Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:December:15 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41024 Activity:moderate
12/14   I'm a Republican but switched to I after the Iraq War. However,
        Bush has since then grown up and admitted mistakes and took all
        responsibilities, and in doing so he gained my faith in the
        party again.  It's good to be back.             -Republican 2008
        \_ After watching a recent interview with Bush, I have to admit that
           he seems like less of a complete retard.  He is actually admitting
           that he has made mistakes.  Of course, this still doesn't alliviate
           the fact that he IS still a retard.
        \_ So the unprecedented expansion of the size and power of the
           government doesn't bother you?  Endless deficits and total
           fiscal irresponsibility doesn't bother you?  The lack of any
           realistic longterm plan to deal with America's energy problems
           doesn't bother you?  And I suppose you're probably proud to have
           a president who is either so fucking stupid he actually believes
           there is a real scientific controversy over "intelligent design"
           or so craven that he's willing to lie about it to score points
           with the theocratic wing of your party.  Yep.  You sound like a
           typical republican to me.  I'm sure your fellow bible thumping
           pigfuckers are glad to have you back.
           \_ They have a great plan:
                1 - Get control of the white house
                2 - Manipulate the "free" market
                3 - PROFIT!!
        \_ Is this a troll?
           \_ Eh... could be. Why not be safe and throw rhetoric back?
        \_ Dubya is channelling hillary, who "took responsibility" for her vote
           for the war a few weeks earlier.
           But don't worry, there's still three more years of the country
           being run by a frat house president.
           \_ Reagan showed the way to "accept" responsibility without having
              to worry about consequences.  It also worked for Rumsfeld.
           \_ So you voted for his distant cousin in the last election who,
              oh nevermind, don't let facts bother you.
              \_ why so angry at a fellow sodan?
                 \_ Disappointed.  Not angry.
        \_ "When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence
            agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of
            mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence
            agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove
            Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out
            to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go
            into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong
            by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just
            that." -GWB, 12/14/05
           In other words, like Tookie, he did no wrong, and anyway it wasn't
           his fault if he did.
        \_ I bet you are much less tolerant to those who lied about his sex
           life.  15,000 US casuaties,  30,000+ Iraqi casualties, versus
           a blow job... hmm...
           \_ Don't forget the cigar stuff. That has to be worth maybe a
              squad of Marines and a small Iraqi village.
        \_ Interesting.  I was an R, I supported (and still support) the Iraq
           War, but switched to I because of Bush + congress' ineptitude at the
           border and at spending.  I have no interest in returning to the R
           party anytime soon. -emarkp
2005/12/15-16 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:41025 Activity:kinda low
        This says in the 80s, mortgage interest was 13%. If we have 13%
        today, there'd be a great depression. What the heck happened
        between the 80s and now?
        \_ Nothing happened, the monthly payment just balanced.  BTW, my
           parents rate was 18% on their house in the 80's, it depended on
           other things as well (income, credit, etc).  Fact is, the interest
           rate is meaningless because the monthly payment will always reflect
           the market rate.  If the interest is high, the prices of houses
           will be low (parent's place was $38k), if the rate is low, the
           place will be high ($600k equivalent house now).  Simple economics,
           people will base the price of house on monthly payments, not on
           interest rate or real price of the house.  The key is to get in
           when there is a swing in either one.  BTW, provide the ID & PW to
           the site next time, bugmenot doesn't work on that site.
        \_ Carter got kicked out of office.
           \_ No, Nixon got kicked out of office. Carter lost an election.
              Not the same thing. Ask GHWB.
              \_ If you want to get that anal, Nixon didn't get kicked out
                 of office either, he resigned. Nobody in U.S. presidential
                 history has ever been technically kicked out of office,
                 although Johnson and Clinton did get impeached.
2005/12/15-16 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:41026 Activity:moderate
12/14   I just accepted an offer from Google. The HR lady with whom I
                \_ I'm sorry.
        had a lot of contacts with was very very nice, patient,
        knowledgeable, and helpful in all aspects (and may I add that
        she's hot and looks like Tyra Banks). She's the coolest HR lady
        I've ever spoken with in my life and I'm very happy with the
        overall process and I'd like to thank her. I know it's not really
        appropriate to buy her gifts, so what are some other ways to
        show her my gratitude? Thanks.
        \_ A certain sodan was visited by a Google recruiter at home
           and tied to his bed, lashed and whipped into submission.
           \_ Was she hot?  Are they hiring now?
        \_ Thank you note.
        \_ booty call
        \_ find an excuse to treat her lunch.  I don't know about you, but
           I discover I don't hang out with HR very often.
          \_ Treat her lunch at the company cafeteria!
2005/12/15-16 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:41027 Activity:moderate
12/14   Panexa is the right choice, the safe choice. The only choice.  -John
           \_ Fuck Cafepress.  I've been censored there with no warning
              or explanation also, and I would not give them my business
              again even for something that would clearly not be censored.
              Fuck them straight in the ear.
              \_ Get a life.  -tom
                 \_ Get a life. -motd
                    \_ Get a life.
                       \_ Get a life.
                          \_ Get a life.
                             \_ Get a life.
                                \_ Get a life.
                                   \_ Get a life.
                                      \_ Get a life.
                                         \_ Get a life.
                                            \_ Get a life.
                                               \_ Get a life.
                                                  \_ Get a life.
                                                     \_ Get a life.
                                                        \_ Get a life.
                                                           \_ Get a life.
                                                              \_ Get a life.
                                                                 \_ DAMN!
                                                        Get a life. _/
                                                     Get a life. _/
2005/12/15-16 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:41028 Activity:low
12/14   Does anyone know of a free tool to convert a wmv into a mpeg2?
        (Preferably for OSX, but Windows/Linux is okay)
        \_ MPEG2 is patent-encumbered and doesn't really allow for free
           encoders.  That said, look for QuEnc. --jameslin
        \_ AviSynth + QuEnc.
        \_ ffmpegX
2005/12/15-16 [Reference/Religion] UID:41029 Activity:very high
12/14   emarkp, how do you reconcile the supposed authority of the various
        and sundry versions of the Bible with the glosses and errors made
        by the various scribes who contributed to the current version of
        the KJB? Also, what do you think of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting
        Jesus"? See:
        \_ I assume you mean KJV (which is the common acronym for the King
           James Version of the Bible).  Beyond that I'd be happy to discuss it
           with anyone who signs his name. -emarkp
           \_ Sorry, it didn't really fit on the line. --erikred
              \_ Okay.  I understand the process by which we have the Bible.
                 That is, while I believe the authors were inspired by God,
                 they were still mortal and fallible.  Hence I don't claim that
                 the Bible is inerrant.  Also, there are many conflicts in
                 manuscripts, so I don't think there's an objective way to
                 determine which translation is superior.  I disagree with
                 Wescott and Hort's rules for disambiguation.  That's the point
                 of the Book of Mormon and modern revelation--the more
                 witnesses of truth you have, the better shot you have of
                 understanding it.  I haven't listened to the npr story, but
                 I'm downloading the audio and will listen to it later. -emarkp
                 [addendum: I prefer the KJV because of the language--I find
                 NASB and NIV boring.]
                 \_ Cool, I hope you enjoy it. So, would you consider yourself
                    less of a strict interpretationist (sorry, I lack the
                    proper Biblical scholarship lexicon) and more of a,
                    I dunno, Gnostic? Or Bible as philosophy sort? --erikred
                    \_ I don't know if I could pigeonhole myself so easily.
                       Educated believer?  I believe that Christ is my Savior
                       and performed miracles.  I don't believe the earth is
                       only 6000 years old, but Adam and Eve did exist as
                       individuals.  I believe that there was a great flood and
                       Noah built an ark, but it may have been localized
                       (that's more and more likely IMO) instead of worldwide.
                       I believe we're children of God, but that Evolution is
                       fact. -emarkp
                       \_ Fair enough. Thank you. --erikred
                       \_ Quite honestly, emarkp has never been nearly as
                          radicalized as been expressed by some on the motd.
                          \_ Did Adam have a navel?
                             \_ Does it matter?
                                \_ YMWTR "The Natural History of Nonsense" by
                                   Bergen Evans.
                       \_ hmm... i would subscribe to Christianity if I knew
                          any churches that would actually support this
                          particular, and if I may say so, enlightened view
                          of the Bible.
                          \_ Well, we're called Mormons.  Feel free to ask
                             more. -emarkp
                             [Addendum: I'm sure there are people in other
                             faiths that address the Bible similarly.]
                             \_ Is riding around on bicycles a matter of policy
                                or of convenience?  Does your religion have
                                any official position on cars vs. bikes?
                                When I find a religion that believes cars are
                                as evil as I believe they are, I might just
                                \_ Uhm, cars are nonsentient -- they can't be
                                   evil.  That's like believing wrenches are
                                   evil, or lollipops are devilspawn.  The sad,
                                   sad thing is that you were admitted to
                                   Berkeley.  I guess they'll take anybody
                                   these days.
                                   \_ Do you want to fight?
                                      \_ Over what?  That you're clinically
                                         deranged or that cars aren't evil?
                                         \_ either. both. sticks. whatever.
                                            maybe I'll just kick my chairs
                                            ass again.
                                      \_ GUN DUEL!!!!!
                                         \_ Are you scared?
                                   \_ Are nuclear weapons evil? How about
                                      a rack on which hundreds had been
                                      tortured? I don't think the definition
                                      is as simple as you do, but then again
                                      I don't believe in God, so "evil" is
                                      kind of a strange concept to me.
                                      \_ Objects are not evil.  People are.
                                         You find this a difficult concept?
                                         Why would a rack or a weapon or a
                                         whatever object be evil?  So without
                                         a concept of good and evil your moral
                                         sense is based on what?  The laws men
                                         make?  So there can be no bad laws?
                                         Or it just comes magically from
                                         \_ Actually, evil applied to nouns
                                            is an accepted usage. It's not
                                            the same meaning as morally evil
                                            but it's a meaning all the same.
                                            \_ It's a useless meaning in the
                                               context of a conversation about
                                               good/evil in a religious
                                               context.  Context counts.
                                        \_ Utility mostly. The most utility
                                           for the most people. I find nuclear
                                           weapons odious because of their
                                           capacity to cause great suffering
                                           for so many so easily. I concede
                                           that they may have collectivly
                                           kept WWIII from happening.
                                           \_ Nuclear power doesn't cause
                                              suffering.  People do.  Nuclear
                                              science/engineer can be used to
                                              kill people.  It can be used as
                                              a power source.  So can fire. I
                                              wouldn't get rid of fire because
                                              arsonists burn down orphanages
                                              or claim fire is evil or odious.
                                              Don't blame the tool, blame the
                                              wielder.  Smart people invent
                                              a lot of cool stuff for us.  It
                                              is unfortunate that some people
                                              will always find an evil way to
                                              put any technology to use.
                       \_ What's the significance of the miracles? Would you
                          still have believed if he didn't do miracles? How
                          does this fit into the faith concept and telling
                          people not to expect proof? Why did Jesus rise up
                          from the dead, what was the point? Why do you
                          believe he even did miracles or rose when we have
                          no reliable sources? Why did dying on a cross have
                          any significance, especially since he didn't die?
                          \_ The greatest miracle was the suffering he went
                             through in the garden and on the cross which paves
                             the way for our forgiveness, and his physical
                             resurrection afterwards.  That gives us all hope
                             of resurrection and Eternal Life.  And yes, he
                             really did die. -emarkp
                             \_ How/why did it "pave the way" to anything?
                                Many people have suffered as much or more than
                                someone being crucified. Hell, even in the
                                story he has a couple other nobodies suffering
                                along with him. We also have no reliable source
                                for verifying his death or resurrection so it's
                                pointless even if it had a point to begin with.
                                \_ That's why the Garden of Gethsemane and the
                                   resurrection are part of the story.  -emarkp
                                   \_ You're not really answering. (1st q,
                                      and I don't see why the garden was
                                      much of a suffering either.) And for the
                                      "rez", again it seems pointless to
                                      come back and just basically say "hay
                                      look at me! lol" to a few people and then
                                      "ascend". There's more evidence of Elvis
                    \_ How can you pick and choose and still call yourself a
                                      resurrecting. (btw: My point is less that
                                      *you* shouldn't believe, but that it is
                                      reasonable and logical for me not to
                                      believe. Would you accept that?)
                                      \_ Certainly, it's impossible to
                                         objectively prove the efficacy of
                                         Christ's sacrifice, or the validity of
                                         his claims.  They can only be verified
                                         by being sampled and the proof is
                                         inherently subjective.  It's not
                                         rational in the strictest sense.  My
                                         proof of Christ's sacrifice is the
                                         spiritual witness I've received.
                                         Period. -emarkp
                          \_ In regard to miracles, a few things we see from
                             the bible:
                             (1) God is sovereign, and God decides when and
                                 where to perform miracles.
                             (2) Miracles often did not lead to faith.  The
                                 Israelites had seen many miracles when led
                                 out of slavery in Egypt, yet their faith
                                 was constantly lacking, and that prevented
                                 them from entering Canaan, the promised land.
                             (3) A display of faith by a person often
                                 prompted Jesus to perform a miracle for
                                 said person.
                             (4) Pharisee witnessed many of Jesus's miracles
                                 but claimed that Jesus's was in league with
                                 demons and that that was Jesus's source of
                                 power to perform miracles.
                             (5) Miracles does not solve the problem of sin.
                             (5) Miracles do not solve the problem of sin.
                             (6) While faith includes some elements of
                                 belief, it is more than that.  In James,
                                 in discussing faith and deeds, the bible
                                 says that "Even the demons believe [God] -
                                 and shudder."  "Faith without deeds is
                                 dead."  "Show me your faith without deeds,
                                 and I will show you my faith by what I do."
                             In regard to Jesus giving his life on the cross,
                             the two important things are:
                             (1) He has led a sinless life, and only a
                                 sinless life has the power of redemption.
                             (2) He died for all mankind, but at the same
                                 time he died for each one of us.  I have
                                 heard one school of thought that says
                                 that during the three days between his
                                 death and resurrection, Jesus endured the
                                 combined sufferings caused by the sin of
                                 each and everyone of us.
                                 that during the three days (and time may
                                 have different meaning in the spiritual
                                 realm) between his death and resurrection,
                                 Jesus endured the combined sufferings
                                 caused by the sin of each and everyone of us.
                                 \_ I always thought this was the gist of the
                                    passion in the garden.  It's not that our
                                    sins nailed him up.  It's that he took our
                                    sins upon him, willingly.  Are you a
                                    \_ Both are true, in my mind.  I do
                                       not know what a Calvinist mean.
                                       (note: I removed the part about
                                       each one of us nailing Jesus to
                                       the cross because of our sin,
                                       which was what the above poster
                                       was responding to.  I removed
                                       it because I had wanted to keep
                                       things simpler, but above poster
                                       already responded to it.)
                                 \_ Do you believe in ghosts?  Spirits?
                                    Evil as an entity?
                                    \_ Cars!
                                    \_ Yes, I believe in the existence
                                       of a spiritual realm.
                                \_ How does a death have "power of redemption"?
                                   What is that anyway? What does his death
                                   save, and from what, and by what/whom?
                                   I don't see the relevance of his suffering.
                                   The fundamental concept of "dying for us"
                                   is meaningless to me. And afterwards he
                                   comes back fine anyway. That controverts
                                   the whole notion of sacrifice, which
                                   involves loss. If I, as an atheist, were
                                   to sacrifice my life to save others while
                                   believing that I'm throwing away the only
                                   thing I've got in the universe, well I
                                   think that would mean a lot more than
                                   someone who believes he's gonna float
                                   to heaven.
                                   Re: miracles, I guess we can say they
                                   had no significance of themselves, and
                                   were not any form of proof.
                                   BTW: I applaud you for getting into this
                                   because many would not and it really helps
                                   understand what is going on in your heads.
                                   \_ You raise many deep questions.  In
                                      regard to miracles, I've said all I
                                      wanted to say, so you are free to
                                      draw your conclusion.  In regard to
                                      your other questions, I think we
                                      should not think too abstractly such
                                      that we are no longer grounded in
                                      this world.  This life is not a game
                                      where one score points to get into
                                      heaven.  It has meaning in and of itself.
                                      What does redemption mean in this
                                      world?  How is it tied to guilt and
                                      sin?  How is it tied to justice?  How
                                      is it tied to love and faith and hope?
                                      One other thing to ponder is that Jesus,
                                      as Christ, was not omnipotent or
                                      omniscient.  He has emotions, sorrows
                                      and joys.  He cried.  He loved.  He was
                                      a flesh and blood person.  Not
                                      all Christians will agree with me on
                                      this, but I believe his divine power
                                      and divine self knowledge comes from
                                      his oneness with the Father through
                                      following the word of the Father, love
                                      of the Father, and faith in the plans
                                      of the Father.
                                      following the word of the God, love
                                      of the Father and of us, and faith
                                      in the plans of the Father.
               Adding to the above,
               I really appreciate your question regarding redemption,
               because it led me to examine things and discover new
               "For God so LOVED the world that he GAVE his one and only
                Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
                eternal life."  John 3:16
               "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
                but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a
                clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy,
                and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and
                though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,
                but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all
                my goods to feed the poor, and though I GIVE MY BODY TO
                BE BURNED, but have not love, it profits me nothing."
                Corinthians 13
               "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers
                over a multitude of sins." 1Peter 4
               I think the above passages would help us understand
               redemption.  With justice and retribution, you injured
               or caused someone a loss, you pay for it, you murdered
               a man, you pay with your life.  This country's laws are
               still very much based on that.  Redemption, on the
               other hand, both in the scripture and in our world,
               cannot be seperated from love and sacrifice, both of
               which are necessary.  When you love someone, you can
               forgive the person; when you forgive the person, you
               renounce the justice and redress you were due.  The
               Les Miserable story of the bandit beating up and robbing
               the father to steal his silverware, and when he was
               caught, the father telling the police that he gave the
               bandit the silverware.  And of course there are countless
               real life examples.
                       LDS?  If you let people ignore the inconvenient bits of
                       the Bible, people can make it say anything they want.
                       What's the point of pointing to it as a source of truth
                       at all?
                       \_ I don't pick and choose.  The LDS church has no
                          position on the age of the Earth or Evolution.  I
                          don't ignore "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, etc.
                          \_ I wasn't talking about specifically age or evo.
                             You said you believe the Bible is divinely
                             inspired, but inaccurately transcribed.  So you
                             get to say to any of the OT stuff you don't agree
                             with "that's superceded" and any of the NT stuff
                             that contradicts itself "that's human error"  You
                             don't find that remarkably convenient?  -pp
                          \_ But that's exactly the point!  The Bible pretty
                             clearly describes creation.  If you're going to
                             say "oh, it was just symbolic, it was really
                             evolution.. see 'days' really meant..." and so on,
                             then what's to stop doing that to any part of the
                             Bible?  And if, as you already said, you believe
                             it has human-introduced mistakes... it really
                             doesn't feel like a useful text.
                          \_ You realize the stories of Adam and Eve and
                             Noah are quite obviously not real, right?  -tom
                             \_ you're just pissed off that you don't have
                                a navel.
                             \_ I realize that much of them is not literal.
                                "not real" is not a terribly precise statement.
                                \_ OK, how's this for precise.  The human race
                                   is not descended from two individuals.
                                   (Verifiable by DNA analysis).  The rest of
                                   the Adam and Eve story (and the idea of
                                   original sin) makes no sense in that
                                   context.  Also, there was not a guy named
                                   Noah who gathered up all the animals by
                                   twos because the world (or even a region)
                                   was flooded.  (Also verifiable by DNA
                                   analysis and fossil/sedimentary records).
                                   \_ DNA has been traced back through women
                                      to a trivial number of individuals in
                                      Africa.  I'd like to see a URL that
                                      shows DNA or fossil/sediment record
                                      evidence showing that "not even a region"
                                      could have had a flood that limited the
                                      animal population to a trivial number of
                                      each species.  I'm certain you won't find
                                      this.  Also, there is actually sediment
                                      evidence showing that there likely was a
                                      flood of some sort on a large scale in
                                      the distant past although not necessarily
                                      in the last 6000+ years.
                                   \_ I disagree with your statement out the
                                      DNA evidence of a single couple as
                                      parents of all humans.  In the case of
                                      Noah, that's why I'm open to the "local
                                      flood" idea. -emarkp
                                      \_ The local flood idea requires zero
                                         leap of faith.  Floods large enough
                                         to destroy a tribal civilization's
                                         whole world are common enough that
                                         it seems reasonable that many
                                         civilizations will have stories about
                                         it which are based on fact.
                                      \_ The history of religious dogma is
                                         an evolution from claims which
                                         became easy to disprove (such as
                                         heliocentricity) to claims which
                                         are more difficult to disprove.
                                         Once a piece of dogma has been
                                         proved incorrect beyond a reasonable
                                         doubt, it seems fanciful in the
                                         extreme to weaken the same piece
                                         of dogma to make it less disprovable.
                                         Unless you're just believing what
                                         you want to believe.  -tom
                                      \_ EMarkP: Do you think William Cosby
                                         has accurately told the story ofNoah?
                                         has accurately told the story of Noah?
               \_ "When you forgive the person, you renounce the
                   justice and redress you were due."
                  This is the part of the Bible I find most compelling
                  too, but the part that many people who call themselves
                  Christians don't put into practice. I'm curious if you,
                  whoever you are (emarkp?), supported the war on Iraq.
                  - quaker
                  \_ I accepted the Afghanistan war, but I did not like
                     the war on Iraq from the start.  The administration
                     was too eager to go to war, too flippant in regard
                     to the potential consequences, suffering and loss
                     of lives, both American and Iraqi, too arrogant in
                     our capabilities, which I believe was the cause
                     of many of the mistakes we made.  The purpose of
                     the war was unclear, the motives questionable.
                     My current church is a small Chinese church
                     affliated with ELCA.  I went to a Baptist church
                     affliated with ELCA.  I went to a baptist church
                     while in grad school.  I didn't go to church
                     regularly while in Berkeley, but when I went, I
                     went to 1st Presby, or the Chinese for Christ.
                     church.  Before college, I go to a Presby church.
                     Before college, I go to a presby church.
                     My girlfriend went to a quaker church while in
                     college in taipei, where she accepted christ.
                  \_ I see no conflict between saying to Osama Bin Laden, "I
                     love you as a person and forgive you of your crimes" while
                     shooting him between the eyes.  It is up to me to forgive
                     all men.  But while I can forgive, I will still protect my
                     family. [BTW, I can't find that verse anywhere--you want
                     to give chapter and verse?] -emarkp
        \_Everyone should shut the hell up and just read the Jefferson
          Bible or the Gospel Of St Thomas.

          - danh
2005/12/15-16 [Uncategorized] UID:41030 Activity:nil
12/15   I once saw an old pamplhet that was a quick guide
        to street numbering in Manhattan.  Has anyone ever
        seen something like that on the web? - danh
        \_ Do you mean this? - ciyer
2005/12/15-16 [Recreation/Food] UID:41031 Activity:nil
12/14   Woman hires hitman to kill 4 in order to get their cheese.
        \_ She's not too bright.  What's to stop the hitman from keeping the
           \_ turns out the hitman was a rat.. (singular/plural mistake fixed)
2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41032 Activity:high
12/15   Yeah, Congress has the same access to intelligence as the President...
        Except for the fact that they don't.
        \_ Why would you expect them to have the same access?  The
           intelligence agencies are part of the executive branch, which
           has a responsibility at very least to restrict access to primary
           material which may identify the source of that material.  I can
           understand arguing about whether the President restricts access
           to intelligence too much or too little, but asserting that
           Congress should have exactly the same level of access as the
           President seems misguided.
           \_ I wouldn't "expect them to have the same access".  But that's
              exactly what the president has used recently to defend his war.
              He said that they had the same information on Iraq that he did
              for their debate on authorizing war in some highly misguided
              effort to create some large scale mea culpa.  It's what he's
              hinged every speech this week on.  He's a liar.
              \_ Did he hinge that on congress *always* having the same access
                 or having the same access before the war?
                 \_ "One of the blessings of our free society is
                    that we can debate these issues openly, even in a
                    time of war. Most of the debate has been a credit
                    to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible
                    charges. They say that we act because of oil, that
                    we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we
                    misled the American people. Some of the most
                    irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence
                    have come from politicians who saw the same
                    intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize
                    the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These
                    charges are pure politics."
                    \_ Right, so we're talking about pre-war intelligence
                       there, not current intelligence.
                       \_ I don't see what you're getting at.  Do you?
                       \_ Which we know was not distributed equally before
                          the war.
                          \_ We do?
                             \_ Of course.  We know now, therfore we must have
                                known before.
                                \_ Not to mention that Bush is personally
                                   knowledgeable of everything known and done
                                   by people in the executive branch.
                                   \_ He may not be knowlegable, but, whether
                                      he likes it or not, he is responsible.
                                      it's his fucking administration.
                                      \_ No no no it's Clinton's fault somehow.
                                      \_ No, I agree completely.  Bush should
                                         be held accountable for the actions
                                         of his administration.  However, I am
                                         a little confused.  I thought here
                                         we're taking him to task for claiming
                                         Congress had the same access to
                                         intelligence.  So is he at fault for
                                         making a claim when he didn't know
                                         the facts, making a claim when he
                                         should have known otherwise, or making
                                         a claim when he did know otherwise.
                                         And how do we decide which one that is
                                         from the available information?
                                      \_ No no no it's Clinton's fault somehow.
                                         \_ Ah, the old "is he a liar, or is
                                            he just incompetent" question. I
                                            posit it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
                                            And How do we decide?  We tell
                                            Congress (who is the only party
                                            with the ability, not to mention
                                            the DUTY to do so) to find out.
                                            \_ You mean we shouldn't just hang
                                               him first?  I'm pretty sure
                                               we're going to hang him first
                                               and determine the facts later.
                                               \_ He's not a carjacker, son.
                                                  He's the president, and the
                                                  only body qualified to
                                                  investigate is sitting on
                                                  their hands.  In such an
                                                  event, saying "wait for
                                                  the facts" is unpatriotic.
                                                  \_ Wow.  Maybe the truth *is*
                                                     out there!  Have you been
                                                     talking to jblack about
                                                     the black helicopters
                                                     circling overhead?  You
                                                     think that's part of the
                                                     Congressional plot to
                                                     sit on the impeachment too?
                                \_ Yes we do. The PDB for example, is not
                                   shared with Congress. Are you really this
                                   ignorant or are you playing faux naif?
                                   The President knows he has access to
                                   information that Congress does not have,
                                   too, so he just lying his ass off now.
                                   \_ You know, I'm pretty sure Bush isn't
                                      telling the Congress what he's getting
                                      the wife and family for Christmas too.
                                      So the question is not whether Bush knows
                                      something the Congress doesn't, it's
                                      1. whether Bush knows something material
                                      that the Congress doesn't, and 2. whether
                                      Bush knows that the Congress doesn't
                                      have access to that material information.
                                      In the case of the daily briefing that
                                      you specifically mentioned, you will
                                      have to show that the relevant bits in
                                      the briefing do not eventually reach
                                      the Congress.
                                         \_ So you have one website quoting
                                            another website plus some
                                            conjecture.  Wow.  You have me
                                            totally convinced now.  Do you
                                            information reguarding black
                                            helicopters that are equally
                                            helicopters that is equally
                                               Second paragraph. Look this is
                                               shooting fish in a barrel.
                                               \_ OK, by abandoning your first
                                                  website I assume you agree
                                                  that your first reference is
                                                  silly.  Great.  We're making
                                                  progress.  Now let's look
                                                  at this one.  On 9/5/02,
                                                  Graham & Co demanded to
                                                  see the National Intelligence
                                                  Estimate.  3 weeks later
                                                  (I assume that's 9/26/02),
                                                  Tenet produced one.  One
                                                  10/10/02, Congress voted
                                                  to approve the use of force.
                                                  What's your point again?
                                                  \_ There is overwhelming
                                                     evidence that you are
                                                     wrong. I am just posting
                                                     it as fast as I can
                                                     google it:
                                                     \_ To quote your reference,
                                                        "The report does not
                                                        cite examples of
                                                        intelligence Bush
                                                        reviewed that differed
                                                        from what Congress saw.
                                                        If such information is
                                                        available, it would not
                                                        be accessible to the
                                                        report's authors."
                                                        That Bush had
                                                        information unavailable
                                                        to Congress is a given.
                                                        The question is whether
                                                        the information was
                                                        material, and you
                                                        have yet shown nothing
                                                        to substantiate that
                                                        \_ You are trying to
                                                           use the fact that
                                                           the White House
                                                           classifies any
                                                           information that
                                                           proves that it is
                                                           lying as evidence
                                                           in *favor* of their
                                                           claim? Bizarre.
                                                        \_ At least you are
                                                           admitting that Bush
                                                           lied about this.
                                                           Now we are getting
                                                           \_ I think I agreed
                                                              half a page up
                                                              that Bush must
                                                              know something
                                                              the Congress
                                                              doesn't.  The
                                                              question is
                                                              whether it's
                                                              material, and so
                                                              far claims of
                                                              evidence" have
                                                              been under-
                                                              whelming.  All
                                                              you have shown
                                                              are unreferenced
                                                              claims and
                                                  \_ Did you even bother to
                                                     read the second paragraph
                                                     in the above cite?
                                                     "However, this
                                                     declassified version was
                                                     more like a marketing
                                                     brochure: 20 pages in
                                                     length, slickly produced
                                                     with splashy grahics and
                                                     maps, and with none of
                                                     the caveats contained in
                                                     the original...The
                                                     intelligence material
                                                     Congress had was what the
                                                     administration was willing
                                                     to give them, namely a
                                                     promotional piece whose
                                                     lies of omission outweighed\
                                                     what was included."
                                                     \_ [Sorry, broke up your
                                                        post to respond to
                                                        your points separately.
                                                        Hope you don't mind.]
                                                        The full classified
                                                        version was available
                                                        to House and Senate
                                                        intelligence committee
                                                        \_ Right, but that
                                                           is not Bush's claim.
                                                           He claims "all 100
                                                           Democratic members
                                                           of Congress" had
                                                           He claims "more than
                                                           100 Democrats"
                                                           in Congress had
                                                           access to the same
                                                           material he did.
                                                           \_ Boy, do you even
                                                              read your own
                                                              1.  Your quote
                                                              is completely
                                                              misleading and
                                                              Please use
                                                              2.  I assume
                                                              you mean "more
                                                              than 100 Democrats
                                                              in the House and
                                                              Senate".  OBTW,
                                                              *that* is a
                                                              correct and non-
                                                              misleading quote.
                                                              3.  Next
                                                              paragraph from
                                                              that quote, the
                                                              article article
                                                              mentioned the
                                                              daily briefing,
                                                              but it's not
                                                              clear if relevant
                                                              info from that
                                                              made it into
                                                              reports in other
                                                              forms, and the
                                                              National Intel
                                                              Estimate, which
                                                              even the artcile
                                                              agreed were
                                                              available to
                                                              the Congress
                                                              before the vote.
                                                              4.  Given that
                                                              you have proven
                                                              to be dishonest
                                                              by inventing
                                                              quotes on the fly,
                                                              why should I even
                                                              waste my time with
                                                              you?  Please addr
                                                              point 4 before
                                                              more arguments.
                                                              5.  I see that
                                                              you've now gone
                                                              back to "fix"
                                                              your quote.  Again
                                                              why should I waste
                                                              my time with some-
                                                              one shown to be
                                                              dishonest and
                                                              without honor?
                                                              \_ Blow it out
                                                                 your ass. I
                                                                 was trying
                                                                 to quickly
                                                                 summarize my
                                                                 points. I did
                                                                 not sub-
                                                                 change any
                                                                 for members of
                                                                 The House and
                                                                 Senate). Why
                                                                 should I waste
                                                                 my time with
                                                                 a crybaby?
                                                                 \_ Right.  You
                                                                    made up a
                                                                    quote (and
                                                                    there is a
                                                                    "all 100"
                                                                    and "more
                                                                    than 100"),
                                                                    got caught.
                                                                    You went
                                                                    back to fix
                                                                    it without
                                                                    bility, and
                                                                    got caught
                                                                    again.  Now
                                                                    Do you have
                                                                    *any* honor?
                                          That was a typo that I corrected _/
                                          before you even finished with
                                          your counter to it. Your argument
                                          on the facts has failed, so you
                                          have resorted to ad hominem, I
                                          understand. Another nail in the
                                          coffin of your claims that the
                                          Congress had all the same intel
                                          as the White House:
                                          \_ This is getting *so* tiresome.
                                             I agreed a page up that Bush has
                                             info the Congress doesn't.  Now
                                             show that this info is material.
                                             You still have nothing.  How about
                                             a quote from Feinstein's website?
                                             Have you learned how to quote now?
                                             Something like "Bush knew X, but
                                             this was not known to the Congress
                                             at the time.  If this were known,
                                             the vote might have been
                                             different."  That would show that
                                             the info was material.  You picked
                                             the Feinstein site.  Don't you
                                             have *anything*?
                                             \_ The "material" bit is your
                                                trip, not mine. I don't know
                                                if it would have changed enough
                                                votes to stop the war or not.
                                                But I do know Bush lied when
                                                he claimed that Congress had
                                                access to the same info (on
                                                Iraq, to be pedantic) as he did.
                                                \_ I take it that this means you
                                                   *can't* find a reference
                                                   that Congress is missing
                                                   material information.  If
                                                   you don't limit yourself
                                                   to material information, then
                                                   the statement is silly.  Of
                                                   course Bush knows stuff the
                                                   Congress does not.  I mean,
                                                   did Bush tell the Congreess
                                                   when or with whom he lost
                                                   his virginity?  So you are
                                                   limiting the info to info
                                                   on Iraq.  Isn't that a
                                                   material test?  Should Bush
                                                   tell Congress what his fav.
                                                   Bagdhad restaurant is?  If
                                                   he didn't, would you hang
                                                   him for lying?  You keep
                                                   saying you know Bush lied.
                                                   How?  On what?  You made a
                                                   specific claim.  Now please
                                                   make specific charges.  Some-
                                                   thing like "Bush knew X, but
                                                   Congress didn't or didn't in
                                                   \_ Reread the Washington
                                                      Post article. Basically
                                                      anything that contradicted
                                                      the case that the WH
                                                      was trying to make was
                                                      withheld. There is
                                                      literally hundreds of
                                                      pages of it (far too
                                                      much to try and post
                                                      here). One example
                                                      noted in the WaPo article:
                                       "For example, the NIE view that
                                        Hussein would not use weapons of mass
                                        destruction against the United States
                                        or turn them over to terrorists unless
                                        backed into a corner was cleared for
                                        public use only a day before the
                                        Senate vote."
                                                      \_ To address your quote
                                                         specifically, note
                                                         that NIE info was not
                                                         available for "public
                                                         use".  Meaning the
                                                         info was available to
                                                         the Congress, but the
                                                         Congressman was not
                                                         allowed to release
                                                         it to the public.  Now
                                                         how does that prove
                                                         your point?  Re the
                                                         rest of the article,
                                                         it was either the
                                                         Congress did not have
                                                         enough time to review
                                                         the NIE (from your
                                                         earlier time line I
                                                         would guess the
                                                         Congress had 2 weeks),
                                                         or there must have
                                                         been *something*
                                                         missing.  What
                                                         something?  Specific
                                                         charges please.  I'll
                                                         keep trying to help
                                                         you.  Something like
                                                         "Bush knew X, but the
                                                         Congress didn't or
                                                         didn't in time."  When
                                                         you have X, then you
                                                         have something.  Until
                                                         then, your claim is
                                      \_ Bush didn't say "something material"
                                         he said Congress had the same
                                         information we did. We know the PDB
                                         had information on Iraq. Q.E.D.
                                         \_ Now you're being silly.  Yes, I
                                            am certain Bush isn't telling
                                            the Congress what he's getting
                                            the family for Christmas.  I bet
                                            he didn't even tell the Congress
                                            when and with whom he lost his
                                            virginity!  Impeach the bum.  How
                                            are those black helicopters coming?
                                            \_ You are grasping at straws here
                                               and I think you know it. We
                                               are talking about Iraq here,
                                               not Christmas lists.
                                               \_ Hey, you're the one who said
                                                  "Bush didn't say 'something
                                                  material'".  I was just
                                                  follwing your when I started
                                                  on Christmas lists and
                                                  virginity.  Now show me
                                                  that the daily briefing
                                                  information didn't eventually
                                                  reach Congress.
                                                  \_ Believe it or not, I do
                                                     not have the security
                                                     clearance to track this
                                                     kind of thing. Your blind
                                                     faith in the White House
                                                     is kind of touching.
                                                     \_ No, not blind faith in
                                                        the white house at all.
                                                        If I am guilty, I am
                                                        guilty of blind faith
                                                        that you could not
                                                        possibly prove what you
                                                        are trying to claim.
                                                        \_ I think you are
                                                           saying the opposite
                                                           of what you intend.
                                                           \_ You know, you're
                                                              right.  Mea culpa.
2005/12/15-16 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:41033 Activity:moderate
12/15   I'm looking for raw data on the world's cities, does it exist anywhere?
        Specifically, I'd like a list of all cities over, say, 5000 population,
        what country they are in, which state/province/prefecture/etc.,
        location (lat+long) and name in English.  Does this exist anywhere?
        Couldn't find it with google.
        \_ Over 5000? There are raves larger than that. 5000 is too small to
           be significant.
           \_ Ok, make it 10,000
              \_ I agree with pp.  You probably want to look at 100k as a low
                 number.  Even that low I bet you would get over 1k cities.
                 \_ Companies that make an Atlas have to have this info, it
                    should exist *somewhere*.
                    \- i assume people in the GIS business have something
                       like this in computer-usable form. howeverm this
                       sounds ill-thought out.
        \_ Duh. look at The Almanac, the google of the old days. Or better
           yet use google and search for: world's largest cities
           and you get it on the first page.
           and you get it on the first hit.
2005/12/15-18 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:41034 Activity:kinda low
        Hitler salute greets concentration camp visitors.
        Sorry I can't help it -- Heil John!
        \_ Huh?  Anyway, it might amuse you that I'm moving to Chile, and our
           landlord is called "Juan Oehninger".  -John
           \_ that's funny.  are you moving to Colonia Dignidad
              I mean Villa Baviera? - danh
                \_ Nein, but I do tell people I'm going to hunt nazis.  For
                   some reason, most of the management types I deal with do
                   not see much difference between IT security and "other"
                   security consulting... -John
              American woman gives birth to 17th child. -- Go American John!
              \_ What's with you John fetishists? You guys are retards.
                 \_ I attract weirdos, it's a skill.  -John
                    \_ In real life also?
                        \_ Yes.  I don't quite manage the same dysfunctional
                           demographics in my varied fan groups as danh. -John
                    \_ You, ilyas and emarkp seem to attract quite an
                       interesting following.                  -mice
        \_ "The incident took place in Brandenburg, a state in the former
           communist East, where far right parties get a much larger share of
           the votes than they do in the West."  Interesting.
2005/12/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41035 Activity:nil
12/15   Leon County, FL gets rid of Diebold voting machines:
2005/12/15-19 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:41036 Activity:nil
12/15   Has anyone tried the Google Safe Browsing Firefox extension?
        Does it work well?
        \_ Does it serve the same purpose as other programs like, say, AdWatch?
        \_ Are you astroturfing?
        \_ I don't know how well it works, but how the heck does it install
           itself without Firefox warning that isn't in its
           list of trusted domains?
2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:41037 Activity:high
12/15   Clinton vs. Giuliani 2008
        \_ Clinton vs. Rice
        \_ Pepsi vs. Coke.
        \_ Yermom vs. Todo el Mundo
        \_ Tastes great vs...
        \_ Kirk vs. Khaaaan!!!!
        \_ Bring back Powell!!!
           \_ He was never interested.
2005/12/15-19 [Uncategorized] UID:41038 Activity:nil
12/15   Is the current chronic low-level packet loss between UCB
        and the outside world a known issue?
2005/12/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:41039, category id '18005#11.0662' has no name! , ] UID:41039 Activity:kinda low
12/15   Tran Blasts Dean: Calls for Solidarity in Iraq
        \_ Fascinating... not the article, but your persistence.
           Can you please shed some light as to why you keep posting
           stuff from freerepublic? Is it 1) to educate liberals why
           conservatism is better? 2) to humiliate liberals by pointing
           URLS that humiliate liberals? 3) to generate knee-jerking
           reactions from liberals for entertainment values? or
           4) you forgot your medication? Please explain.
           \_ I kind of like seeing what those bastards are up to.  I find
              that I read points of view on there that most of my liberal
              friends didn't know existed.  For instance, I wouldn't know about
              the drooling adulation of Rice by the wingnut right were it not
              for freerepublic.  A black woman with a phd as an Icon of the far
              right?  It defies the stereotype of the racist right wing nut
              who hates book learnin'.  If it weren't for jblack and his
              dipshit trolls, I would not come into any contact with the far
              right, and given their present power in this country I think that
              would be a bad thing.
              \_ Are you kidding me? Their worship of Condi is the most
                 endearing thing about them. It shows that they have
                 at least mostly abandoned their virulent open racism.
                 \_ Right. Fine.  I'm not dissagreeing with that, I'm just
                    saying that were it not for jblack drooling his links
                    all over the motd, I wouldn't know this particular
                    charming tidbit about the far right.  So it's not all bad.
           \_ 5) Liberal trolling as a conservative posting strawmen
              in order to make conservatives look like nut jobs?
           \_ I would think the article speaks for itself.  There are
              glaring misconceptions about Vietnam that warrant
              clarification.                            -jblack
              \_ The Vietnam war is over. No one cares anymore. Get over it.
                 \_ If people didn't care then why do they compare every
                    non-trivial military action to Vietnam?  And if they're
                    going to compare then it is important that we have the
                    correct history and not myths.  I didn't read the article
                    and don't read the free republic but I do care in general
                    about historical accuracy and revisionism. -!jblack
        \_ yes, your point jblack?
        \_ I don't get it--Dean says "S. Vietnamese couldn't support
           themselves".  Tran says "RVN fell because Congress cut off
           support."  Where's the contradiction?  -John
2005/12/15-19 [Transportation/Car] UID:41040 Activity:low
12/15   Is anyone here in the Auto Assault beta or know anyone who is?
        I'm just curious what game play is like.  Thanks.
        \_ It feels a lot like COH in terms of interface. It is kind of
        fun but very random. Basically you get a car with different mount
        points on it. On the starter car you can have a rotatable turrent gun,
        a fixed front mounted gun and a fixed rear mounted gun. Not sure if
        you get more weapon mount points as you level. You also get skill
        points to buy skills with that do stuff like give you special abilities
        or passive abilities that increase attack/dmg/speed/etc. You can also
        buy/find/craft upgrades to your car like new tires, new engine, glowy
        scoop, etc. And there are 4 classes for each race. A healer/mechanic,
        a rogue/bounty hunter (can stealth), a commando/tank, and I forget the
        4th one.
        \_ It feels a lot like COH in terms of interface. It is kind of fun
           but very random. Basically you get a car with different mount
           points on it. On the starter car you can have a rotatable turrent
           gun, a fixed front mounted gun and a fixed rear mounted gun. Not
           sure if you get more weapon mount points as you level. You also
           get skill points to buy skills with that do stuff like give you
           special abilities or passive abilities that increase
           attack/dmg/speed/etc. You can also buy/find/craft upgrades to
           your car like new tires, new engine, glowy scoop, etc. And there
           are 4 classes for each race. A healer/mechanic, a rogue/bounty
           hunter (can stealth), a commando/tank, and I forget the 4th one.
           \_ Sounds like the old "Autoduel" I played on my Apple ][.
              \_ Car Wars, baby!
2005/12/15-19 [Recreation/Media] UID:41041 Activity:high
12/15   For Star Trek movie guy: Shatner, Stewart, and Bakula to team up in
        ultimate unholy movie of horribleness:
        \_ Why do star trek writers love time travel so much?  Do they all
           have the fantasy of going back in time and sleeping with their mom?
           \_ Because it allows unlimited cross over episodes between the 3
              time periods they wrote material.
           \_ They have the fantasy of going back in time and child-molest
              their own selves.
              their own selves.  Screwing a young virgin asshole with your big
              fat dick while having your young virgin asshole screwed by a big
              fat dick ...... oh it's so HOT!
           \_ Time travel is a crutch that lets writers to indulge in their
              favorite setting. Instead of creating new scenarios and
              implications, they go to the past and play "alternate history,"
              but somehow they end up back in the same exact world they left
              from because the "true" outcome is pretty much the "best" one.
              No one kills Hitler, stops WWI, or saves Kennedy. Only small
              personal victories are allowed. Sigh. Thinking is hard.
              \_ When I was in middle school, my friend and I who were
                 obscessed with time travel swore that if we ever got our
                 time machine to work, the first thing we would do was go
                 back and tell our middle school selves about it.  By the
                 end of 8th grade we pretty much concluded that neither of
                 us would ever invent a time machine.  The difference between
                 us and those wankers at MIT  was that we had the excuse of
                 being 12.
              \_ What was so great about Kennedy?  Bay of Pigs?  Nuclear war?
                 \_ More interesting is the time, not the man. Vietnam, civil
                    rights, and the cold war.
                 \_ The original plot line for ST2 had Kirk et. al. traveling
                    back in time to assassinate Kennedy in order to restore
                    their timeline.
        \_ If they're doing this Mirror, Mirror bs, they sure as hell better
           bring Avery Brooks back into the project.
           \_ Damn straight. They won't, though. He was the most interesting
              captain by far, but the ST fan base never took to him.
              \_ Pre Shaved Head Sisko was a loser, Shaved Head Goatee Sisko
                 rocked. He was my 2d best captain in the ST universe (Kirk
                 being the best; although Spock technically was a Captain by
                 rank, he doesn't count b/c he never had an independent cmd).
                 I'd love to see a movie w/ Sisko. -stmg
                 \_ IMHO, DS9 >> ST:[TNG,TOS,E,V]. I love TOS, but sometimes
                    you have to get over the first love and move on.
                    \_ As much as I like DS9 (enough to play both Harbinger
                       and The Fallen), I still think that TOS is better b/c
                       of the cast. DS9 had too many losers (Jake, Dr. Bashir,
                       Rom, Nog, &c.) and they managed to mess up stuff like
                       the really cool Section 31 plot line. -stmg
                       \_ It was a better show with losers. Everyone in the
                          other ST shows were idealized paragons. Blah.
                          \_ I can agree that in TOS the characters were
                             nearly perfect, but not in the other shows.
                             The only near perfect characters in TNG were
                             Data and Lore. There were no perfect characters
                             in Voyager. Seven of Nine was not bad, but you
                             can only watch so many episodes where she walks
                             around in a one piece with a concussion phaser
                             rifle :-). -stmg
                    \_ That's because it's B5 with the serial numbers filed
                       off.  And of course B5 is LotR with the serial numbers
                       filed off.
                       \_ B5 was ass. About the only good things on B5 were
                          Kosh (good and bad), Chekov and Marcus and JMS
                          killed off Good Kosh and Marcus. Pox on JMS. LotR
                          is even worse than B5. About the only thing worse
                          than LotR I've ever seen was Attack of the Clowns
                          (Yes, even Final Frontier was better). -stmg
                          \_ Lord of the Rings is worse?
                          \_ If B5 was ass, it was supermodel ass. Don't let
                             your love of the One True Space Opera cloud your
                             ability to appreciate other well-done series.
                             \_ You mean Dune?  Cause that's what Lucas copied
                                \_ The only good thing about Dune was that
                                   Picard was in it. -stmg
                                   \_ You suck.
                             \_ I like SG-1. I've watched ever eps. of B5
                                and I still think it is ass. My opinion
                                might have been different if (1) JMS didn't
                                might have been different if JMS didn't (1)
                                make Evil Kosh act like a sniveling child
                                in front of the first one and (2) JMS didn't
                                kill off Marcus. -stmg
                                in front of the first one and (2) kill off
                                Marcus. -stmg
                       \_ Huh, I don't really see how B5 is LotR.  Please
                          \_ There were some obvious nods.  The First One named
                             Lorien.  Sheridan's leap into Z'ha'dum to come
                             back later (compare to Gandalf's plunge into
                             Khazad dum).  The Elder races going away to leave
                             man (the Third Age of Man).  Etc.
                             \_ As you say, those are nods.  "B5 is LotR
                                with the serial numbers filed off,"
                                suggests wholesale lifting of the plot.
                          \_ If you go to Khazad-dum, you will die.  -geordan
                       \_ I thought DS9 would be B5 with SNs filed off at
                          first, too, but subsequent viewing proved me
                          completely wrong. It was its own original thing.
                          \_ DS9 has actual plot arcs and something unique
                             to offer ST viewers, conflict.
                             \_ Except their entire war thing was stolen from
                                B5.  The thing with the gods dragged on way too
                                long too.  At least it wasn't like ST:TNG,
                                "Sir!  We're under attack!"   "Raise shields,
                                \_ No, I'm pretty sure war existed before B5.
                                   What you did have was shifting alliances
                                   and actual reasons for war. And DS9 touched
                                   on religion as an actual subject matter in
                                   character lives instead of a plugin addon.
        \_ Even better, TAS might be coming to dvd next year:
2005/12/15 [Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD] UID:41042 Activity:nil
12/15   What differences between Linux and BSD could explain the difference
        in the speed of output from simple text commands that spew several
        lines of output. From my Mac, when I run these commands on a linux
        box there is a lag. Looks like the lines are printed one at a time.
        When I run the same commands on a BSD box, it looks like all the lines
        print together, and it is much snappier. When I login from linux to
        linux, there is no noticable lag.
2019/07/23 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:December:15 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>