Re: Anyone Here Ever Seen That Crappy Film Deep Impact? - OS2

This is a discussion on Re: Anyone Here Ever Seen That Crappy Film Deep Impact? - OS2 ; "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message news:1186448663.703651.155970@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com... > Julio Laredo wrote: >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message >> news:1186365218.211554.34750@i13g2000prf.googlegro ups.com... >> > Julio Laredo wrote: >> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message >> >> news:1186299106.464525.62410@j4g2000prf.googlegrou ps.com... >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Anyone Here Ever Seen That Crappy Film Deep Impact?

  1. Re: Anyone Here Ever Seen That Crappy Film Deep Impact?


    "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message
    news:1186448663.703651.155970@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
    > Julio Laredo wrote:
    >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message
    >> news:1186365218.211554.34750@i13g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
    >> > Julio Laredo wrote:
    >> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message
    >> >> news:1186299106.464525.62410@j4g2000prf.googlegrou ps.com...
    >> >> > Julio Laredo wrote:
    >> >> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message
    >> >> >> news:1186210313.355444.172080@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
    >> >> >> > It was screening on TV the other night so I thought I'd watch it.
    >> >> >> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/
    >> >> >> > Man, talk about crap.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> I happened to see only a few minutes of it, once. It's use of
    >> >> >> cliches
    >> >> >> showed the thinking behind the writing was way too conservative for
    >> >> >> my
    >> >> >> tastes.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I know what you mean. Almost every film made nowdays is formulaeic.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> > Starts off with some kid with with a pissant little scope (not
    >> >> >> > even a
    >> >> >> > Mead!) discovering a comet or assteriod. So what does he do?
    >> >> >> > Calls
    >> >> >> > some turkey in Nevada who is laughingly supposed to be a
    >> >> >> > professional asstronomer.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> It is essential in effective satire that the satirist have some
    >> >> >> modicum of
    >> >> >> knowledge of the subject be satirized. Let's see how you stack up.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Ah, so it was satire. Yeah, I can see how that makes sense now.


    You didn't know that what you wrote was satire? Oh, how sad.

    >> >> >
    >> >> >> Most comet discoveries have been by amateurs, and one of the 2002
    >> >> >> winners of the Edgar Wilson Award used binoculars.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > They give out awards for this? A0L!
    >> >>
    >> >> Yes, they sure do.
    >> >
    >> > How dumb is that!

    >>
    >> No more than any other award which is based on a combination of
    >> knowledge,
    >> skill, and luck.

    >
    > Ah, you mean like the Darwin Awards!


    The Darwin Awards are for those who, after a lifetime of stupid behavior,
    has their
    stupidity catch up and kill them. That takes a lack of knowledge, and
    skill, and luck.
    The Edgar Wilson Award, on the other hand, as I said, takes knowledge,
    skill, and luck.
    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/special/EdgarWilson.html


    >
    >> >> >> And not everyone would head right to CBAT, it would be
    >> >> >> within the realm of possibility that an amateur would try to
    >> >> >> contact
    >> >> >> someone
    >> >> >> he considered a professional for verification.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > To verify what? That he saw a comet?
    >> >>
    >> >> Yes, there is a procedure. And it is a race to get your name on it.
    >> >
    >> > The last thing I'd want is my name on a comet that's going to destroy
    >> > the Earth.

    >>
    >> They wouldn't know the trajectory at that time.

    >
    > You could guess.


    Anyone with any knowledge knows that one photograph of a planetary object
    may show where it is at a given point in time, but not it's path or
    velocity. So, only the incredibly stupid would guess.

    >
    >> >> >> So, here, your satire was off the mark. Strike one.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > That clown is sitting in what looks like a radio scope station
    >> >> >> > listening to classical music (what else?). After he's told, he
    >> >> >> > looks
    >> >> >> > for it himself. Not sure how he gets an image of it the way he
    >> >> >> > did
    >> >> >> > with a radio scope, but he does.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Radio telescope stations do have optical scopes for aiming the
    >> >> >> dishes,
    >> >> >> and are often used in
    >> >> >> conjunction with the radio images. Here, too, your satire is off
    >> >> >> the
    >> >> >> mark.
    >> >> >> Strike two.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Are they located on top of mountains by themselves or in arrays? Did
    >> >> > the film show an optical scope being used?
    >> >>
    >> >> I don't know what they showed in the film.
    >> >
    >> > So your "strike one" was illinformed?

    >>
    >> No. Optical scopes are used to help aim the dish or dishes. And it
    >> would
    >> be reasonable
    >> to presume that an optical scope could be attached to a camera, and the
    >> camera to a computer. Anyone who knows astronomy knows that.

    >
    > Yes but no optical scope was evident in that part of the film. If you
    > had bothered to watch it, you would have seen for yourself.


    You said there was a radio observatory. Optical scopes are used to aim.
    Everyone knows that. To disagree would be like me objecting to the
    truck, you say, that wipes out the "clown" couldn't because, well, the movie
    didn't show the truck being made and having an engine of some kind put in
    it. The accessibility to a spotter scope is a given, otherwise they can't
    aim
    the dish, and if they can't aim the dish, well, a pretty expensive umbrella.

    >
    >> >> I tried to watch the part where
    >> >> they were planting the explosives. Once I predicted almost every
    >> >> thing
    >> >> that
    >> >> was going to be shown before it was shown, I got bored and changed the
    >> >> channel.
    >> >
    >> > Well, I watched it all. Its entertainment value was laughable. Which
    >> > was just what I wanted that particular night.
    >> >
    >> >> >> > Then, get this, he transfers it to floppy disk! What the hay! Is
    >> >> >> > he
    >> >> >> > using OS/2 or something? Let me guess. His crappy software is
    >> >> >> > written in FORTRAN too.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> I guess you think that optical disks and XP have been around
    >> >> >> forever;
    >> >> >> they have not.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > The film was made in '98. The Internet had been around a while by
    >> >> > then.
    >> >>
    >> >> Doesn't matter. In the film the guy saved the information. Some
    >> >> people
    >> >> save to the Internet, some don't. I don't save things to the
    >> >> Internet.
    >> >> Back in 1998 I saved to floppies and CDs. Now I save to thumbdrives.
    >> >
    >> > Good for you. My point was that the plotline at that particular point
    >> > was ludicrous. So you're "strike two" doesn't hold water either.

    >>
    >> Sorry, still holds up. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with his
    >> saving
    >> a text file to a floppy. Besides, FORTRAN would be tape and punch cards.

    >
    > Tell me about it.


    Obviously, I had to.

    >
    >> >> >> If you were paying attention, the movie came out in 1998, which
    >> >> >> means
    >> >> >> shooting would have begun at least 2 years before.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Are you sure about that? Don't forget these types of films are
    >> >> > usually
    >> >> > set in the future. Would be kind of dumb to set something like this
    >> >> > in
    >> >> > the past, don't you think?
    >> >>
    >> >> Shooting still began in about 1996 with no regard to when the picture
    >> >> was going to come out.
    >> >
    >> > Since it came out at about the same time as Armageddon, I find that
    >> > odd. Why do these sorts of films come out in rapid succession? 2 years
    >> > is a long time to wait to cash in on the popularity of something else.

    >>
    >> Serendipity. Deep Star Six, Leviathan, and Abyss came out in rapid
    >> sucession, as did
    >> Red Planet and Mission to Mars, Ratatoulle and No Reservations, and
    >> Monsters
    >> Inc
    >> was quickly followed by Ice Age. The lead times for movies can be
    >> measured
    >> in years,
    >> and in the case of all these movies, one did not influence any of the
    >> others.

    >
    > And you know that for a fact?


    Oh, dear, the "you know that for a fact?" throwdown. Whatever shall I do?
    So, what? That the movies came out separated by as little as 33 days? The
    lead time for movies can be measured in years? One did not influence
    another
    because principle shooting had been done and all that was left was
    post-production?

    Armageddon followed Deep Impact by 54 days. That would be barely enough
    time
    to change the posters, much less make changes in the SFX or story.

    As in movies before and in the future, it'll happen.

    >
    >> >> "Silent Running" was set in the future, and showed
    >> >> hardwire programming. Who does that, now?
    >> >
    >> > I set the registers on a PDP-11 not too long ago. Not very exciting.

    >>
    >> That is a little different than using a microscope and a laser to change
    >> the circuitry on a an integrated chip, which is how it was done in that
    >> movie.

    >
    > Your point being?


    Silent Running got the prediction on the future of robotic programming, as
    you seem to have.


    >
    >> >> While it is possible to predict what may happen, and could happen, you
    >> >> still have to base it on what is known, now.
    >> >
    >> > You mean like in Star Trek and Star Wars?

    >>
    >> Two entirely different kinds of movies, and different, still, from Deep
    >> Impact, which is set in a time frame of only a few years from the release
    >> date.

    >
    > While Star Wars' timeframe is unknown (it was supposed to be set in
    > the past), Star Trek's one is.


    Some 500 years in the future. From what I saw of Deep Impact, the
    technology
    was in keeping with the late 20th century. Saving to a floppy was entirely
    expected.

    >
    >> >> At the time the movie was being made,
    >> >> the most popular way to save small files was by floppy. The movie
    >> >> audience would immediately know what he was doing, and why.
    >> >
    >> > You could also do a printout or write it to a mag tape. I'm sure the
    >> > audience would know about that too.

    >>
    >> And would you have made the same comment? Be that as it may, he
    >> didn't, and it would be no reflection on the kind of software he was
    >> using.

    >
    > I was pointing out the inadequacy of the plot. What are you doing?


    Oh, I see. I think you first need to know what a plot is. It is the story.
    It is not your lack of knowledge of technology.

    >
    >> >> >> In that time frame nearly
    >> >> >> all computers had floppy drives, and since the coordinates for the
    >> >> >> object
    >> >> >> would be in a relatively small text file, a floppy would have been
    >> >> >> a
    >> >> >> very reasonable method to store the information.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > So would email.
    >> >>
    >> >> Again, this isn't a particularly secure way, especially at a place of
    >> >> employment.
    >> >
    >> > Why? I don't follow your logic here. He also had a radio dish outside
    >> > he could have used.

    >>
    >> Anyone who knows astronomy would know that, unless he was involved
    >> with SETI, the radio dish is made to recieve, only.

    >
    > You mean like in Contact?


    And if it recieves, it can't be used to send email. Recieve. Send. Not
    quite
    the same, no matter how much you might want it to be.


    >
    >> You had made it sound like he was being secretive, so he could make sole
    >> claim to the discovery, and the cash prize of the Edgar Wilson award. If
    >> he
    >> wanted to be secretive, email is not the way to go, as anyone who has
    >> had emails used against them in court or disciplinary procedures could
    >> attest.

    >
    > No, I'm making it sound like the plot at that point was stupid.


    But, it wasn't. From what you described, it was entirely credible, to
    someone with knowledge of astronomy and the, if you can call it that,
    cut-throat world of cometary one-upmanship.

    >
    >> > All in all, I don't think the plotline leading up to his death was
    >> > well concieved or necessary.

    >>
    >> Well, that is something different from your original complaints

    >
    > Not entirely.


    Entirely.

    >
    >> >> >> Strike three. You have proven yourself to be inept and I can see
    >> >> >> no
    >> >> >> reason
    >> >> >> to go further since whatever you would have to opine would be of no
    >> >> >> merit.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Sounds more like your batting average needs some work.
    >> >
    >> > Note: no response.

    >>
    >> No repsonse there was needed. I had proven my points before.

    >
    > Since you admitted you didn't see that part of the film, I fail to see
    > how you can claim any of your points hold water.
    >


    Going by the information you have given, removing the worthless opinions,
    there is nothing in your description that is untoward for the situation.



  2. Re: Anyone Here Ever Seen That Crappy Film Deep Impact?

    Julio Laredo wrote:
    > "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message
    > news:1186448663.703651.155970@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
    > > Julio Laredo wrote:
    > >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message
    > >> news:1186365218.211554.34750@i13g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
    > >> > Julio Laredo wrote:
    > >> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message
    > >> >> news:1186299106.464525.62410@j4g2000prf.googlegrou ps.com...
    > >> >> > Julio Laredo wrote:
    > >> >> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote in message
    > >> >> >> news:1186210313.355444.172080@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
    > >> >> >> > It was screening on TV the other night so I thought I'd watch it.
    > >> >> >> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/
    > >> >> >> > Man, talk about crap.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> I happened to see only a few minutes of it, once. It's use of
    > >> >> >> cliches
    > >> >> >> showed the thinking behind the writing was way too conservative for
    > >> >> >> my
    > >> >> >> tastes.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > I know what you mean. Almost every film made nowdays is formulaeic.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > Starts off with some kid with with a pissant little scope (not
    > >> >> >> > even a
    > >> >> >> > Mead!) discovering a comet or assteriod. So what does he do?
    > >> >> >> > Calls
    > >> >> >> > some turkey in Nevada who is laughingly supposed to be a
    > >> >> >> > professional asstronomer.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> It is essential in effective satire that the satirist have some
    > >> >> >> modicum of
    > >> >> >> knowledge of the subject be satirized. Let's see how you stack up.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Ah, so it was satire. Yeah, I can see how that makes sense now.

    >
    > You didn't know that what you wrote was satire? Oh, how sad.


    Lame attempt at sarcasm noted.

    > >> >> >> Most comet discoveries have been by amateurs, and one of the 2002
    > >> >> >> winners of the Edgar Wilson Award used binoculars.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > They give out awards for this? A0L!
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Yes, they sure do.
    > >> >
    > >> > How dumb is that!
    > >>
    > >> No more than any other award which is based on a combination of
    > >> knowledge,
    > >> skill, and luck.

    > >
    > > Ah, you mean like the Darwin Awards!

    >
    > The Darwin Awards are for those who, after a lifetime of stupid behavior,
    > has their
    > stupidity catch up and kill them. That takes a lack of knowledge, and
    > skill, and luck.
    > The Edgar Wilson Award, on the other hand, as I said, takes knowledge,
    > skill, and luck.
    > http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/special/EdgarWilson.html


    So you are more likely to win a Darwin than a Wilson.

    > >> >> >> And not everyone would head right to CBAT, it would be
    > >> >> >> within the realm of possibility that an amateur would try to
    > >> >> >> contact
    > >> >> >> someone
    > >> >> >> he considered a professional for verification.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > To verify what? That he saw a comet?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Yes, there is a procedure. And it is a race to get your name on it.
    > >> >
    > >> > The last thing I'd want is my name on a comet that's going to destroy
    > >> > the Earth.
    > >>
    > >> They wouldn't know the trajectory at that time.

    > >
    > > You could guess.

    >
    > Anyone with any knowledge knows that one photograph of a planetary object
    > may show where it is at a given point in time, but not it's path or
    > velocity. So, only the incredibly stupid would guess.


    So how was that astronomer able to determine the comet's trajectory
    from one observation?

    > >> >> >> So, here, your satire was off the mark. Strike one.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> > That clown is sitting in what looks like a radio scope station
    > >> >> >> > listening to classical music (what else?). After he's told, he
    > >> >> >> > looks
    > >> >> >> > for it himself. Not sure how he gets an image of it the way he
    > >> >> >> > did
    > >> >> >> > with a radio scope, but he does.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Radio telescope stations do have optical scopes for aiming the
    > >> >> >> dishes,
    > >> >> >> and are often used in
    > >> >> >> conjunction with the radio images. Here, too, your satire is off
    > >> >> >> the
    > >> >> >> mark.
    > >> >> >> Strike two.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Are they located on top of mountains by themselves or in arrays? Did
    > >> >> > the film show an optical scope being used?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> I don't know what they showed in the film.
    > >> >
    > >> > So your "strike one" was illinformed?
    > >>
    > >> No. Optical scopes are used to help aim the dish or dishes. And it
    > >> would
    > >> be reasonable
    > >> to presume that an optical scope could be attached to a camera, and the
    > >> camera to a computer. Anyone who knows astronomy knows that.

    > >
    > > Yes but no optical scope was evident in that part of the film. If you
    > > had bothered to watch it, you would have seen for yourself.

    >
    > You said there was a radio observatory. Optical scopes are used to aim.


    None was shown.

    > Everyone knows that.


    Everyone? Show me where it was shown in this film, or Contact or The
    Dish?

    > To disagree would be like me objecting to the
    > truck, you say, that wipes out the "clown" couldn't because, well, the movie
    > didn't show the truck being made and having an engine of some kind put in
    > it.


    I was more interested in knowing what the semi was doing driving up to
    the observatory at that time of night.

    > The accessibility to a spotter scope is a given, otherwise they can't aim
    > the dish, and if they can't aim the dish, well, a pretty expensive umbrella.


    In The Dish, it was shown to be done computationally. The Dish was set
    in 1969.

    > >> >> I tried to watch the part where
    > >> >> they were planting the explosives. Once I predicted almost every
    > >> >> thing
    > >> >> that
    > >> >> was going to be shown before it was shown, I got bored and changed the
    > >> >> channel.
    > >> >
    > >> > Well, I watched it all. Its entertainment value was laughable. Which
    > >> > was just what I wanted that particular night.
    > >> >
    > >> >> >> > Then, get this, he transfers it to floppy disk! What the hay! Is
    > >> >> >> > he
    > >> >> >> > using OS/2 or something? Let me guess. His crappy software is
    > >> >> >> > written in FORTRAN too.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> I guess you think that optical disks and XP have been around
    > >> >> >> forever;
    > >> >> >> they have not.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > The film was made in '98. The Internet had been around a while by
    > >> >> > then.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Doesn't matter. In the film the guy saved the information. Some
    > >> >> people
    > >> >> save to the Internet, some don't. I don't save things to the
    > >> >> Internet.
    > >> >> Back in 1998 I saved to floppies and CDs. Now I save to thumbdrives.
    > >> >
    > >> > Good for you. My point was that the plotline at that particular point
    > >> > was ludicrous. So you're "strike two" doesn't hold water either.
    > >>
    > >> Sorry, still holds up. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with his
    > >> saving
    > >> a text file to a floppy. Besides, FORTRAN would be tape and punch cards.

    > >
    > > Tell me about it.

    >
    > Obviously, I had to.


    Because you love the sound of your own voice?

    > >> >> >> If you were paying attention, the movie came out in 1998, which
    > >> >> >> means
    > >> >> >> shooting would have begun at least 2 years before.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Are you sure about that? Don't forget these types of films are
    > >> >> > usually
    > >> >> > set in the future. Would be kind of dumb to set something like this
    > >> >> > in
    > >> >> > the past, don't you think?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Shooting still began in about 1996 with no regard to when the picture
    > >> >> was going to come out.
    > >> >
    > >> > Since it came out at about the same time as Armageddon, I find that
    > >> > odd. Why do these sorts of films come out in rapid succession? 2 years
    > >> > is a long time to wait to cash in on the popularity of something else.
    > >>
    > >> Serendipity. Deep Star Six, Leviathan, and Abyss came out in rapid
    > >> sucession, as did
    > >> Red Planet and Mission to Mars, Ratatoulle and No Reservations, and
    > >> Monsters
    > >> Inc
    > >> was quickly followed by Ice Age. The lead times for movies can be
    > >> measured
    > >> in years,
    > >> and in the case of all these movies, one did not influence any of the
    > >> others.

    > >
    > > And you know that for a fact?

    >
    > Oh, dear, the "you know that for a fact?" throwdown. Whatever shall I do?


    Get a clue and prove it.

    > So, what? That the movies came out separated by as little as 33 days? The
    > lead time for movies can be measured in years? One did not influence
    > another
    > because principle shooting had been done and all that was left was
    > post-production?


    So?

    > Armageddon followed Deep Impact by 54 days.


    You just stated it was 33 days. So which was it? 33 or 54?

    > That would be barely enough time
    > to change the posters, much less make changes in the SFX or story.


    Why would it be necessary to change posters etc?

    > As in movies before and in the future, it'll happen.


    So? You don't seem to understand why it happens.

    > >> >> "Silent Running" was set in the future, and showed
    > >> >> hardwire programming. Who does that, now?
    > >> >
    > >> > I set the registers on a PDP-11 not too long ago. Not very exciting.
    > >>
    > >> That is a little different than using a microscope and a laser to change
    > >> the circuitry on a an integrated chip, which is how it was done in that
    > >> movie.

    > >
    > > Your point being?

    >
    > Silent Running got the prediction on the future of robotic programming, as
    > you seem to have.


    I fail to see what robotic programming has to do with lasers,
    microscopes and chips.

    > >> >> While it is possible to predict what may happen, and could happen, you
    > >> >> still have to base it on what is known, now.
    > >> >
    > >> > You mean like in Star Trek and Star Wars?
    > >>
    > >> Two entirely different kinds of movies, and different, still, from Deep
    > >> Impact, which is set in a time frame of only a few years from the release
    > >> date.

    > >
    > > While Star Wars' timeframe is unknown (it was supposed to be set in
    > > the past), Star Trek's one is.

    >
    > Some 500 years in the future. From what I saw of Deep Impact, the
    > technology
    > was in keeping with the late 20th century. Saving to a floppy was entirely
    > expected.


    So are other methods.

    > >> >> At the time the movie was being made,
    > >> >> the most popular way to save small files was by floppy. The movie
    > >> >> audience would immediately know what he was doing, and why.
    > >> >
    > >> > You could also do a printout or write it to a mag tape. I'm sure the
    > >> > audience would know about that too.
    > >>
    > >> And would you have made the same comment? Be that as it may, he
    > >> didn't, and it would be no reflection on the kind of software he was
    > >> using.

    > >
    > > I was pointing out the inadequacy of the plot. What are you doing?

    >
    > Oh, I see. I think you first need to know what a plot is. It is the story.
    > It is not your lack of knowledge of technology.


    You've lost the plot ages ago.

    > >> >> >> In that time frame nearly
    > >> >> >> all computers had floppy drives, and since the coordinates for the
    > >> >> >> object
    > >> >> >> would be in a relatively small text file, a floppy would have been
    > >> >> >> a
    > >> >> >> very reasonable method to store the information.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > So would email.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Again, this isn't a particularly secure way, especially at a place of
    > >> >> employment.
    > >> >
    > >> > Why? I don't follow your logic here. He also had a radio dish outside
    > >> > he could have used.
    > >>
    > >> Anyone who knows astronomy would know that, unless he was involved
    > >> with SETI, the radio dish is made to recieve, only.

    > >
    > > You mean like in Contact?

    >
    > And if it recieves, it can't be used to send email. Recieve. Send. Not
    > quite
    > the same, no matter how much you might want it to be.


    You present yourself as an expert on this yet you can't even fix your
    newsreader's word wrap problem. Why am I not impressed?

    > >> You had made it sound like he was being secretive, so he could make sole
    > >> claim to the discovery, and the cash prize of the Edgar Wilson award. If
    > >> he
    > >> wanted to be secretive, email is not the way to go, as anyone who has
    > >> had emails used against them in court or disciplinary procedures could
    > >> attest.

    > >
    > > No, I'm making it sound like the plot at that point was stupid.

    >
    > But, it wasn't. From what you described, it was entirely credible, to
    > someone with knowledge of astronomy and the, if you can call it that,
    > cut-throat world of cometary one-upmanship.


    Now your statements are just laughable.

    > >> > All in all, I don't think the plotline leading up to his death was
    > >> > well concieved or necessary.
    > >>
    > >> Well, that is something different from your original complaints

    > >
    > > Not entirely.

    >
    > Entirely.


    Which means that you can't seem to read posts coherently.

    > >> >> >> Strike three. You have proven yourself to be inept and I can see
    > >> >> >> no
    > >> >> >> reason
    > >> >> >> to go further since whatever you would have to opine would be of no
    > >> >> >> merit.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Sounds more like your batting average needs some work.
    > >> >
    > >> > Note: no response.
    > >>
    > >> No repsonse there was needed. I had proven my points before.

    > >
    > > Since you admitted you didn't see that part of the film, I fail to see
    > > how you can claim any of your points hold water.

    >
    > Going by the information you have given, removing the worthless opinions,
    > there is nothing in your description that is untoward for the situation.


    Unlike yours?


+ Reply to Thread