And lo on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:41:50 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake, saying:

>>> >   So police officers are not assumed to be ready for emergencies in  
>>> > their
>>> > break. Even if a gang is mass raping a woman, the policeman can  
>>> simply
>>> > say
>>> > "I'm on a break, not my problem; maybe when my break is over".
>>
>>> Yep in the same way that ambulance drivers, doctors, and firefighters  
>>> are
>>> not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their break.
>>
>>  I'm pretty sure a policeman would be sent to jail if it did like
>> I described.
>
> So would the doctor/firefighter if there were 5 people dying and they  
> just sat there and carried on eating their sandwich.

Which was my point. So far the argument is that it's quite all right for  
ambulance drivers etc to take a meal break, but police officers can't.  
That would be like doctors only being allowed to eat on wards in case one  
of the patients needs them. If someone is on a break you know that they're  
going to have an increased response time.

Actually we're just talking meals here, do the police have a toilet fitted  
to their vehicles? If not does this mean that the officer has to park  
their vehicle right outside the toilet and keep all the doors open so they  
can keep an eye on it and be ready to [cough] leap up to answer an  
emrgency call?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>   So police officers are not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their
>>> break. Even if a gang is mass raping a woman, the policeman can simply  
>>> say
>>> "I'm on a break, not my problem; maybe when my break is over".
> 
>> Yep in the same way that ambulance drivers, doctors, and firefighters are  
>> not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their break.
> 
>   I'm pretty sure a policeman would be sent to jail if it did like
> I described.
> 

Not in the USA. The police have the duty to solve and prevent crimes, 
not to prevent all of them from occurring. Which ones they pick and 
choose is not exactly a clear cut matter.

summary: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
actual ruling: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/gonzalesf122805.pdf

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> I like SW Ep 1,

All right,

> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.

What smokest thou?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Jar Jar Binks is a great character.

> What smokest thou?

  I really can't see what's wrong with him.

  When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
> 
>> What smokest thou?
> 
>   I really can't see what's wrong with him.
> 
>   When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.

The part that I didn't like was that they gave him a comic relief role, 
which theretofore had been handled by R2D2 and C3PO.  Admittedly, he did 
advance the plot in small ways, but he was primarily comic relief.

The droids were funnier.  Jar-Jar's attempts at humor often failed, and 
there's little more annoying than an attempt a humor that fails.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
> 
>> What smokest thou?
> 
>   I really can't see what's wrong with him.
> 
>   When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.
> 

It was the sheer idiocy of the character.  It's the same reason I don't 
like characters like Barney the Dinosaur, or movies like Dumb and Dumber.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:11:51 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Warp wrote:
>> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
>>
>>> What smokest thou?
>>    I really can't see what's wrong with him.
>>    When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
>> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.
>>
>
> It was the sheer idiocy of the character.  It's the same reason I don't  
> like characters like Barney the Dinosaur, or movies like Dumb and Dumber.

But Barney's aimed at the young and Dumb and Dumber is intentionally  
idiotic, that's where Jar Jar fails; the humour in Star Wars was always  
incidental and oh look here's a character who's almost pure comic relief.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:05:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> > Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
> 
>> What smokest thou?
> 
>   I really can't see what's wrong with him.
> 
>   When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.

He was intended as a distraction to keep people from realizing how bad 
the film really was.

Lucas did an excellent job in the original three films of casting a 
*group* who could act together.  The dialogue wasn't always really good, 
but you could believe that these people could work together on their 
cause.

In ep1-ep3, I just didn't feel that was there.  Especially in ep1, 
however, because the lines were just so wooden and delivered without any 
emotive quality at all.

And then you thrown in a clown to distract from how bad it really is; 
some people said it was racial stereotyping (I think that's a stretch 
personally) that made it that much worse.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> however, because the lines were just so wooden and delivered without any 
> emotive quality at all.

I had heard that the actors complained there was so much green-screening 
that they had nothing to go on. Not unlike Neo or The Black Hole.

On the other hand, Speed Racer was apparently 100% green-screen, and 
that wasn't *too* bad. Overacted, perhaps, but ....

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:53:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> however, because the lines were just so wooden and delivered without
>> any emotive quality at all.
> 
> I had heard that the actors complained there was so much green-screening
> that they had nothing to go on. Not unlike Neo or The Black Hole.

Yeah, I'd heard that as well.  But even still, lots of actors have to 
deal with films that are largely green-screened and still do a far better 
job then the ensemble did in ep1.

> On the other hand, Speed Racer was apparently 100% green-screen, and
> that wasn't *too* bad. Overacted, perhaps, but ....

 But I think Speed Racer was *intended* to be overacted.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message