think that someone in a governmental position
needs to make that decision and then instigate it -
like trying to get a Constitutional ban on
gay-marriage or banning polygamy or not allowing
people to eat whatever they want. My bad - good
communication whilst typing is sometimes quite
difficult. :) I totally respect the way you
scientifically explained it, although I still don't
think humans will ever evolve to the point of not
eating meat (unless all the animals suddenly
disappeared). I will always view the choice to be
vegetarian as a moral one (be it because someone just
can't stand the thought of eating an animal, or
because someone hates the fact that companies like
McDonalds are clearing rain forests to raise more
cows, or whatever the reason), not a scientific one.
Animals just taste too good (to the majority of people
anyway :) - yes, I can get my Omega-3 fatty acids from
downing a tablespoon of flax seed oil everyday (which
I've tried, BTW - blech!!), but I'd rather get it by
eating fatty fish, pan seared with butter and herbs
and...mmmmm. Time for lunch....

My diet was vegetarian for nearly 3 years, but then I
decided I missed bacon and ground-beef tacos TOO much!
And that was the end of that...

> What's completely amazing to me is that these
> exchanges are all spin-offs of a discussion about
> Conquest. I doubt many would deny that it had a tiny
> budget and a plot that was less than inspirational.
> Yet, it has instigated some real thought provoking
> posts in the Group!

Yes, totally amazing isn't it? LOVE IT! It just goes
to show that movies have a profound way of affecting
how we view the world. Even cheap, underdeveloped
ones :)

>

The link's not working for me! Anyone else? I wanna
read it - I love the Bruce!

--- Ray <ursus3978@...> wrote:

>
>
> Apparently Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead) is in some
> movie that is re-
> using an old ANSA spacesuit.
>
>

http://p078.ezboard.com/fsideshowfreaksfrm7.showMessage?

> topicID=1801.topic
>
> When was the last time one of those was used? 1974?
> On the TV show
> pilot?
> Man, that must be musty.
>
> -Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________

Here's the working link:

http://p078.ezboard.com/fsideshowfreaksfrm7.showMessage?topicID=1801.topic

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Barb Diller <geekorama2005@y...> wrote:
>
> The link's not working for me! Anyone else? I wanna
> read it - I love the Bruce!
>

Here's the working link:

http://p078.ezboard.com/fsideshowfreaksfrm7.showMessage?topicID=1801.topic

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Barb Diller <geekorama2005@y...> wrote:
>
> The link's not working for me!  Anyone else?  I wanna
> read it - I love the Bruce!
>









Be sure to visit the Group's Internal Website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/files/MainPage.htm for Original POTA One Sheets & Lobby Cards, Trailers & Rare Videos, Trading Cards and much, much more...

http://home.earthlink.net/~thepittbull/

go vegetarian!

"It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what
they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed
that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so
much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- while all the dolphins
had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But
conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more
intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons." (The
HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "C.B. Nolen III" <claudenolen@y...>
wrote:

>
> I can see that you and I have fairly different
> perspectives on things.
>
> Using the Linnean hierarchy, humans are in the Kingdom
> Animalia; commonly known as "animals." Right beside
> that definition, you can find one that supports your
> views.
>
> Humans are far more advanced that any other animal...
> in some ways. Dogs have a sense of smell that's
> between 300 to 10,000 times more sensitive than our
> own. A cheetah can run 46 mph. Houseflies have
> compound vision, and can see things almost directly
> behind themselves. But, none of these animals has the
> mental or physical ability to mow my yard, or talk to
> telemarketers on the phone (unfortunately). Our
> ability to create and understand theology, art,
> politics, science, philosophy and drive-thru liquor
> stores is completely amazing. But, it is a somewhat
> arbitrary decision to place a higher value on these
> attributes... compared to a salamander's ability to
> regenerate a tail.
>
> That pretty much exhausts my interest in debating a
> "definition." You can say that the word "subway" means
> a fast food sandwich restaurant, and I can say it
> means an underground train. That sort of silly
> exercise could go on forever.
>
> > Rules and mores don't exist outside society, so
> > society doesn't
> > twist them.
>
> Yes, society does. Since you introduced the concept of
> religion to the discussion, I'll give you an example
> in that area. The Christian Bible warns followers not
> to mutilate their body (a "rule"). However, it is
> normal convention in Western society for women to
> pierce their ears (a "more"). So, we have
> simultaneously created guidance, and decided it's okay
> to disregard it.
>
> > If you take the cocepts of "good" and "bad" ( or
> > right and wrong )
> > out of our phyches we would be incapable of
> > interacting with others,
>
> I can't speak for everyone, but I think I could figure
> out the difference between good/bad and right/wrong
> without assistance from organized religion or
> politics. I may not be able to regenerate my tail, but
> I can do that.
>
> > art. ( So are films
> > like the Possieden Adventure, Toweing Inferno, Dawn
> > of the
> > Dead
>
> Towering Inferno is an example of art that counters
> the decline of society? That's a bridge too far for
> me. Sure, the contractor shouldn't have used cheap
> wiring. This is just a guess on my part, but I'd bet
> that most people came out of the theater remembering
> the action scenes more than the moral lesson.
>
> Regards
> C.B. (a happy animal)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________

But, weren't the POTA suits leather?...This one looks to be cloth...

G

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "Ray" <ursus3978@a...> wrote:
>
>
> Apparently Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead) is in some movie that is re-
> using an old ANSA spacesuit.
>
> http://p078.ezboard.com/fsideshowfreaksfrm7.showMessage?
> topicID=1801.topic
>
> When was the last time one of those was used? 1974? On the TV show
> pilot?
> Man, that must be musty.
>
> -Ray

So is there an actual chronology for the Mendez mutants and do they
feature in any other media besides the films ??? Beneath the Planet
of the Apes is my favourite film in the Saga

.html the astro costumes are not leather ,there fabric and the boots were boxing shoes modified with a zipper front attached. the pix of bruce campbell very much look to be made the same as the original apes astronauts.  goapebilly<.html

We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

Mort Abrahams' Birthday� �

Date: Saturday, March 26, 2005
Time: All Day

Hi C B

Well, different perspecives make for a good conversation. But its
a big topic and it can spin off in alot of different directions...


Anyway just for clarity's sake I guess we are arguing about is
whether or not man is superior to/and different from, other
biological lifeforms.

Now the point you are raising to contradict that argument is this :

Our

> ability to create and understand theology, art,
> politics, science, philosophy and drive-thru liquor
> stores is completely amazing. But, it is a somewhat
> arbitrary decision to place a higher value on these
> attributes... compared to a salamander's ability to
> regenerate a tail.

And you are right that many animals have unique and amazing
abilities. But there is still a difference. We place value on our
drive to reject and improve upon the environment, not accomodate
ourselves to it physically. So its not like one of the salamanders
invented some ability, and then others who were impressed with it,
studied and improved upon it. But it is like that with us. After we
started building houses, air conditioning and refrigeration were not
far behind. Anyway, with us, the thing we value, and the thing that
sets us apart, is our effort. Language is a part of that effort, and
therefore can't contradict it. It is it. You and I are arguing right
now, arguing about a philisophical point, on a computer, using
language,....we're not rolling in the mud biting each other's asses,
growling, or flinging feces at each other.



Next point:

> Yes, society does. Since you introduced the concept of
> religion to the discussion, I'll give you an example
> in that area. The Christian Bible warns followers not
> to mutilate their body (a "rule"). However, it is
> normal convention in Western society for women to
> pierce their ears (a "more"). So, we have
> simultaneously created guidance, and decided it's okay
> to disregard it.

Society is a mixture of alot of people and groups, with overlapping
influences. And while our society was influenced by a shared set of
Christian values, for example, "thou shall not murder, steal,
cheat...etc", it doesn't follow that necessarily everyone is
Christian. Just like in Asia some lay Buddhists eat meat, but the
monks in the temple won't, the monk just belongs to a more
specialized group, but you can't say that Asia is twisting Buddhism.
The religions represent goals and ideals, and while because people
may recognize and agree intellectually with them, that doesn't mean
they are committed to to them. You say you know the difference
between right and wrong, and so do alot of people, but once a
material tangible benifit is presented, many of them, even smarter
than you or I, have failed to do the right thing. So religions are
like introductory lessons, but they are not the final stage of our
moral evolution.

I know I'm not explaining it very well. But its sort of like this;
the things you learn in a graduate course of algerbra might seem
very different from what you learned in elementary school math. But
they don't contradict them. Nor does the fact that the graduate
students are chewing gum while they are studying contradict ( or
twist ) "math", in spite of whatever silly rule your elementry
teacher had.

Likewise religions ( and their rules ) don't contradict our society.





Last point:

> Towering Inferno is an example of art that counters
> the decline of society? That's a bridge too far for
> me. Sure, the contractor shouldn't have used cheap
> wiring. This is just a guess on my part, but I'd bet
> that most people came out of the theater remembering
> the action scenes more than the moral lesson.

Well there is a theme in them all of catastrophe. Some symbol of our
progress ( a big building, or boat, or a man flying through the
stars ) ends up in trouble. Look at the opening scenes of the first
POTA movie; man is presented at his zenith, flying through the
stars, ( and through time itself ), he is almost god-like. Compare
it to the end. His spaceship has been swallowed by a lagoon, the
symbol of his nation ( as a nation of "progress') is half buried on
a beach, his girlfriend can't even speak, he's hungry, and he just
escaped from a bunch of talking apes who want to kill him. Its a big
drop.

We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

Mort Abrahams' Birthday� �

Date: Saturday, March 26, 2005
Time: All Day

.html We could probably train our animals to talk to telemarketers. Elaine<.html

.html There is a movie on the sci-fi channel tonight, Alien Apocolypse with Bruce Campbell in it. Elaine<.html

I'm just curious as to what everyone thinks of Yahoo's new look. I'm
undecided myself at the moment.
However, I have been contacted by other group owners who are upset
about the change. They have already put a petition together for anyone
who would like to sign it:
http://www.petitiononline.com/kham2087/petition.html"

I'm just curious as to what everyone thinks of Yahoo's new look. I'm
undecided myself at the moment.
However, I have been contacted by other group owners who are upset
about the change. They have already put a petition together for anyone
who would like to sign it:
http://www.petitiononline.com/kham2087/petition.html"








Be sure to visit the Group's Internal Website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pota/files/MainPage.htm for Original POTA One Sheets & Lobby Cards, Trailers & Rare Videos, Trading Cards and much, much more...