sgtdraino

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 174 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Political Ravings of Intolerance #68631
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Blegh. Enough charging at windmills. I’m here to have fun, which this has ceased to be. Nobody’s changing anybody’s mind, so further discussion is only going to cause irritation on all sides. This argument could go back and forth indefinitely, without accomplishing anything. I don’t have the patience or interest.

    <resigns>

    Just hope I don’t get gassed while I’m packing. ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: Computer problem – help! #68630
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Hey dude,

    My bro had this to say:

    ”MyBrother” wrote:

    his traceroute doesn’t show anything unusual
    so it doesn’t really add anything
    it’s the same thing anyone else would get
    like if you run a traceroute
    do you know if he said he could ping it or not?

    My brother says do this:

    ”MyBrother” wrote:

    telnet to 207.44.236.50 on port 25
    telnet to 207.44.236.50 on port 110
    telnet to 207.44.236.50 on port 143
    telnet to 207.44.236.50 port 80
    and paste what response he gets from each port
    also have him ping 207.44.236.50
    and paste the results for each
    the fact that his isp even mentions their proxy server is very disturbing

    I hope that makes sense to you, as it’s greek to me. ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: Political Ravings of Intolerance #68625
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Why do I bother? ๐Ÿ™‚ We are now entering the head-against-a-brick-wall stage. We’re never going to convince each other, so the discussion is fast becoming pointless.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Well, there’s the floundering around like a drunk in a bath tub approach, which doesn’t seem to particularly work well for anyone,

    I think your world view is coloring your perceptions.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    And then there’s the sensible approach, which is basically police work, intelligence gathering, reasonable and prudent security, and the judicious application of force when and where it will do some good. Not as flashy, but it has better results.,

    Sounds great. However, if Valdron was in charge of implementing the above plan, I think you’d quickly find things getting very, very complicated. In fact, I’ll bet the folks in charge have a plan that sounds very much like what you just said. Real life has a way of getting in the way of that.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Beep. Wrong again. Well sort of. I note that you’ve qualified your contention by pointing out that the US is *one of the most generous* nations.

    Thank you. You will note that qualifier was present in the original statement.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Of course, if we were to chop Israel and Egypt out of the American equation,

    Why would we do that? Are they not PC? Isn’t that kinda like saying, “well, if you didn’t have legs, you’d only be FOUR feet tall!”

    sgtdraino wrote:

    I used to love the UN, now I don’t trust them.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    It seems that the feeling is reciprocated.

    I don’t think the UN can be said to have specific feelings about anything. They’re way too amorphous, and the ability of a few strong nations to veto the will of the majority only enhances the organization as a do-nothing body.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Five is the current count, last time I looked. It doesn’t go over well with Afghans.

    Now this is news to me. I heard about the one, I’ve never heard about any more. I’d think something like that would be all over the news, too. What is your source?

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Well, accident doesn’t cut it when some guy in a fighter jet deliberately launches his rockets at a target.

    Depends on the circumstances. Sure, it sucks to be that target on the ground, but sometimes an accident is just an accident. No matter how smart the bombs are, there will always be unintended casualties in military combat.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    We’re more in the country of negligence, recklessness, manslaughter… You’re a cop, you know how these things work.

    Sure, but Afghanistan is still basically a combat zone. You’ve said so yourself. Different rules apply. Martial law is always messier than regular law enforcement, but until some level of control is established, regular cops simply don’t have the tactics to deal with the situation.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Weddings are particularly good for this kind of thing, since many Afghan celebrations, particularly weddings, involve discharging firearms into the air. Sort of like fireworks.

    Ah yes, I remember this now. Well, the obvious answer, is that folks need to stop discharging their weapons in the air at weddings and other celebrations. I don’t know this, but I’d bet there’s been a general proclaimation warning against this behavior. Of course they’re taking fire, if they’re shooting in the air while our fighters are flying around!

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    So, you’re fighter pilot gets assigned to the area, he’s patrolling for enemy, he sees flashes of gunfire…. and its goodbye bride and groom, goodbye maid of honour, goodbye best man, goodbye toaster oven, etc.

    And you would charge that pilot with murder or manslaughter? The situation is tragic, but doesn’t sound like the pilot’s fault. It sounds like a tragic, tragic misunderstanding. Classic friendly fire. The public must be educated, to keep them from being accidentally identified as unfriendlies.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Now, obviously, its a messy business. And maybe the first wedding that got blown up was excuseable. We wuz played for suckers.
    But not the next four.

    If they’re still shooting in the air, then I’m not surprised at all. A pilot sees fire coming from the ground, knows he may be taking a SAM up his pipe any second, and does what he is trained to do.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but America’s finest seem to be particularly prone to them. U.S. soldiers are getting a worldwide reputation as the ‘friendly fire bastards.’ It isn’t a good thing.

    I’d put money that any other military unit put in the same situations would make the same mistakes. The US military is simply under the microscope of folks looking for ammunition to discredit us.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    To some extent I agree with you. But you seem to be saying that because it is difficult to get the full facts and make an informed opinion, that we shouldn’t bother.

    No, I’m just saying, don’t be so sure.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    The point is not to surrender and just assume its all unknowable, or that we can just abandon facts and stick with opinions, irregardless of facts.

    The point is that we have to make the effort. Which means going out there, getting the information, trying to evaluate it, consider the sources, the inherent biases, taking information from multiple sources, evaluating it, and coming to reasoned conclusions.

    I don’t think there is an accurate means of obtaining the facts of the “war on terror” at present. All you can obtain are “factoids.” Little anecdotes that make a particular side look good, or bad, but have small bearing on the big picture. And I’m not convinced ANYONE knows what the big picture is… or will be, in a couple of years.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Actually, the Russians got hold of his body, compared the dental records, and shared their findings with American doctors and experts. It was verified to everyones satisfaction.

    That’s not what I heard. But I think I’ve made my point. Sometimes you just never find out for sure.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    And yes, I can accept a certain amount of realism. We won’t get him right away. But then again, it offends me a little to see the guy minimalized.

    It’s just typical politics of the day. Opponents of the US actions maximize Bin Laden and Hussein, proponents of the US actions minimize Bin Laden and Hussein. If either of the men were captured or killed, I think you’d find the reverse suddenly happening.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    First of all, we’ve got a right to hold people accountable to their own words and statements. So if P Bush holds up Osama Bin Laden as the scourge of the world one week, invades a country on the explicit grounds of getting him, and then two weeks later tells us he wasn’t really that important…. Well, I for one am entitled to be a little cheesed. Same thing with Saddam Hussein and these fictional weapons of mass destruction.

    To my recollection, it was never the intention to go into Iraq or Afghanistan simply to get one man. Certainly those two men are on the “to do” list, but the target was always the organizations run by the two men. And just because weapons haven’t been found, doesn’t mean they never existed. In fact, even the UN says the weapons existed. They still haven’t been accounted for. What happened to them? I think it’s worth finding out.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Second, at some point, we have to gage success or failure by some standard that relates to the objectives going in. That’s just common sense. The Afghanistan mess fails on just about every sensible standard.

    That is certainly your opinion. ๐Ÿ™‚ I think we must agree to disagree on this one. We are at an impasse.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    So what you gonna do. Just ignore everything and go with your gut? Read tea leaves? Consult your fortune cookie?

    I will listen to information I get from sources I trust, same as you.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    You take what you can find, and then you assess it carefully, and you form your opinions. New evidence comes along, you re-evaluate those opinions.

    Absolutely. Happens all the time.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    But overall, the situation seems to result in almost unregulated self medication.

    If that is true, then it is certainly a problem that needs addressing. But if the wedding incidents happened as YOU describe, then amphetamines or no aphetimines, I think the result would have been the same.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Not good enough. Killing, assault, theft, fraud are all actions imposed by people against the will of other people. Completely non-consensual.

    Correct. But that was not a qualifier you specified. Laws against such actions are still regulating and defining peoples lives. Of course, if you want other types of laws, they’re certainly out there. How about vice-laws? How about laws that say a civilian’s shotgun barrel must be at least 18″? How about speed limits? All of these regulate and define behavior that has nothing to do with folks violating each others’ rights.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Basically, a good yardstick of rights is that your right to throw punches ends where my nose begins. This is a legitimate area for Government.

    Correct. If you go back to my first post, you’ll also note it’s basically a re-statement of my own ground rule.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    At the same time, I still stand by my point that in our personal lives, and in our government policy, we have an obligation to set intelligent priorities.

    All true. I think we agree in principle, if not in practice. All I’m saying, is that it’s impossible to do the most important things ALL the time. It’s not realistic.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Poor allocation of resources wastes those resources, and sooner or later, you come to the point where your budget is gone. You have to decide where you are going to focus on.

    Hey, if you’re talking about government waste, you get no argument from me.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Sure, he should enforce them all. In theory, he does. But in real life, he sets his priorities just like everyone else.

    Of course. But just because the man puts a bunch of little guys away, and only a few big guys, doesn’t mean an effort isn’t being made. It may just mean the big guys are harder to get. Unless you have ongoing knowledge of the inner workings of Justice Department operations, I don’t think you’re qualified to pass judgement.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Well, especially since no measures are being taken. Your airport security is still the worst in the world. Congress held up nationalizing airport security cause they didn’t want to risk creating union jobs.

    The amount of freedom enjoyed in the US is also what is hindering our ability to respond effectively to terrorist threats. Society is often a balance of order versus freedom. Part of what maintains that balance is our bureaucracy, which makes it difficult to make major changes to the system quickly. Unionizing airport security would be insane. It would be like politicizing the FBI, or the US Army. It opens a security organization up to outside control. It is a risk that should not be taken.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    You’ve got 1500 sites, ranging from nuclear power plants to chemical factories, etc., for which no security is provided.

    There will never be 100% coverage. The US is big, and targets are everywhere. Of course we should try, but it will never be even close to perfect.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Meanwhile, the air marshalls program is being cut back,

    That was always a flawed program, if you ask me. Random placement (or random searches for that matter) are no good against terrorists. Random enforcement activity serves only as a deterent to people who are afraid of getting caught. Terrorists woul die in order to harm us. I would arm the pilots and reinforce the cockpit.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    and police and fire departments – ie, the first responders, are still being shortchanged on adequate radios, supplies or training.

    lol. This is SO us. ๐Ÿ™‚

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    This recent blackout showed very little more than how completely inept Tom Ridge and the department of homeland security is at actually dealing with security issues or responding to a crisis.

    I dunno. They determined pretty quickly that it wasn’t terrorism, and everything stayed reasonably quiet until the lights came back on.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    No offence, but when it comes to actually protecting the security of the American people… as opposed to hatcheting political enemies, or knocking off oil rich third world countries… it seems the administrations policy is to spread legs, bend over, and whistle.

    Well, in spite of the holes we’ve both listed, there hasn’t been another attack in the US since 9/11. So far, so good.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    You can hold whatever opinions you want.

    Exactly my point. Glad you agree. So long as nobody is trying to force me or anyone else to change their opinions, then everything’s cool.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    If you feel homosexual acts are immoral, then here’s my advice: Do not engage in these acts. Do not watch gay pornography. Do not have gay people over to your house to have sex or watch TV.

    What if, say, I was the President. And somebody who doesn’t like me, and is looking for something to use against me, asks me what my personal opinion of the whole thing is. Should I lie, or tell the truth? Should I be persecuted for my personal opinion?

    Now, neo-nazis and NAMBLA members get persecuted for their personal opinions all the time. Frankly, I don’t have a problem with that. Those groups often advocate violence and other harmful activities. But just because somebody thinks a particular activity is immoral, doesn’t mean they’d wish harm or violence on a person who engages in that activity. Even now, we live in a society where, if a man like the President says, “I think homosexuality is immoral,” he will be attacked. That is thought police. They are attacking his thoughts. They are telling him that he can only think a certain way. That is the agenda that bothers me.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    On the other hand, if a gay couple holding hands walks by you on the street, its not your business unless they try and clothesline you, a la WWE.

    I swear, if those lesbians clothesline me ONE MORE TIME, I am going to be very cross. ๐Ÿ™‚

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    I absolutely defend the rights of fry cooks to cook fries, irregardless of those darned vegans. I also defend the rights of parents to feed their children.

    Pedophiles and Serial Killers, on the other hand, are doing stuff to the unwilling, so they’re up against other peoples rights, and are properly regulated and imprisoned by the government.

    If two men are engaged in a game of hiding of salami not their own, then that is their business, and I don’t want to know about it.
    But I sure as hell do not intend to stop it. Mark my words, I have no intention of inserting myself in between the two of them.

    Amen. I agree completely. ๐Ÿ™‚

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Hey! Wait a second!!! Yes, you did. You absolutely did say that!

    What you said was: “We intended to kick the crap out of some terrorists.” That’s exactly what you said.

    Right. I said we INTENDED. I didn’t say we succeeded. I think we kinda halfway kicked their asses, though.

    ”Aleck” wrote:

    NAMBLA, the KKK and neo-nazis are hardly in the same category,

    Right, that’s the point. Both gay activists and the KKK would like to be viewed as legitimate by society, but their categories are about as far apart as you can imagine. Just because elements of their agendas are the same, doesn’t mean I can’t support one and condemn the other.

    ”Aleck” wrote:

    unless you’re basing your comparison on the tired old cliche that homosexuality is a choice at best or a psychological abnormality that can (and possibly should) be “cured” at worst.

    I don’t see what this has to do with the discussion, but since you asked, my purely personal opinion is that homosexuality is a recurring genetic mutation, present since birth. Every gay person I’ve ever known has always said they were born gay. All people have a right to refuse medical treatment, and I would never deny them that.

    ”Aleck” wrote:

    Where has it been said that there is a “homosexual agenda” in place that aims to control the individual opinions of every man, woman and child on the planet?

    Oh, I dunno. Lots of places. The gay marriage movement leads me to believe that this is the agenda.

    See, I do believe that “marriage” is first and foremost a religious institution, with a specific definition that we’ve already been through. I’ve already said I’d have no problem with a gay union institution that provides the same rights and benefits as marriage (though I might want to close the financial loopholes for both marriages and unions). But I don’t think it should be called marriage. I believe the gay community specifically does want the word “marriage,” because they are trying to legitimize their behavior. I think it’s more about that, than about the benefits. They want their behavior to be viewed as “normal.” If they achieve legalized gay “marriage,” then they are a step forward towards trying to force society to change its opinions.

    ”Aleck” wrote:

    Then are civil rights organizations amiss in their attempts to counter racist thought, speech and actions?

    What you’re talking about is the basic battle over “whose morality?” There is a constant battle in the US over what is moral, and what is immoral… which is not always the same thing as what you have a right to do, and what you don’t have a right to do.

    When it comes to something like racism or child abuse, it’s easy for all of us to agree. “That’s immoral!” And we feel better. But when it comes to something more controversial, homosexuality or abortion, for example, you get large numbers of people who disagree. These groups naturally fight over whose definition of morality is eventually held to be “true” by the highest secular authority we have; the US government. Which side of the argument is “good” and which side is “evil” largely depends on your point of view. And naturally, attempts by one side to legitimize its case as “true” will be strongly resisted by the opposing side.

    In cases where right and wrong are purely a judgement call, and individual rights are not involved, the government should remain neutral on the subject, with no official opinion. The problem is, that doesn’t stop activists on both sides from trying to force the government to give an opinion. The primary method for doing this has become the court system, using activist judges with loose interpretations of the law to invent new rights not previously existing. This circumvents Congress, and consequently the will of the people. It attempts to force an artificial change in attitudes, instead of allowing attitudes to change naturally over time.

    Just so I am absolutely clear on this, I do believe sodomy is protected under the Right to Privacy. I believe the courts made the right call in that case.

    ”Aleck” wrote:

    (BTW, isn’t it a blatant contradiction to state that one isn’t a fan of “slippery slope” arguments such as those posited by Scalia, and then turn around and state that legal recognition of gay marriage would lead to the legal recognition of polygamy? How is that statement any different from that of Scalia’s?)

    Interesting point! ๐Ÿ™‚ Allow me to turn that around a bit. If the courts recognized a constitutional right to gay marriage, with all the legal benefits regular marriage brings, can you think of any reason why polygamists could not then demand the same right?

    True, I am not normally a fan of slippery slope. But in this case, polygamy only seems one legal step away, to me.

    Before this gets mean, can I at least get someone to admit that I’m playing fair? That I appear to be a reasonable fellow arguing points in a polite, civilized, and rational way? I’ve always liked this site, and I’d hate to get demonized, or pigeon-holed as some kind of wacko.

    in reply to: Political Ravings of Intolerance #68611
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Whooo! Takin’ some heat now! ๐Ÿ™‚

    ”Aleck” wrote:

    Is there, then, an “African-American agenda” to have everyone accept African-Americans as equal members of US society, and since you are against this form of “thought police,” does this mean that you are — or, rather, would have been — against, say, the Civil Rights movement? What of feminism and its aim to have women regarded as the equals of men in society? Is the effort to counter anti-Semitism the “Jewish agenda,” and if so, what would be your stance on that?

    Come on. What of the continuing quests of NAMBLA, the KKK, and neo-nazi groups to be viewed as “legitimate” by the public? You could say that, in broad terms, they have the same agenda as African-Americans, women, and gays, to be viewed as equals in society. It still doesn’t lend any credibility to them. Just because I’m for or against one, doesn’t mean I have to be for or against another. But…

    ”Aleck” wrote:

    If there is *any* group that is discriminated against, are you saying that you are wary of any attempts on their part via activism to reverse the discrimination in question?

    But… I’m not talking about discrimination, or being accepted as equals in society. I’m talking about forcing society to view a certain activity as “normal.” I enforce the law as fairly as I can, regardless of a citizen’s race, gender, or sexual orientation. Just because a citizen should have the same basic rights as as everyone else, does not mean the rest of society should be forced to approve of their behavior. THAT is thought police. Those in power telling the citizens what opinions they are allowed to have.

    ”Aleck” wrote:

    Should any minority facing discrimination just simply sit back and take it? Or are you claiming that “the homosexual agenda” is fundamentally different from these other “agendas?” And if so, on what basis?

    Discrimination against peoples’ rights should be rooted out and destroyed wherever it exists. The thing is, this has largely already been codified into law. Discrimination still exists, and always will. But victims now have a recourse through the legal system. It is ultimately just my own opinion, but I believe gay activists have set their goals beyond simple equal protection under the law. They would like to change the way the world thinks. You wouldn’t like me telling you how to think, would you?

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    You did not kick the crap out of some terrorists.

    Didn’t say we did. Although, I do think we did, to an extent. But terrorists are like Pringles potatoe chips. Crunch all ya want, they’ll make more.

    So, what do you think should be done about terrorism? You can’t negotiate with them. What do you do when faced with a bunch of fanatics who would kill themselves in order to kill you? The argument I keep hearing, is that fighting terrorists simply makes them madder and more likely to come after you. The “don’t stir ’em up” argument. That is essentially a do-nothing mentality. It’s been tried for years, it doesn’t work. Maybe we haven’t found the right tactics for dealing with terrorism yet, but doing nothing is certainly not the answer. We must try.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    The second thing is: Dude what are you talking about? Saudi Arabia gives away a lot bigger portion of its GDP in foreign aid than the US.

    I could give away 90% of my income to foreign aid, and it would still be a lot less than the US. This is the old percentage versus bottom line argument. I said the US is one of the most generous nations, and I stand by that statement. Frankly, I think our government is TOO generous.

    I used to love the UN, now I don’t trust them.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    And these would be the troops that do not directly engage in ground combat, but have been known to bomb the crap out of weddings?

    <gasp> Really? How many weddings? Four or five? More?

    Or could you be refering to a one-time event? Dare I say, an accident?

    Accidents happen. Everyone makes ’em.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Further to that, how much coverage of Afghanistan are you seeing right now at all, in American media?How much do you really know?

    How much do any of us really know, that haven’t actually been there and seen for ourselves? The “war on terrorism” is so politically charged, I don’t really trust anybody’s judgement on what goes on in there, if that person hasn’t been there themselves. And even if they had been, I would seriously consider the source, and take into account the filter through which they view world events. How much do I actually, 100%, KNOW? Same as you. Very little.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Not to put too fine a point on things. But wasn’t the stated reason for going into Afghanistan in the first place was to get Osama Bin Laden? Wasn’t that the demand President Bush made: Hand over Osama or we’ll go and get him ourselves. How come he’s not important any more.

    He’s important. I’m just being realistic. And as with Nazi war criminals, it may take decades to bring him to justice, or we may never know for sure. We’re pretty sure Hitler committed suicide, but we never got hold of his body.

    People that have always been against these actions like to hold Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein over our heads, and say that because we don’t have them yet, everything is a failure. That is not realistic.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Basically, there’s stuff if you keep your eyes open and make a minimal effort to look for it.

    Ever heard, “Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear?” Take a close look and most of the accounts coming out of the “war on terror,” from either side, and you will almost always find someone with an axe to grind. Ulterior motives.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Same as before, but worse.

    Once again, I’d rather try than do nothing.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Not so. That, I believe is still under discussion. This was the 2003 United States fiscal budget,

    I’ll have to plead ignorance on this one. I am simply not familiar with what you’re talking about.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Canada has 7500 troops in Afghanistan the last time I looked. So far Canada’s major casualties have come when American fighter pilots hopped up on amphetamines opened fire on them. Not that I’m pointing fingers.

    Oh, I’m sure you would NEVER point fingers. ๐Ÿ™‚ Friendly fire? Does that actually happen? Wow. The amphetamine thing sounds doofy, though.

    As for Canada and others, the more the merrier, I say.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Actually, no its not. The Governments job is paving the roads, building and maintaining bridges, keeping schools, libaries, childrens wading pools, and hospitals going, national defence, making sure that people don’t commit crimes, ensuring a level playing field, national defence and things like that.

    Granted, there are certainly aspects of peoples lives that the government should not regulate or define. But there are also many aspects that are regulated and defined. That’s what laws do, regulate and define. You cannot kill, killing is wrong. Regulated, defined. You can not defraud me of my life savings, fraud is wrong. Regulated, defined. Etc.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    The Governments job is not to tell me what I should read, to come into my bedroom, to decide what I should do for a living

    Well, it can limit your choices. Freelance hired assassin, for example, is out. ๐Ÿ™‚

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    or what opinions I should hold.

    I particularly agree with this one, and would direct readers back to the discussion on the homosexual agenda.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    With all due respect, you set priorities in life cause there isn’t enough time or enough resources to take care of everything.

    Of course. But we don’t always do the most important things all the time. It’s impossible. Sometimes the timing isn’t right, and sometimes it’s simply because we’re human. Are you suggesting I stop writing traffic tickets altogether, because traffic infractions aren’t important enough? When you have a job, your job has important parts, and less important parts. But you can’t just perform the important parts. Sometimes you can skip less important things, sometimes you can’t. Sometimes you don’t want to. That’s life. Often mundane.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Ashcroft has chosen to spend $40,000 to have the bare breasts of statues of Justice covered up, and he’s invested a huge amount of time and money in an undercover operation to bust 11 hookers in New Orleans. He’s clamped down hard on medical marijuana, and he’s sent Tommy Chong to jail for six months for selling bongs. That tells you where his priorities are.

    Don’t get me started on the “war on drugs” or other vice-enforcement. You and I would likely be in agreement on most of these. But Ashcroft does not make the laws, he enforces them. That’s his job. Big laws, and little laws, he’s supposed to enforce them all. The breast thing was just silly, though.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Are these good priorities. Maybe. Maybe not. But given priorities like that, you should stop wondering why 9/11 happened.

    I don’t wonder why 9/11 happened. I wonder why it hasn’t happened again. The terrorists’ plan was low-tech and easy, I see no reason why it couldn’t be pulled off again, no matter what measures are taken.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    If that’s all they want, then why is everyone getting so upset…

    Something about deciding “what opinions I should hold.”

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    I would expect that homosexuality is normal behaviour for homosexuals. That’s the point, isn’t it. If it wasn’t normal behaviour for homosexuals, then they wouldn’t be called that. They’d be called ‘thinkingaboutitsexuals’ or something bizarre like that.

    Yes, yes. And cooking fries is normal behavior for a fry cook, feeding children is normal behavior for a parent, and murdering people is normal behavior for a serial killer. From that view, ALL behavior is “normal” behavior. I think you know that I’m refering to “normal” as it pertains to the “norms” of society. Homosexual behavior is still not considered “normal.” At least not by society in the US. They’re trying hard, but they’re not there yet.

    in reply to: these question that i have #68597
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    I don’t remember the episode, but I remember Kai talking about the nature of the key. Kai said that the orginial key was intended to be transfered at the point of death, as that is how one Divine Shadow would transfer it to another. Therefore, I think the original key to the Lexx works basically the same as the Heretics’ key.

    When the last Divine Shadow removed his still-living brain, the key would logically either stay with the brain or the body. I think it’s more likely it stayed with the brain, since HDS removed his brain specifically so, if his body was destroyed, all would not be lost. However, we did not see the key when Kai crushed HDS’s brain.

    Although, as we saw, part of HDS’s brain was still alive when Yottskry picked it up and got a face full of essence. So maybe part of Yottskry’s brain was still alive, and the key passed to him, which was then consumed by the Giga Shadow.

    Or maybe the key remained in the piece of HDS brain, until it finally completely died, and no-one was around to receive the key?

    Or maybe the key WAS in HDS’s body, and when Kai killed that body, the key joined its copy in Stan. This is probably the most plausible scenario. All that essence was whirling around, so in the confusion, the key might have entered Stan.

    Of course, in reality, you just KNOW the Beans simply forgot about it.

    in reply to: Political Ravings of Intolerance #68596
    sgtdraino
    Participant
    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Just a point or two.?

    See, this is why I tend to steer clear of politics. I’ve always thought Valdron was a really cool guy. And I still do. But now that I know what his politics are, I can’t see him in quite the same light as before. All that stuff can get in the way of a good time.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    We didn’t do the Afghan people any favours. Yes. The Taliban were bad. And yes, it was good to get rid of them. But after that, things get complicated.

    We didn’t intend to do the Afghan people any favors (or favours, if you’re British or something ๐Ÿ™‚ ). We intended to kick the crap out of some terrorists. If we can help out Afghanistan in the process, that’s great, but it’s not priority one. A country’s policies will always put itself first. When it comes to foreign aid, the United States still continues to be one of the most generous countries in the world.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    They were so bad, that the people of Afghanistan turned to the Taliban as their saviours.

    Guess what. These are the people we put back into power in Afghanistan.

    That’s right. As impossible as it is, we actually found someone worse than the Taliban, and handed Afghanistan over to them.

    I think we can agree that both groups were horrible. I don’t know that Afghanistan has been “handed over” to such a group, though. I haven’t heard of any atrocities being committed there lately, and certainly not by its government. Surely the press would report such things? We’ve still got troops in there, and I haven’t heard them reporting any horror stories.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    It gets worse. The Taliban is not gone. Neither Mullah Omar nor Osama Bin Laden were ever captured.

    Sometimes I can’t find a fugitive in our small town. It doesn’t surprise me that neither of those guys has been located in an entire country. It would be nice if we could get ’em, but it’s not essential, and even if we did, the power vacuum would simply be filled by someone else. We can only try to route out as much of the organization as we can.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Most of the Taliban command is intact, and there’s every indication that they still control or can attack substantial parts of the country. The United States has even begun to negotiate covertly with them.

    The central government is such a joke that it used to be said that its authority extended no further than the city fo Kabul. Now, at best, its a few office buildings in Kabul.

    Do you live in Afghanistan? Do you have access to intelligence information? Where is this information coming from? I’m betting it comes from “they.”

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Meanwhile, thanks to the warlords, Heroin production, which was eventually banned by the Taliban, is back in full flower. Afghanistan is now, far and away, the worlds leading producer of heroin.

    Prohibition has never, ever, worked. Only regulation can put these people out of business.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    But apart from heroin production, the economy is practically defunct, the country suffers from drought and famine, and the only thing holding the country together are international aid organizations…. who are under increasing attack from the Taliban and the Warlords.

    So, basically the same as before, eh?

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    For its part, America has largely forgotten about Afghanistan. In his budget to congress, Bush didn’t even include any reconstruction aid. This was corrected by congress.

    If you’re talking about the budget figures requested by congress, to my recollection, they were specifically requesting figures on the occupation of Iraq.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Oddly, most of that aid never reaches Afghanistan, but is going into the pockets of American firms..

    I agree, there is a lot of loose money flowing around, and a lot of back-scratching in all levels of government, on all sides. Not just in regards to Afghanistan, but everything else too. I wish there was something we could do about it, but it’s nothing I can see a solution to in the short term.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    In military/security terms, the country is a mess, with both Warlords and the Taliban running at large.

    Hey, anybody that wants to send some troops in to help out, I’m sure you’re more than welcome. At least the US is trying to do something. If matters were left to the UN, nothing would ever be done about anything. It’s easy to armchair quarterback.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    On the subject of gay rights and gay marriage, I would agree with most of the posters here that Bush is fully out to lunch.

    Actually, right now (2:30 AM by my watch) he’s probably asleep. ๐Ÿ™‚

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Frankly, people are entitled to hold whatever religious beliefs please them.

    They are not entitled to impose those religious beliefs on others,

    I think President Bush would agree with all that. I don’t feel like he’s imposed any beliefs on me. I believe what I believe, no matter what he says. And just because he’s President, doesn’t mean he gives up his own religion. If Joe Lieberman became President, would he stop being Jewish?

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    or to regulate or define how people should live their lives.

    Uh, that’s what people in government do. It’s their job.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    Mr. Bush’s interest in this matter strikes me as hugely questionable, given that there are so much more important things for him to deal with.

    Ah, come on. That sounds like drivers I give a ticket to, who ask me if there isn’t something more important I should be doing. There are always more important things to do. It doesn’t mean we should lose interest in the little things too.

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    And what on God’s green Earth

    Which God? ๐Ÿ™‚

    ”Valdron” wrote:

    is a homosexual agenda, anyway?

    Well, THE homosexual agenda is simply to get everyone to accept homosexuality as normal behavior. I think gay activists would agree that this is their ultimate goal.

    in reply to: Political Ravings of Intolerance #68592
    sgtdraino
    Participant
    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    Sgt draino, I didn’t say that no intelligent people were religious,

    Bang!… splash! First shot over the bow, eh? ๐Ÿ™‚

    What you said was:

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    I use my brain to decide what is moral rather than simply accepting self-contradictory BS

    Refering to religion. By that statement, I took you to mean that you believe religious people do not use their brains, and instead accept self-contradictory BS. Did I misunderstand?

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    I said that religion is a load of self-contradictory BS. I do in fact know at least one very intelligent person who is Christian,

    So, this is a very intelligent person who accepts a load of self-contradictory BS?

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    but I think that within organised religion, there does come a certain point at which one is programmed to shut your brain off and respond with the ethical equivilent of an ansaphone message – “You must have faith”.

    Certainly faith is a cornerstone in all religions. Of course, you would surely admit that no belief system, religious or secular, can explain everything. Sometimes the answer to a question is simply not known. It doesn’t mean the answer does not exist.

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    though she is intelligent, well-informed and largely very open-minded, there comes a certain point beyond which she always becomes unwilling to debate, and the ansaphone message comes on.

    I think we’re all like that. It doesn’t sound like either of you have a chance of changing the other’s mind, so after a point, doesn’t the effort of debate become pointless? Why keep banging your head into a brick wall. I sometimes get that way with my father.

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    I attended a repressively Christian school as a child,

    Why did you do that? ๐Ÿ™‚ I guess your parents forced you. That’s too bad. Repressively Christian?

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    believe that orgainsied religion exists as a aeries of memes that suppress these processes in favour of creating a mental climate in which they flourish.

    So, you’re saying that religion suppresses human intelligence and the ability to think for ourselves? Hmmm. Maybe some forms of religion do, and maybe some people misuse religion for that purpose, but I think you’re painting with a pretty broad brush.

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    The results of this can be witnessed in history – think the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Burnings, the long-ranging and socially-acceptaed torture of women. Therefore, I think that using these memes as the basis of justice in a democratic judicial system is stupid,

    I think you’re confusing religion with evil people who have misused religion to do evil things… just as evil people will misuse anything else to do evil. Just because somebody uses a belief system in order to accomplish something evil, doesn’t mean the belief system is itself evil, or unjust. Anything can be corrupted or perverted.

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    especially compared to using secular principles widely agreed on by highly educated people of many schools of thought. These are always up for review, and people have the right to protest etc, and thus give their input, they do not descend from the sky engraved on tablets of stone.

    I have studied philosophy. There are many different schools of philosophy, with beliefs going back a century or more. They often disagree, and each, you will find, tends to view its ideals as engraved in stone.

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    By the way, you may not mean it to, but your post does come over as having some rather homophobic overtones.

    How so? If I did disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle, would that make me a homophobe?

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    Why exactly would homosexual relationships be easier to fake for tax breaks etc than heterosexual ones?

    Simple. With the current definition of marriage, it would specifically take a man conspiring with a woman to get together purely to get government benefits. If the definition was extended to include gay marriage, then any combination of man-man, woman-woman, man-woman, any two people could get together for government benefits, whether there’s any real love there or not.

    And if gay marriage becomes lawful and constitutional, then that also opens the door for polygamy. Then ANY NUMBER of people can get together purely as a loophole to get government benefits. Heck, the whole country can “get married,” and ta-da! Government benefits.

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    And your implication that homosexuality is on a par with paedophilia is disturbing.

    I implied no such thing. I was attempting to explain Justice Scalia’s reasoning behind his opinion. And even that was not that homosexuality is on a par with pedophilia. It was that giving sexual acts protection under the right to privacy, may lead to unintended consequences. And once again, that is Scalia’s opinion, not mine.

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    And your slippery slope theory is illogical.

    Not mine, Scalia’s. I’m not a big believer in “slippery slope.” Either a particular law is a good idea, or it isn’t. Case-by-case basis.

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    Are you taking the line that sex should be conducted principally for reproductive purposes or it is verging on immoral?.

    That is a judgement call between you and your belief system. Of course we each have our own opinions about the morality or immorality of various sex acts. We’d probably all agree about the immorality of pedophilia. But where adults are concerned, I would not want those opinions codified into law. In short, my opinion on sex is my own business, and not relevant to this discussion.

    ShadowedVenus wrote:

    I certainly do not engage in it for that – quite the opposite in fact, pregnancy would be a disaster for me.

    Yet you take that conscious risk each time you engage in it. You take the risk, but would you accept the consequences?

    I’m not saying I wouldn’t take the same risk. I’m just curious about your reasoning.

    Fatguy wrote:

    Re sgtdraino: I read the whole thing.

    Thanks, and congratulations. I still think your avatar is creepy, though. ๐Ÿ™‚ Why is that?

    Fatguy wrote:

    Your post seems to me to be nothing more than the frustration of someone who feels helpless to do anything significant about the issues he/she feels are important in life.

    lol. That’s pretty much all of us, isn’t it? We can all say and argue what we want, but the impact on society as a whole is most likely nil.

    Fatguy wrote:

    What you have done with your post is to simply present your views in a much smaller venue (i.e. Sadgeezer.com),

    I dunno, I think of this as a larger venue. A Google search would probably connect my username to this site, and thus any enemy of mine who wanted to use my words against me would have opportunity to find some ammunition here. For those reasons, I almost NEVER talk politics on the internet. Consider yourselves lucky to hear this much out of me… uh… I guess. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Fatguy wrote:

    so that your opinions will have more weight among this smaller group and thus alleviate some of the frustration and helplessness in your life

    lol. Since, in my experience, the vast majority of sadgeezer.com members are left-leaning, I doubt my opinions carry much weight here. I was simply attracted to the post, as politics do interest me, and for some reason I felt like weighing in on it all.

    No, to be completely accurate, I’m one of those people who doesn’t like to rock the boat, whether it be on the internet or in real life. Quite honestly, I fear being persecuted for my beliefs. That something I say could come back to bite me in the arse someday, and hurt my career and/or life. Ergo I mostly keep my political ramblings to myself. At least I don’t volunteer them. If asked a question outright, though, I do answer honestly.

    Fatguy wrote:

    You wrote: “You do need to realize, however, that philosophy, humanitarianism, and ethics are simply other, secular forms of religion. They just don’t ascribe their origin to a higher power. Making them fundamental to governance is no better than making Christianity, Buddhism. or Satanism fundamental to governance.” You are wrong…..they are not. A religion attempts to explain away that which we can not explain with the mental tools we have available (faith).

    Well, perhaps I was not completely accurate. To be more accurate, religion, philosophy, humanitarianism, and ethics are all belief systems, and the government should not favor any specific one over another. I would also add that religion is the only one of those things that CAN explain away that which we cannot… since the others are, by definition, secular.

    Fatguy wrote:

    The fields of Philosophy, for example, are simply mental tools for a practical purpose in our daily lives; they describe relations between things, but not the things themselves…..

    Philosophies do try to describe some things, such as the nature of humanity. And each philosphy tends to base itself on certain principles it holds to be true, just like all other belief systems.

    Fatguy wrote:

    Why religion in government? Perhaps because humans are fearful creatures who would feel less in control of their fate if their governance was not tied to a religion of some kind.

    Perhaps humans believe that without religion, there is ultimately no good or evil, no right or wrong, and thus no authority for the government to make laws about anything.

    What makes something good or evil? Is it because I say so? Of course not. What if a million people say so? Still not enough. Okay, how about the entire poplulation of the earth? Everyone somehow being unanimous? Sound good?

    Okay, what if aliens from another planet, a planet three times the population of earth, decide that it’s morally right to kill and eat all of us? Is that right?

    No? How come?

    Because ultimately, good and evil transcends the opinions of any number of people. Secular belief systems, in the end, still just boil down to the opinions of a bunch of people.

    Fatguy wrote:

    It looks like the “Right” is about to unite; and it looks like Mike Harris (former Premier of Ontario) may lead this union into the next election.

    Wow. A right-leaning Canadian. I didn’t know such a thing existed. ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: Computer problem – help! #68587
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Hey dude.

    I’m a novice when it comes to the working of computers, but my brother’s your basic computer Yoda. I directed him to your post. Here’s what he said:

    one line of his post is a tad confusing
    but if he needs to use a proxy for web access
    he probably needs to do so for ftp or anything else
    I don’t understand why his isp would be using a proxy
    depends on what he means by proxy
    if he’s going to a url
    where he then types in another url
    that’s one thing
    or you go into your internet options
    and setup for proxy
    hard to diagnose
    it sounds more like a problem with his isp
    if he can ping and ftp to other sites
    and it’s just a specific site
    if you can ftp and access via web other sites on the internet the problem is most likely not with your pc
    in other words if he has all the functionality to other places, he should have it to sadgeezer too
    unless he has some kind of firewall setup
    his host could also be filtering him on their side
    he could also try install a new email client/browser to try (mozilla)

    This help any?

    in reply to: Political Ravings of Intolerance #68513
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Okay, this may not be wise, I’m putting my nose into this. This is my first Pub post, so try to take it easy on me, eh guys? ๐Ÿ™‚

    First, a little about myself.

    I am not a Republican, but I do tend to lean conservative (and am thus in a minority on sadgeezer.com). I believe in taking personal responsibility, and that government should be dedicated to protecting its citizens from others… but NOT from themselves.

    i.e. The goverment’s job is to safeguard you from being harmed by other people. Its job should NOT be to safeguard you from harming yourself.

    The statement above forms the basis for most of my political beliefs. As a general rule, I favor the least amount of intrusion possible, to maintain the orderly running of our society.

    Lexxlurker, you say you are a Republican. With respect, that is not the case. Words have meaning that are not defined by you, or even by a particular dictionary, but by society as whole. It is misleading to identify yourself as “Republican,” when your definition of “Republican” is not one commonly used by society.

    Like it or not, “Republican” is a political word, which defines a member of the Republican Party, or at least a person who tends toward conservative philosophies. You are what you eventually stated yourself to be: a left-leaning Independant.

    I am a right-leaning Independant. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Similarly, “marriage” is a word that has a meaning defined by society as a whole. Not by you, a dictionary, or any particular activist group. I would argue that our society as a whole still view marrage to be a strictly heterosexual union. Trying to use the courts to artifically alter that definition will merely cause strife.

    I had an uncle who was gay, and who was eventually killed by AIDS, so I am not unsympathetic to the gay community. I fall back on my basic rule: Homosexual activity does not involve people harming other people, and the government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves. Therefore, there should be no laws prohibiting homosexual behavior.

    However, I am constantly aware that there is an enormous effort by gay activists, via courts and the media, to force society to view homosexual activity as “normal.” This effort makes me uncomfortable. I don’t mind a principled argument laid out for me, but it bothers me when powerful forces try to tell me how to think. Thought Police, anyone?

    I am in favor of monogamous homosexual unions, which promote public health, but I think it needs a different name. Such a union simply does not fall under the definition of “marriage,” in our present society.

    I also understand that legal marriage can provide certain legal financial benefits, such as tax breaks. I am uneasy with attaching the same legal financial benifits to a union between members of the same sex, because it then becomes too easy to scam the government with fraudulent homosexual unions. I would sooner do away with the financial benefits for marriage, than expand them to include homosexual unions. As for hospital visitation benefits, I have no problem with that.

    You said Bush implied that gays were sinners. Can I have some quoted text here, please? “Implied” means that you read something into what Bush said, that he didn’t specifically say. You may have a point, you may not. Need more information. I would note that we are ALL sinners, though.

    In any event, Bush is certainly entitled to his opinion, just like the rest of us. We won’t always agree with each other. That’s life. Since when did a President’s religious faith dictate law? Well, as far as I know, not now, not ever. The President is part of the Executive Branch. Congress is the only body that is supposed to dictate laws. What laws did the President’s remarks dictate?

    You speak of tolerance, a need to learn that people from all walks of life, flavor and colors should be taken as individuals. Well, yes and no. There are certain behaviors and lifestyles that are, simply, immoral. Murder is immoral. Child abuse is immoral. And there are certain actions that are immoral, but are not against the law. Bush obviously believes homosexuality is immoral. You obviously do not believe it’s immoral. But neither one of you (I hope) is going to go out and harm people because of your belief. THAT is what tolerance is.

    For the record, I am not a big Bush fan, but I would sooner have him in office than ANY Democrat. I feel certain a Democrat would expand government even more than Bush has (and he has expanded it A LOT). Democrats also have a greater tendency to get government into the business of trying to protect us from ourselves, something I feel government has no business doing.

    We have way too many laws today, and many of them are redundant. Too many laws are cranked out by politicians for political gain, and too many laws are effectively created by our courts, in broad and over-reaching opinions. I used to have great respect for judges, but now I see that they are simply lawyers with black robes on. ๐Ÿ™‚ Think about it. Compare life in the US to a board game, where our laws are the rules of the game. At some point, shouldn’t that rule book be complete? Why is it that we continually seem to need more and more laws, every year? After almost 230 years, shouldn’t they have everything pretty much covered by now?

    The answer, I feel, is two-fold. Firstly, to stay in office, politicians feel the need to show that they’re doing something. Well, really the only job politicians have, is to make new laws. So that’s what we get, whether we need ’em or not.

    Secondly, THE most powerful lobby in the United States is the American Bar Association. And the vast majority of politicians in this country are lawyers. The business of all these people is litigation, and litigation is founded upon laws. The more laws there are, the more business opportunities there are for the lawyers. The fox is in the henhouse. This is a tremendous conflict of interest, and I see no way to resolve it. If I could wave a magic wand, I would set laws back to the basics. The basics of protecting people from harm by other people. Unfortunately, magic wands are in short supply. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Aleck, I believe the point Justice Scalia was trying to make, was that decriminalizing sodomy is a step towards decriminalizing ALL forms of sexual behavior, as a matter of right to privacy. At a time when groups like NAMBLA have their own agenda, and minors are engaging in sexual activity at younger and younger ages, it begins to form a gray area in regards to what sexual activity should be regulated. I’m not sure I agree with Scalia’s point, but I recognize that it does have a certain kind of logic.

    As for attempts to legislate morality, this happens all the time on the right and the left, and does not always indicate a breakdown in the barrier between church and state. The concept of hate crimes is a perfect example. For every hate crime, there were already laws in place prohibiting it. But politicians felt the need to create “hate crime” laws for crimes dealing with hatred. Racism-related crimes, for example. But such crimes were already illegal even without the factor of racism. Again, this is simply legislating political morality. And I agree, it isn’t a good idea.

    Logan, it continually amazes me that people on left hate Bush with as much vitriol as they do. A deep-seated personal hatred, too. They hate the MAN, not just what he stands for. He’s not even that conservative. I can only try to compare it to the way I feel about Clinton. I admit, I hated Clinton. I felt he was a man with no moral fiber at all, who would do almost anything to remain in power. I think that’s the way folks on the left feel about Bush. The truth, in regards to both men, is probably a lot more mundane than the way we feel. In spite of what their opponents say, both are smart men (or they would never have gotten as far as they did), both are moderates (or they couldn’t have gotten elected), and both compromise with their opponents (or they wouldn’t have accomplished anything).

    You say religion and politics shouldn’t mix. I’m not sure I agree. I’m not sure it’s even possible to keep them apart. ๐Ÿ™‚ I’m glad you said that the Separation of Church and State SHOULD be a tenet in the constitution, and not that it IS. Most people don’t seem to realize that Separation of Church and State is NOT in the constitution, but something that has been gradually created by court opinions over the years. I am strongly against the practice of legislating from the bench, but as a general rule I do support the idea of separation.

    You do need to realize, however, that philosophy, humanitarianism, and ethics are simply other, secular forms of religion. They just don’t ascribe their origin to a higher power. Making them fundamental to governance is no better than making Christianity, Buddhism, or Satanism fundamental to governance.

    Our constitution forbids the government from establishing an official religion, and ensures that citizens have a right to practice whatever religion they choose. That’s all. Removing all references to God from our government goes way beyond what the constitution says, or intended. Realize that even Atheism is a religion. To remove all references to God from our government, would be establishing Atheism as the official religion. Personally, I’m pretty happy with the way things are now; the government acknowledges the non-denominational existence of God, and allows the citizens to practice as they wish.

    Back to LexxLurker’s second post. Don’t have much to say, except that I think you’re reading a lot more into the President than is actually there. I don’t know what you mean about the President extending beliefs to the citizens. How do you feel Bush has trumped democracy? Taking a month off work? Not likely. The President is ALWAYS on the job. Personally, it’s not a job I would want. And I don’t even want to get into campaign fund raising. I think all candidates are equally guilty when it comes to this. It’s just that some are more effective at it than others.

    About Gray Davis. LexxLurker, can you confirm or deny this? I have heard that Davis recently signed a bill into law that gives illegal aliens drivers licenses. I then later heard that a drivers license is the primary identification people use in California when registering to vote, and voting. Thus Davis just granted our precious right to vote to all the illegal aliens residing in California. Is this true? If so, it’s just about the most outrageous thing I can think of. And to think that so many Californians are now thinking about NOT kicking his butt out, or putting his lieutenant into office instead. Guys, you’re cutting your own throats.

    Aleck, on the recall. Your post is probably just out of date as of this writing, but the guy that spearheaded the recall campaign is not running anymore. But even if he was, so what? Of course the recall campaign was spearheaded by a chief opponent of Davis. Who else would spearhead it?

    The law allowing the recall was created by Democrats. Personally, I like it. I wish we could have some form of recall law for the other political offices in this country. I think it takes power away from the political parties, and puts it back in the hands of the people. Bill Maher’s statement is not a good comparison, as all citizens of California are on the same “team.” Davis is not governor of the Democrats, he is governor of California. Recalls are always led by opponents, otherwise they would never happen. Everyone has a personal agenda.

    Lizard, the popular vote in that election was, and continues to be, too close to call. As Florida and other states demonstrated, the vote counting process is never perfect, and there were likely errors in every single state. There is no way anyone can ever be sure of who actually won the popular vote.

    What DID happen in Florida, was that Gore attempted to win the recount by scewing results. He did this by ordering recounts only in counties that had high percentages of registered Democrats. This way, any additional votes that were discovered, were much more likely to be votes for Gore than for Bush. The United States Supreme Court did the right thing by realizing that this violated equal protection under the law, because it gave greater attention to the votes of citizens who live only in certain counties. People on the left like to argue that Bush “stole the election.” In my view, it was Gore who attempted this, via the tactics described above.

    Regardless of any of this, as you have noted, popular vote is not what elects the President. It is the Electoral College that does this. Like you, I once despised the idea of the Electoral College, and found it impossible to rationalize its existence. I now have a greater understanding. The United States is largely made up of 50 smaller economies; the states. If the Presidential election relied solely upon one man-one vote, then states with large populations, like California, would have an inordinate amount of power over deciding the election. As such, candidates and elected officials could spend the bulk of their time campaigning and pandering to only the country’s largest states, and ignore the rest of us. The Electoral College presents a compromise. States get a certain number of points based on their number of Congressmen and Senators. The number of Congressmen is based on a state’s population, whereas the number of Senators is the same for every state. Thus balance is achieved between one-man-one-vote and keeping the balance of power equal between the 50 states.

    As for Republicans employing underhanded methods, Democrats do the same sh*t. All the major political parties do. I personally believe the Democrats are more underhanded, via unions, and giving illegal aliens drivers licenses, but maybe that’s my own bias. I to would like to see reforms that give third party candidates more exposure, though I didn’t agree much with Nader’s platform.

    Fluffy Bunny, anything to get into office whatever the cost? I don’t think you truly believe that. That is hyperbole. To an extent, I believe the same thing about Bill and Hillary Clinton. I’m sure our feelings are fueled by the way we see the world. For what it’s worth, I’d trust you before I’d trust Bill, Hillary, OR Bush.

    Jennicide, indeed there IS a hierarchy of rights, and they butt heads all the time. Some supercede others, and as always, rights CAN be taken away. The caveat is that they can’t be taken away without DUE PROCESS of law.

    ShadowedVenus, there are many smart people out there who are religious. I don’t have a problem with religion being taught in schools, as long as the classes are optional, or the teaching is done in private schools.

    When has the US defined itself as a Christian country? There are certainly people in the US who claim that, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard the government make such a proclaimation.

    Of course, strictly in terms of numbers, it is quite clear that Christians make up the biggest slice of the pie in America. If this is what you’re refering to… well… the numbers speak for themselves, I guess.

    Wow. Probably the most huge post I’ve ever made. Lessee if anybody actually reads the whole thing. ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: "The Girl Who Was Death": Allegory of an Allegory #68399
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Yes, you’re quite right, Pet. Dunno why I kept calling her Nadia.

    No. 241

    in reply to: Was "Peter Smith" an alias, or Number Six’s real n #68370
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    First off, by “I have to make two important calls,” he meant in person. Not phone calls.

    Second, my personal impression was that it was something much more important than hunting down the romanies. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Remember, Number Six is even afraid that the police are looking for him. He would probably try to minimize his time spent out in the open.

    Sure wish I had access to a full original script of “Many Happy Returns!”

    No. 241

    in reply to: Who did you think would be Number 1? #68361
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    I know I’ve said I like to concentrate on the literal, but allow me to wax philosophical for a moment.

    I think I know who Number One is.

    People often remark at how much of himself Patrick McGoohan put into the characters of John Drake and Number Six. This is certainly the case, yet Number Six (and John Drake) are not Patrick McGoohan. Not quite. There are certain important differences between the character and the man.

    If Number Six is John Drake…

    Then Number One…

    Is Patrick McGoohan.

    Number Six never gave up trying to escape, never stopped believing it was possible.

    Patrick McGoohan believes escape is impossible.

    Number Six, while adept at mind games, prefers revolt that is “good and honest.”

    Patrick McGoohan wants questions, arguments, discussions, and fists waving in his face. In short, he enjoyed messing with our heads. Particularly with Fall Out.

    The weight of evidence seems to suggest that Number Six is a continuation of John Drake from Danger Man.

    Patrick McGoohan will probably go to his grave before admitting any such thing. Partly because of money, but mostly (I suspect) because of pride.

    Who was the all-powerful force controlling events in The Prisoner? Well, clearly it was Patrick McGoohan. He possessed nearly ultimate power of control over the show, and wholely controlled the manner at which it came to an end, in Fall Out.

    Patrick McGoohan is Number One. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Don’t get me wrong. I have the greatest respect for the man and his work. Without him, there would have been no Danger Man or Prisoner. It would be a great honor to meet him someday.

    But let’s not kid ourselves either. He has a reputation of being difficult, and at times the first class a**hole.

    Or should I say the Number One a**hole. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Thoughts? Questions? Arguments? Discussions?

    Fists waving in my face? ๐Ÿ™‚

    No. 241

    PS – Is it just me, or is Fatguy’s picture kinda creepy? I’m not sure why, but it gives me the jibblies.

    in reply to: Are John Drake and Number Six the same character? #68360
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Perhaps I didn’t phrase the question clearly enough?

    I’m not asking if they’re the same SORT of character, or if they’re both based on the same character. I’m asking if you believe they literally are the same guy, in the same literary universe.

    I almost asked if they were the same person. But I just know I would have gotten a bunch of folks saying, “of course they are! They’re both Patrick McGoohan!”

    in reply to: My PMcG/Prisoner site officially open! #68310
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    D’ooooooh!!!

    You know we do not tolerate failure here, Number Five. ๐Ÿ™‚

    No. 241

    in reply to: Are John Drake and Number Six the same character? #68309
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    I wonder if Ralph Smart ever offered an opinion on the whole John Drake/Number Six debate.

    I just finished watching Danger Man (series 1) a couple of days ago. Hurray for DVD! Now I’ve got the whole enchalata: Danger Man, Secret Agent, The Prisoner.

    Yes, Drake and/or Number Six drove different cars and had different residences in each incarnation of the show:

    As mentioned earlier, in series 1, he’s supposedly American, works for NATO, lives in… eh… I forget, somewhere in the US, and drives a left-hand-drive convertible roadster of some type I haven’t figured out yet.

    In all of the later Danger Man series, Drake is British, works for M9, lives in (I think) London, and drives a Mini Cooper.

    And in The Prisoner, Number Six is still British, works for a vague sort of espionage entity, lives at 1 Buckingham Place (London), and drives a Lotus 7.

    How do I reconcile these differences? Just as you said. People change with time. From the start of Danger Man to the end of The Prisoner, we’re talking a real-world time span of at least 7 years. In the reel world of Drake and Number Six, I figure at least that much time passes as well. The changes in his residence, his job, and his car, simply reflect changes in his career and his life.

    Incidentally, in one episode of Series 1 Danger Man, I was amazed to finally see Drake actually use a gun to shoot and kill someone. Granted he had no other choice in the situation, but it was still a surprise. To the best of my recollection, I don’t think I ever saw that happen again until Fall Out.

    in reply to: My PMcG/Prisoner site officially open! #68303
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Okay, gets stranger and stranger.

    Logged out and back in again, went to the submit media page, and now the “Select Category” pull-down menu does not even list The Prisoner at all!

    I still had the other window up where I had been uploading images earlier, which still had “The Prisoner” in the “Select Category” box. Tried uploading an image, same error message.

    No. 241

    in reply to: My PMcG/Prisoner site officially open! #68299
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Just tried to upload again, still failed, same message. Will now try logging out and back in again.

    btw, I suddenly notice that under the “select category” option, there are now TWO choices for “The Prisoner.” I’m almost certain that wasn’t the case earlier. Could this be causing the error?

    Also btw, my AIM is sgtdraino.

    Now logging out and in…

    in reply to: My PMcG/Prisoner site officially open! #68292
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Been uploading image files as instructed, just ran into a problem:

    “Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in /home/sadgeez/public_html/html/modules/My_eGallery/public/uploadFile.php on line 92”

    Suddenly can’t upload any more files. Keep getting this message. Suggestions?

    No. 241

    in reply to: Who did you think would be Number 1? #68282
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    I, too, originally thought the Butler would turn out to be No. 1. Especially after the episode “Hammer Into Anvil,” when No. 2 screams at the Butler and raises his hand to strike him, but the butler just stands there and stares at No. 2 with this incredibly blank, uncaring expression on his face. As if No. 2 was nothing to him.

    I take the minority position in that I am most interested in analyzing The Prisoner in purely literal terms, and not allegorical. i.e. I am most interested in figuring out what “really” happened. As such, I DON’T believe that No. 1 was really No. 6, no matter what McGoohan says. In fact, I believe it is possible (though not certain) that there never was any real personification of No. 1.

    Spoilers follow…

    Obviously No. 1 and No. 6 cannot be the same person, since they are shown to be two separate people in Fall Out. Granted, they look alike, but they are still separate people. Unless No. 6’s encounter with No. 1 is a complete hallucination. But that would still rather mean that No. 6 is simply insane, not that he is No. 1. No. 6 was a prisoner in the Village, which existed before he arrived or even knew about it. Obviously he is not the one giving the orders.

    As for the literal events of Fall Out, I think the most likely scenario is that the Village created another clone or look-alike of No. 6, and used this copy in one last attempt to break his spirit.

    in reply to: Favourite Prisoner Episode #68281
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Without a doubt, “Many Happy Returns.”

    We get it all:

    He finally ACTUALLY escapes, even if only for a little while.
    He gets to go home.
    He gets his car back.
    He goes back to work.
    He gets to have another go at George Markstein.
    He apparently learns the actual location of the village.
    We apparently learn which side really runs the village.

    in reply to: ROVER #68280
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    I’ve always felt that Rover was a genetically modified enlarged white blood cell.

    in reply to: What’s Your Number? #68278
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    I’ll take No. 241.

    It happens to be one of the few shots of a private residence in the village (241, private), for which we never see the actual villager himself. It also happens to be the first three digits of my REAL number as a unit of society.

    in reply to: My PMcG/Prisoner site officially open! #68277
    sgtdraino
    Participant
    pet wrote:

    Hey, thanks for dropping by! There’s not much on the Prisoner yet, it’s mostly McGoohan’s overall career. Wish I had more time. I’m trying to flesh-out the Danger Man sections right now.

    Did you Know Logan is heading up the new Sad Guide for the Prisoner here? I donated a character list of all the numbers I could find on the show and in the books and unused scripts, since he hasn’t had much other help yet, he could surely use pics to match! Would you be interested in donating to the guide?

    I put a limited number of pics in the downloads area, but it’s not nearly enough yet. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Pet;D

    Happy to help out. Eeeh, just tell me where and how. ๐Ÿ™‚ btw, REALLY impressed with your site. Good stuff.

    Logan wrote:

    Welcome to this forum’s Community SgtDraino, what’s your number BTW? Everybody has a number here. ๐Ÿ˜‰ I thank Pet for mentioning the Guide, and I hope you will submit some stuff here. Any help/input would be much appreciated!

    Thanks! Eh, I had a Sadgeezer number a long time ago, but it looks like all the numbers are gone now that he’s redone the site. Can I be No. 241? I’d like that number. Happy to submit some stuff, don’t really know how yet. Can somebody walk me through it?

    Logan wrote:

    BTW 83, if you still have that character list, I’d really appreciate it if you submitted it. I have it around somewhere, but I’ve become extremely disorganised as of late — frazzled doesn’t even begin to describe it. ๐Ÿ˜€

    Character list? Well, the question wasn’t addressed to me, but here’s a list of all the characters I have vid caps for:

    Delegates (from Fall Out):
    Activists
    Anarchists
    Defectors
    Education
    Entertainment
    Identification
    Nationalists
    Old Folk
    Pacifists
    Reactionists
    Records
    Recreation
    Rehabilitation
    Security
    Therapy
    Unitarians
    Welfare
    Youngsters

    Non-Numbers:

    A (defector)
    B (femme fatale)
    C (Madame Engadine)
    Arthur Fotheringay
    Cobb
    Colonel Hawke-Englishe
    Commander, Royal Navy (Many Happy Returns)
    Group Captain, RAF (Many Happy Returns)
    Doctor Schnipps
    Doris (from the Hope & Anchor)
    Ernst (german gun runner)
    Gunther (german gun runner)
    Irish Marshal
    Scottish Marshal
    Welsh Marshal Jones
    Yorkshire Marshal
    Colonel James
    Janet Portland
    Jim (Living in Harmony)
    Jonathan Peregrine Danvers
    Katherine Johnson (Living in Harmony)
    Killer Karminski
    Man At Desk (George Markstein)
    Martha (Mrs. Butterworth’s maid)
    Mexican Sam (Living in Harmony)
    Mrs. Butterworth
    Peter Smith (perhaps?)
    Pinta Man (village agent)
    Potter (agent XP-4)
    PR-12 (british agent)
    Professor Jacob Seltzman
    Sir Charles Portland (head of intelligence)
    Sonia Schnipps
    The Butler
    The Colonel (Do Not Forsake Me)
    The Judge (Living in Harmony)
    The Kid (Living in Harmony)
    The President (Fall Out)
    The Professor (inventor of speed learn)
    The Undertaker (village agent)
    Thorpe
    Will (Living in Harmony)
    Zeke (Living in Harmony)

    Numbers:

    No. 1
    No. 2 (all 21 of them)
    No. 2a, b, c, d, e, h, j, k, l, and n (town council)
    No. 6 (of course)
    No. 8 (queen)
    No. 8 (nadia akovski)
    No. 8 (activities prognosis reporter)
    No. 8 (the kid)
    No. 9 (cobb’s sweety)
    No. 12 (charles curtis)
    No. 12 (sympathetic guardian)
    No. 13 (german doctor)
    No. 14 (chess champion)
    No. 14 (loyal lieutenant, A Change of Mind)
    No. 14 (thought machine specialist)
    No. 16 (taxi driver)
    No. 16 (guardian)
    No. 18 (committee chairman)
    No. 19 (store keeper)
    No. 20 (labour exchange manager)
    No. 21 (maid)
    No. 22 (observer)
    No. 22 (awards committee member)
    No. 22 (warder)
    No. 22 (katherine johnson)
    No. 23 (behavioral specialist)
    No. 24 (torture technician)
    No. 24 (alison)
    No. 25 (number 2 supporter)
    No. 28 (supervisor)
    No. 29 (speedlearner)
    No. 30 (town hall technician)
    No. 34 (ex-general)
    No. 36 (sugar addict)
    No. 38 (award winner)
    No. 39 (nurse)
    No. 40 (enthusiastic doctor)
    No. 42 (roland walter dutton)
    No. 42 (painter)
    No. 42 (is very upset)
    No. 46 (supervisor)
    No. 46 (instant social conversion subject)
    No. 47 (nurse)
    No. 48 (alexis kanner)
    No. 50 (monique, jammer)
    No. 51 (monique’s father, watchmaker)
    No. 51 (speedlearner)
    No. 53 (rook)
    No. 54 (number 2 supporter)
    No. 54 (maid)
    No. 56 (number 6 in board member disguise)
    No. 56 (supervisor)
    No. 56 (appeals subcommitte leader)
    No. 56 (speedlearner)
    No. 58 (assistant to number 6 in Free For All)
    No. 58 (aversion therapy subject)
    No. 60 (supervisor)
    No. 60 (board member)
    No. 62 (guardian)
    No. 64 (number 2 supporter)
    No. 66 (ex-admiral)
    No. 66 (maid)
    No. 66 (number 2 supporter)
    No. 73 (suicidal woman)
    No. 76 (number 2 supporter)
    No. 80 (projection technition)
    No. 82 (chess player)
    No. 86 (formerly disharmonious)
    No. 93 (disharmonious)
    No. 100 (scientist)
    No. 100 (guardian, plan division q)
    No. 106 (supervisor)
    No. 112 (store keeper, guardian)
    No. 113 (deceased old woman)
    No. 113 (reporter)
    No. 113b (photographer)
    No. 113c (clone of 113b)
    No. 116 (number 6 in scientist disguise)
    No. 118 (scientist)
    No. 123 (doctor)
    No. 123 (code breaker)
    No. 136 (nurse)
    No. 138 (committee member)
    No. 138 (eccentric resident)
    No. 195 (number 2 supporter)
    No. 210 (number 2 supporter)
    No. 215 (waitress)
    No. 232 (band leader)
    No. 235 (waitress)
    No. 235 (speedlearn host)
    No. 236 (committee member)
    No. 240 (observer)
    No. 241 (picture of residence only)
    No. 242 (social group member)
    No. 242 (lab technician)
    No. 243 (bicyclist)
    No. 243 (bomb squad technician)
    No. 245 (board member)
    No. 246 (board member)
    No. 249 (assistant supervisor)
    No. 249 (director of psychiatrics)
    No. 251 (electrician)
    No. 256 (guardian, clone of number 93)
    No. 256 (nurse)
    No. 256 (different guardian)
    No. 283 (lab technician)
    No. 283 (village soldier)
    No. 340 (labour exchange manager)
    No. 349 (doesn’t like number 6)

    I also have a collection of vid caps of various locations, items, and vehicles from the series.

    Another idea I had, which I have not yet tried to take any steps on, is to start a vid cap file of people from Danger Man who also appear in The Prisoner. I think it would be cool to link characters from The Prisoner to images from various episodes of Danger Man. Maybe call it, “Possible Aliases.”

    Thoughts?

    in reply to: My PMcG/Prisoner site officially open! #67983
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Gonna check your site out in about 2 minutes, but had to mention this before I forgot.

    I for one love character guides to shows, and The Prisoner is my favorite show.

    Also, with the thought in mind of making some sort of game, a while back I did video captures of EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in The Prisoner, including EVERY villager whose number I could read. If you want any of those images, lmk and you can have them.

    If you want, I’d also be willing to help out with righting the character bios.

    Going to go look at your site now…

    in reply to: Interviews with Xenia, Brian, Patty, and Louise. #65104
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Ask Brian which of the other three is the best kisser. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Is there any way your interview could be included on one of the upcoming dvds?

    in reply to: Stupid IWHS question #58076
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Oh cool, my favorite kind of discussion!

    And I get to “Duke” it out with Valdron, “Prince” of obscure Lexx trivia!

    Stan makes it clear in IWHS that “all this (the Lexx) came from a tiny capsule of amino acids in my tooth.” This would indicate to me that the creation of the Lexx was directly dependent on those codes.

    But, as Valdron says, Brizon claims to have designed the Lexx. Was Brizon lying? Perhaps. You’ll note that, while Valdron’s pendant gives him control of Kai and other devices of his original design, it does not give him control of the Lexx.

    However, I do believe Brizon was telling the truth. So what gives?

    Simple. Stanley’s codes contained some information related to insect-based biotechnology, but not specifically the Lexx. The Divine Order then used this general information to design the Lexx. Thus, the Lexx was designed by the Divine Order, based on biotech intercepted from the Heretics.

    I too believe the Heretics got this information, either directly or indirectly, from the Brunnen-G, the originators of insect biotech. Thodin is obviously familiar with the Brunnen-G and the Prophecy, stating so when he first sees Kai.

    Think about that. The Brunnen-G died 2000 years before Thodin’s time, and were in isolation for thousands of years before that. And so far as we know, only Kai and HDS were originally aware of the Time Prophet’s Prophecy. Yet when Thodin sees Kai for the first time, he instantly recognizes him as Brunnen-G, and asks about the Prophecy. Clearly the Brunnen-G must hold some significance for the Ostral-B. Or at least for Thodin.

    But I’m getting off track.

    Valdron’s production designer and creator references obviously trump any pet theories I might have. So, is there any way to reconcile the two?

    Yes. The Heretics were after a weapon with which to combat the Divine Order. What I believe they came up with, is the design for the Lexx’s primary weapon. The Divine Order may have been working with Brunnen-G biotech ever since the destruction of Brunnis 2, but when it came to designing a planet-destroying weapon, the Heretics came up with the design first.

    How do we know this? Simple. The Divine Order did not have a weapon of the Lexx’s magnitude until the Lexx was fully grown in IWHS. They make a big deal out of the Lexx being the first, and most powerful, weapon in the two universes. Before the Lexx, the Megashadow (which was not biotech) was HDS’s most powerful weapon.

    Since the Lexx was ultimately derived from Stanley’s codes, that means it was designed and grown in the few years (3? 3.5?) between the time Stanley was captured, and IWHS.

    It also explains the rapidity with which the Divine Order destroyed the Reform Planets. Once HDS realized the Heretics had designs for such a powerful weapon, he knew they had to be stomped on hard and fast, before they could build it.

    Now here’s a puzzler for you all:

    Indications are given in the series that the 94 Reform Planets (and 6 allied planets) were all destroyed quite rapidly, apparently almost simultaneously, in a “surprise attack,” in some way using the amino acid codes that allow friendly ships to pass through the planets’ defensive shields.

    The question is, how? Even the Lexx, the most powerful weapon in the two universes, can only destroy one planet at a time, and HDS didn’t even have the Lexx at that time. So how did HDS manage to destroy 100 planets almost simultaneously?

    I have a theory of my own, but I’d like to hear some others first.

    Discuss!

    in reply to: Lexx name analysis #53734
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    (Star Wars geek alert)

    Actually Zev Senesca was the pilot of snowspeeder Rogue 2. He located Luke and Han out on the frozen wastes of Hoth, and was later shot down and killed by an AT-AT in the Battle of Hoth, in SW-V: The Empire Strikes Back.

    The A-wing pilot who flew into the conning tower of the Super Star Destroyer Executor was Green Leader Arvel Crynyd.

    in reply to: Help me out with something, will ya? #53619
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Indeed. I believe those are in fact Lexx turds. More specifically, semi-digested Sub-Nebulae Mercenaries (or possibly Schlemmi).

    in reply to: Videoflicks.com — Boo! #53241
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Update!

    Against my own better judgement (mainly ’cause I just didn’t get around to it) I hadn’t canceled my order with Videoflicks, before I got an update from them that my DVD was now in stock.

    BUT…

    They said my credit card was coming back as in error or invalid, and wanted me to contact them. I telephoned, and (as always) got The Machine (as you do). So I left a message for them to call me back.

    To my surprise, a lady returned my call later that day. I gave her my credit card information again, and she informed me that the info was identical to what they already had. So, she ran it again, and surprise surprise, it went through with no problems.

    AND yesterday, Super Nova FINALLY arrived!

    AND it had a Lexx mousepad with it!

    BUT…

    They didn’t include a second Lexx mousepad, which they shorted me out of with Eating Pattern. Not a huge deal, but still irritating. I was going to give the extra to my buddy, who is also a big Lexx fan.

    So, I’m finally up to speed. I’ve got every Lexx DVD currently available. Yay!

    Hawaiikai, no Borders in my area. And in general, whenever I check a place like that, they’ll have some Lexx DVDs, but they won’t have them all.

    Cavey, I LOVE commentaries! What commentaries? Who’s doing them, and what episodes have them? Tell us more, please.

    in reply to: Moss review posted #57838
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    But at least it was better than Mort, eh?

    Thanks for another great review, Saddy. Looking forward to the next one!

    in reply to: Videoflicks.com — Boo! #53231
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Eh, wouldn’t that be the wrong region to use in my player?

    Wouldn’t that even be in the wrong video format for my TV?

    I reckon I’ll just get the remaining season 1 movie off ebay, or another Canadian dealer.

    btw, what makes you think the UK DVDs are better? Just curious.

    in reply to: What are we up to? #53123
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    I get all of mine via Amazon.com, except for the Season 1 movies. Assuming you live in the US, you’ll have to get them from a distributor in Canada, as the Season 1 DVDs are not sold in the US.

    Contrary to that notion, I actually DID get two Season 1 movies at an Electronics Boutique in the US, but I think it was a fluke. I’ve never seen them anywhere else, and you can’t get them through Amazon.

    I got Eating Pattern through Videoflicks.com, but I honestly can’t recommend them. See my post about them for details.

    in reply to: Site update 2.1! #53083
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Excellent. Great to have access to an actual Lexx script. Thanks, Slopmaster.

    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Excellent! Thanks.

    in reply to: What are we up to? #53118
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Well, for the last few days, I haven’t been able to get Saddy’s forums to load. They seem to be working again today, though. Hurray!

    Now if we could just get some more Episode Reviews.

    in reply to: Season 4: The Final Word #53045
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Season 1: 9
    Season 2: 8
    Season 3: 7
    Season 4: 5

    in reply to: Lexx Scripts/Definitive Spellings #53021
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Aleck wrote:

    quote

    From the Salter Street episode synopsis (provided to Acorn from Salter Street Films), it’s spelled Ruuma.

    Ah, excellent, Aleck! I didn’t think of the backs of the DVDs. Do you know if the backs of the Season 1 DVDs are equally dependable?

    quote

    Just like that. How else would you spell it? Some people, who have trouble spelling the word “Divine” to begin with, spell it “Devine,” but that’s just a simple misspelling.

    I think the confusion comes from the chapter selection on the IWHS DVD. On that DVD, one of the chapters is entitled, “DEVINE SHADOW.” This is, IMO, clearly a mistake. The movie credits are quite consistent with “Divine,” but I figured it never hurts to have a little backup from a script.

    in reply to: Lexx Scripts/Definitive Spellings #53019
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Valdron wrote:

    quote

    Well, I gotta say that Slopmaster is fairly definitive. As for scripts floating around, there’s scripts given away at each of the uncons, as gifts, etc.

    From what I’ve read so far, Slopmaster’s dictionary IS definitive… EXCEPT when it comes to spelling As he said himself, he only had tapes and DVDs to work with, which means he (and I) only get spellings for what’s in those meager credits. I’ve also got a few other suggestions for improvements and corrections. Slopmaster’s grammar is about as good as Saddy’s. Slopmaster, would you rather do that kind of thing via email, or should I air that stuff here?

    Headgehog wrote:

    quote

    I have the Twilight script, so if you ever need soemthign from that, drop me a line.

    Okay, How do you spell:

    Lady Hydia
    High Governor Rhoda
    Rhuma
    Divine Shadow

    Which script do you have, JumpingJedi?

    in reply to: Lexx Scripts/Definitive Spellings #53015
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Mainly anything in there to which one might ask, “How do you spell that?”

    All proper names, as well as any other Lexx terminology words. Whatever ya got!

    Reading your dictionary now, Slopmaster!

    in reply to: After the Fallout, Your Opinions please #52997
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    What strikes me, reading through this thread, is how diverse the various opinions are. There’s no real consensus on what the favorite season or episode is, and I suspect that’s what the Beans were shooting for.

    I think this is because one’s view of Lexx has a lot to do with two aspects:

    1. How you were introduced to the series.
    2. Personal taste.

    I’ve noticed that the favorite season for quite a few folks tends to be whatever season was their first Lexx experience. There was something about what they were watching in that first experience that drew them in. Since each season has a distinct flavor of its own, it’s not surprising that they tend to like other seasons less. Part of what pulled them in was probably part of that season’s particular “flavor.” Other seasons are less to their taste.

    Above and beyond this, it’s clear that we each have different things we like about Lexx. We could even identify different “camps;”

    1. Dwarfers – These folks love sci-fi comedy, in the vein of Red Dwarf. They tend to list Season 4 as their favorite, for obvious reasons. They like episodes with humorous character interaction, and when it comes to comedy and parody, more is better. They think of Lexx as a fun, care-free, wacky, sexy ride.

    2. Fivers – These folks like a serious story that continues from episode to episode, like Babylon 5. They tend to list Season 3 as their favorite, and enjoy episodes with tests of morality and serious confrontations between good and evil.

    3. Cyclers – These are folks whose imagination was captured by IWHS and/or Brigadoom. They are particularly into specific aspects of the Cycle of Time, the Insect Wars, the Brunnen-G, the Divine Order, and the Ostrol-B Heretics. These are the folks who tend to use the word “epic” when describing Lexx, and tend to list Season 1 or 2 as their favorites. They long for the old days.

    I know that simplifies things a LOT, but I feel like that’s the basic breakdown of different Lexx tastes. I reckon I’m closest to being a Cycler.

    A few of you said that Lexx is not about the Xev/Kai relationship, or that Lexx is not an epic. Of course it is. Lexx is about those things, as well as many other things. Lexx is what we, the viewers, make of it. There are no limits, and there’s no need for anyone to try to impose limits. It’s all subjective.

    And for the record, my favorite season is a tie between Season 1 and Season 2.

    My favorite episode is a tie (more or less) between I Worship His Shadow, Brigadoom, and Yo Way Yo.

    The worst episode (IMHO) is a tie between A Midsummers Nightmare and Mort.

    in reply to: Lexx The Illustrated Companion #53137
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Yikes, that is sad. Guess that makes it perfect for this site!

    I’d cough up the money for this in a second.

    in reply to: "Yo way Yo" Just a thought on Priest, Bunny & #57738
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    I still think Prince was lying when he claimed to be Death. I think it was all part of his plot to free himself from the confines of Earth. If Prince really were death, then both Stan and Xev would have seen him shortly before they died. Neither gives any indication that was the case.

    I don’t think Prince is now mortal, either. When he appeared on the Noah, he was not wearing his typical Prince outfit. He was wearing the all-black version.

    Here’s an observation about Prince:

    Classically, ancient peoples believed there were four elements: Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. Prince was trapped on Fire, and trying to destroy Water. When Fire and Water were destroyed, Prince went to Earth. When Prince was killed on Earth, he went “on-Air,” on televisons and other monitors, but was still connected to Earth, until it was destroyed as well.

    in reply to: LEXX Book Termination #52926
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Real disappointed to hear about the raw deal you got, Valdron.

    Although, I wonder if ANY book would be better than no book, at this point?

    If you can get a company to publish ANY book about Lexx, that could open the door for future, better books about Lexx.

    For one thing, it will require the company to acquire the rights to publish said book, making it easier for them the publish more books later. That first step of getting the rights is probably the biggest hurdle to get a company to take.

    Secondly, if the book does sell well, that is a BIG incentive for the company to do more books. Companies like sure bets, and don’t like taking risks.

    Now, I know it almost sounds like your book was being set up to fail. They intentionally publish a book that, by its nature, is not the best it could have been. Ergo, the book only does so-so, and the company feels they were justified in not investing more in the project… when really they are responsible for the mediocre success themselves.

    Hmmm, sound like I’ve experienced this myself? I have. Only with two Collectible Card Games I worked on: Aliens Predator and Terminator. The companies making the two games did not do much to promote them commercially, or much to support them after they were released. Not surprisingly, the games didn’t do that well, and the respective companies used that as a justification why they did not fully support them in the first place. Both games are now effectively dead.

    However, sometimes you just have to go for it. By all means, if you can find a publisher that will publish your work to its fullest extent, that’s great. But if you can’t, I still think that ANY book on Lexx is better than no book. At least you’ll have a foot in the door.

    And I’m pretty sure we could rally a campaign to promote the book’s sales. I’ll bet everyone on this board would get one, I know I would.

    Have you thought about approaching the company that’s making the Lexx trading cards? Books don’t appear to be their usual thing, but sometimes companies like to try branching out. Dynamic Forces has already expanded their license to make other Lexx products, and seems to be solidly behind the series. May be worth a shot:
    http://www.dynamicforces.com/htmlfiles/lexxpress.html

    in reply to: First Memories of Lexx #52935
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    My very first memory of Lexx, is seeing bits and pieces of the Rated Lexx special on Sci-Fi. I recall only halfway paying attention to it at the time, and thinking, “What is this? Is this a movie? It seems rather disjointed for a movie. Like a lot of stuff has been cut out.” I recall the makers in the special making a big deal out of the ships in the show being insect-based (Sci-Fi must have shown a behind-the-scenes thing around the same time), and thinking, “that’s nice, but sounds gimmicky.”

    At the time, I actually believed the clips in Rated Lexx were all there was, that they pieced this stuff together to set up the show. I didn’t realize the clips were from actual movies Sci-Fi hadn’t bothered to show yet!

    But, as I said, I only halfway paid attention to it. Sci-Fi was pushing the show as all sex and weirdness, and while there’s nothing wrong with that, it just didn’t grab me. At the time, I was more interested in Farscape.

    The first actual episode of Lexx I recall seeing was Luvliner. I remember mostly the episode fit the concept Sci-Fi was pushing. I wondered about the guy in black with funny hair, then thought I remembered something about him having an interesting history. Then that mercenary in Luvliner tells us about Kai being an assassin, and again I was intrigued.

    I still didn’t watch regularly. The show still didn’t seem to have much of a direction or coherency (at this time, I didn’t realize Sci-Fi was showing episodes out-of-order). Then, I happened to flip around and catch the last half of Mantrid. The plot in Mantrid was clearly “bigger” and more serious than other episodes I had seen, again hinting at a backstory (the Insect Civilization). Finally I knew what those little things were that were destroying planets at the end of earlier (out-of-order) episodes.

    Later I saw Norb, another big Mantrid Drone episode, and thought, “Wow, there really is an ongoing plot in this series!” It was about this time that Sci-Fi finally started showing episodes in order. I finally started making a real effort to watch the show, though I still wasn’t actually hooked.

    At the end of The Net, I saw a commercial for Brigadoom. I thought, “Wow, what the heck is this?” I wasn’t sure what to expect, but it sure looked different, so I looked forward to seeing that episode next week.

    Then Brigadoom actually came on, and I saw it, and I was AMAZED. The richness of the backstory and history of the characters, the epic events portrayed in that episode, totally hooked me. Since the story in Brigadoom took us right up to when Kai met Stan and Xev, I began to wonder just how far back the series did go. Just how much of the events in Brigadoom were actually Lexx episodes that I’d missed?

    I searched the internet for more information about the show, and discovered http://www.sadgeezer.com! I was looking for episode information, and sadgeezer seemed to have the most comprehensive episode guide.

    When I first looked at the top of the episode guide page, I saw where Saddy had typed out the Lexx’s little intro speech from the movies. I thought, “What is this? Is this supposed to be the Lexx telling us all this? I never saw him talk that much in the show. Did the website guy make this speech up, as if the Lexx were telling the story, just to be cute?”

    Then I started reading the episode reviews, starting with IWHS. Wow! I saw they really did do the big knock-down-drag-out fight with His Shadow. I thought, “Why did Sci-Fi not show these movies?”

    Almost immediately aftwerwards, I saw commercials that Sci-Fi WOULD show the movies for the first time! I eagerly anticipated the films, and got my tapes ready. I was not disappointed.

    From then on, Farscape took a distant back seat to Lexx. I was and continue to be a BIG fan.

    in reply to: The Rules of Lexx #52894
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Yes, indeed these ARE the Rules of Lexx. I remember reading these a couple of years ago on another board. Supposedly these rules did indeed come from the Beans themselves.

    in reply to: Which Spin-Off would you prefer? #52916
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    DalekTek 790 wrote:

    quote

    A new member of the Lexx crew is needed, someone with Kai-like knowledge of the Dark Zone and a few more I.Q. points than the surviving trio, but should not be a normal human (or a re-hash of Kai). Stan and Xev should be able to get out of situations on their own, without the indestructable character always stepping in at the last minute.

    I have an idea for this. As I (may have) mentioned before, I had already finished a script for an Insect Wars sequel. But, naturally, I didn’t know Kai was written out at the time I wrote it. Big re-write in order. But having a hero-type “protective big brother” character in the crew does serve an important literary purpose to the dynamics of their interactions.

    I plan to have our crew meet up with Kraito, the Brunnen-G whose memory we see in Super Nova. He was awarded the Medal of Ultimate Honor for defeating the Insects at the Battle of Virian. I’m thinking he’ll begin as a classic hero and great leader of the combined forces opposing the Insect Civilization. But I’m then going to strand him on Little Lexx. He’ll be this great big heroic leader, with no one to lead, stuck with people he doesn’t much like or respect. Considerably more abrasive than Kai. But because he IS a hero, he’ll still try to do the “right” thing, playing the part of protector/strategist/warrior. Finally, at some point, I’ll remind everybody that he is NOT Kai. He’ll be fated for the classic, mortal end that all classic mortal heros eventually face, from charging into danger one too many times.

    in reply to: Which Spin-Off would you prefer? #52913
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    First, I’ll answer the original question:

    JumpingJedi wrote:

    quote:


    Seen as they left it pretty open at the end as to which direction they could take Lexx, which Lexx Spin-Off would you like to see?
    1) The adventures of Stan and Xev (and probably 790) aboard the mini-Lexx.

    2) The adventures of Prince, Priest and Bunny.

    3) An Insect Wars prequel.

    4) Kai in the Dead Zone. The adventures of Kai beyond Death.


    I would prefer a combination of 1, 2, and 3. I would put our characters in the next cycle of time, and stick them in the middle of the Insect Wars.

    Lexx has always been about putting our crew of misfits into a tense situation, and then seeing how they screw it up.
    Season 1: Commanding the most powerful weapon in the two universes… look out!
    Season 2: Destroying a universe.
    Season 3: Destroying (perhaps) Heaven and Hell.
    Season 4: Destroying our very own planet, Earth.

    For Season 5, I would make our crew the wrench thrown into the works of the cycle of time. In a cycle where “we each live our lives again exactly as before,” the crew of the Lexx would be a lesson to the Time Prophet on chaos theory.

    I would also have the crews of the Noah and Little Lexx interact in some way, or perhaps even merge. Prince, of course, could not be a regular crew member though. He is too evil. Perhaps I’d have him join the Insects.

    Kai beyond death? With some other dude playing Kai? I cannot envision the viewers accepting anyone other than Michael playing Kai. It was tricky for Zev to turn into Xev after 4 movies and 2 episodes, but for another actor to play Kai after 4 seasons? I just can’t fathom it. Better to keep the character dead. btw, if Kai is truly dead, then he is in the Dream Zone. It’s Christopher Walken who’s in The Dead Zone.

    quote

    Would you think the Spin-Off would be more suited to a series on TV or as a self contained 90 minutes film? And which style of Season would you like it to resemble the most (The Sci-Fi of Season 2, The more serious Season 3 or the Comedy Sci-Fi of Season 4)?

    I would do TV movies. It’s easier to get the ball rolling on a TV movie than on a series. It’s how Lexx got its start in the first place, it’s how Babylon 5 has managed to continue, and having the series begin and end with TV movies seems oddly symetrical.

    As to tone, I love the epic style, laced with dark and shining bits of humor, that you find in what are commonly regarded as our most favorite Lexx episodes. Yo Way Yo is itself a fine example. I felt that episode struck the perfect balance of seriousness and off-kilter humor.

    And, btw, among many other hats, Lexx definitely does wear the “epic” hat. Dictionary definition:

    “A poetic, literary, or dramatic composition celebrating the feats of a legendary hero.”

    I think Kai, Stan, Xev, and the Lexx itself all qualify as legendary heroes, to one degree or another.

    An Insect Wars prequel was first dreamed up not by the fans, but by the Beans. They had planned to do a book all about the Insect Wars, but then later changed their minds.

    Flamegrape wrote:

    quote

    Look, if they did an Insect Wars prequel, that’s great! I’ll be glued to the tube every week. But it wouldn’t be the same show.

    It would be, if you stuck Stan, Xev, Prince, Priest, Bunny, and Little Lexx in the middle of it all, screwing up the normal course of the cycle of time, and occasionally turning the serious into the absurd.

    Reveal7 wrote:

    quote

    Xenia could show up for a couple of episodes which, in the last, she would be reduced to goo again and then a new actress could take her place. Just imagine all of the posts to this site comparing Zev, Xev, and ZXev.

    lol. Yeah, then later you could do a special episode called “The Three ZXevs,” where the XZev Lords allow the ZXevs to break the first law of XZev, so they can travel through time to help each other take on Omega, the renegade XZev Lord.

    Now we’ll see if anyone knows what the hell I’m talking about.

    Flamegrape wrote:

    quote

    I’ll tell you exactly how so. If a writer has a good idea but ditches it because he thinks the fans wouldn’t like it, that’s bad. He’s not being true to himself.

    I don’t think it’s as simple as that. What is a “good” idea? Sometimes creators can be too close to their own material to know what is a good or bad idea. Like the cliche says, they can’t see the forest for the trees. And if those creators are powerful enough, there might not be anybody around with the balls to warn them otherwise. Or if there is, the creators might not listen, because they’re The Creators. Who does such-and-such think he is, to tell them their idea sucks?

    Case 1: George Lucas
    Exhibit A: Jar-Jar.
    Exhibit B: N’Sync.

    Case 2: Sigourney Weaver
    Exhibit A: Alien Cubed
    Exhibit B: Alien Resurrection

    Two examples of powerful creative forces that have made their series great, but have also made mistakes that diminished their series to a degree, simply by being “true to themselves.”

    Sometimes the fans are right.

    quote

    To create a specific story on-demand is awful for a writer! It’s extremely difficult to pull off in a pleasing manner.

    Oh, I absolutely agree with you there!

    quote

    Writers “discover” stories and are not dictated by legions of fans.

    I think there are at least a few more good stories in the Lexx universe still waiting to be discovered. However, I do think the Beans stopped at the right time. I think they were getting sillier and doing more parodies because they were running out of new ideas themselves. At the very least, they needed a break. They did the right thing.

    Oh, almost forgot. That article (I think it’s from the June issue of Sci Fi Magazine) that JumpingJedi posted under “Flamegrape’s Ending Ideas.” When I saw that the first page of that article labeled our show as, “the outrageous comedy that is Lexx,” I have to admit I was miffed. To me, Lexx is so much more than a comedy. And after the 4th season, to see the whole series refered to as a comedy… well, it bothered me. “Comedy” may be the best definition for Season 4, but I don’t think it’s even close to being the best true definition for the entire series. Especially after Yo Way Yo!

    quote

    You don’t see people lobbying Stephen King for a specific book.

    People have been lobbying King for “The Dark Tower V” for, what, something like five years now. We’re finally going to get it in 2003. Incidentally, Michael McManus would be a wonderful choice to play Roland, the last Gunslinger, in the series. It’d be perfect for a TV miniseries too.

    [ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: sgtdraino ]

    in reply to: Kai Laughed. ( 4.24 Yo Way Spoiler) #57741
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    I think Kai laughed at least partly because he finally learned the mass of the Higgs-Bozen. He looks up at the device as the numbers finally grind to a halt, and laughs.

    in reply to: Lexx Contest! #52757
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Thought you all might like to see what I thought of for my five entries, for Jade’s “The Dead do Not…” contest:

    1. The dead do not do the Dew.

    2. The dead do not feel grateful.

    3. The dead do not kill Kenny (you b@st@rds).

    4. The dead do not bust a move.

    5. The dead do not walk and chew gum.

    [ 25-04-2002: Message edited by: sgtdraino ]

    in reply to: Brian Downey Interview and Chat #52755
    sgtdraino
    Participant

    Hey Frey, any updates on that chat? It looks like I may actually make this one, if it actually is on for the 28th.

    Say it is!

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 174 total)