I'm really wondering if Hollywood screenwriters have to sign a contract
where they make an oath that in any story where there are multiple
characters, if one of them is wounded, sick or otherwise not completely
right, they always, and I mean always, have to hide it from the others,
even in situations where there's literally zero reasons to do that, it
makes absolutely no sense, it has no purpose whatsoever, and it only
makes things worse for everybody, and even if telling the others would
actually be beneficial.

I'm sick of seeing this again and again and again. It's like a holy rule
of screenwriting. It has been seen in like a million movies, and there's
no sign of it ever stopping.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 19/12/2013 21:13, Warp wrote:
> I'm really wondering if Hollywood screenwriters have to sign a contract
> where they make an oath that in any story where there are multiple
> characters, if one of them is wounded, sick or otherwise not completely
> right, they always, and I mean always, have to hide it from the others,
> even in situations where there's literally zero reasons to do that, it
> makes absolutely no sense, it has no purpose whatsoever, and it only
> makes things worse for everybody, and even if telling the others would
> actually be beneficial.
>
> I'm sick of seeing this again and again and again. It's like a holy rule
> of screenwriting. It has been seen in like a million movies, and there's
> no sign of it ever stopping.
>

Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p

John

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2013 8:16 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p

Seconded.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:08:03 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 20/12/2013 8:16 AM, Doctor John wrote:
>> Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p
> 
> Seconded.

I just learn to tune it out, or am more selective about what I watch.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 19/12/2013 21:13, Warp wrote:
> > I'm really wondering if Hollywood screenwriters have to sign a contract
> > where they make an oath that in any story where there are multiple
> > characters, if one of them is wounded, sick or otherwise not completely
> > right, they always, and I mean always, have to hide it from the others,
> > even in situations where there's literally zero reasons to do that, it
> > makes absolutely no sense, it has no purpose whatsoever, and it only
> > makes things worse for everybody, and even if telling the others would
> > actually be beneficial.
> >
> > I'm sick of seeing this again and again and again. It's like a holy rule
> > of screenwriting. It has been seen in like a million movies, and there's
> > no sign of it ever stopping.
> >

> Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2013 6:01 PM, Warp wrote:
>> >Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p
> Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason.

I bet that there are a few more reasons.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2013 18:03, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2013 6:01 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> >Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p
>> Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason.
>
> I bet that there are a few more reasons.
>

Abominable English, screwed-up Scottish accents, plots that a child 
could through .....

... yeah, a few more

John

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Abominable English .. plots that a child could through

Hmm... Ok, maybe I don't know the idiom.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2013 10:40 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 20/12/2013 18:03, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/12/2013 6:01 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> >Which is why I rarely, if ever, watch Hollywood cr*p
>>> Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the reason.
>>
>> I bet that there are a few more reasons.
>>
>
> Abominable English, screwed-up Scottish accents, plots that a child
> could through .....
>
> .... yeah, a few more
>

See through, Warp.

The thing that annoys me most is the moral tone. No bad deed or person 
goes unpunished. So like life.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.12.2013 21:38, schrieb Stephen:

> The thing that annoys me most is the moral tone. No bad deed or person
> goes unpunished. So like life.

I'm fine with moral tone - if it's a positive moral. But Hollywood (and 
unfortunately the vast majority of other movies as well) demands that 
anything adversary - be it people or conditions - needs to be 
/defeated/; reconciliation is rarely ever presented as an option.

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 2:29 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 21.12.2013 21:38, schrieb Stephen:
>
>> The thing that annoys me most is the moral tone. No bad deed or person
>> goes unpunished. So like life.
>
> I'm fine with moral tone - if it's a positive moral.

Generally speaking, I agree but it is tiring that the good guys always 
win and the black hats always lose.

> But Hollywood (and
> unfortunately the vast majority of other movies as well) demands that
> anything adversary - be it people or conditions - needs to be
> /defeated/; reconciliation is rarely ever presented as an option.
>

That too.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I'm fine with moral tone - if it's a positive moral. But Hollywood (and 
> unfortunately the vast majority of other movies as well) demands that 
> anything adversary - be it people or conditions - needs to be 
> /defeated/; reconciliation is rarely ever presented as an option.

In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
are not murderers.

In movies, however, the bad guy basically always dies.

One example in particular comes to mind because of how the creators
regretted killing the antagonist: The 1989 Batman movie. Since the
character of the Joker became so immensely popular, the producers
regretted having killed him, and thus he couldn't be in the sequels.
They were seriously thinking of bringing him back using some dumbass
reason.

This might have been one of the reasons why they made an unusual
exception in The Dark Knight: They probably learned their lesson.

Too bad nobody else has learned it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 9:08 AM, Warp wrote:
> In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
> are not murderers.
>
> In movies, however, the bad guy basically always dies.

So at the very best, you know the ending as soon as you know who the bad 
guy is.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 03:55 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 22/12/2013 9:08 AM, Warp wrote:
>> In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
>> are not murderers.
>>
>> In movies, however, the bad guy basically always dies.
>
> So at the very best, you know the ending as soon as you know who the bad
> guy is.

Unless it's Megamind, in which case the bad guy BECOMES the good guy 
after the good guy resigns and the bad guy creates a badder guy who 
tries to destroy the city and then they do a laser show to Welcome To 
The Jungle and have an epic battle that ends in OLLO...

...wait, that didn't make any sense, did it?

Post a reply to this message

Am 22.12.2013 16:55, schrieb Stephen:
> On 22/12/2013 9:08 AM, Warp wrote:
>> In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
>> are not murderers.
>>
>> In movies, however, the bad guy basically always dies.
>
> So at the very best, you know the ending as soon as you know who the bad
> guy is.

... which usually isn't very hard to tell either.

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 4:19 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 22/12/2013 03:55 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 22/12/2013 9:08 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
>>> are not murderers.
>>>
>>> In movies, however, the bad guy basically always dies.
>>
>> So at the very best, you know the ending as soon as you know who the bad
>> guy is.
>
> Unless it's Megamind, in which case the bad guy BECOMES the good guy
> after the good guy resigns and the bad guy creates a badder guy who
> tries to destroy the city and then they do a laser show to Welcome To
> The Jungle and have an epic battle that ends in OLLO...
>
> ....wait, that didn't make any sense, did it?

It makes perfect sense.
The good guy wins.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 4:19 PM, clipka wrote:
>> So at the very best, you know the ending as soon as you know who the bad
>> guy is.
>
> ... which usually isn't very hard to tell either.

Indeed and he often has, what passes for, an English accent, too.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> So at the very best, you know the ending as soon as you know who the bad
>>> guy is.
>>
>> Unless it's Megamind, in which case the bad guy BECOMES the good guy
>> after the good guy resigns and the bad guy creates a badder guy who
>> tries to destroy the city and then they do a laser show to Welcome To
>> The Jungle and have an epic battle that ends in OLLO...
>>
>> ....wait, that didn't make any sense, did it?
>
> It makes perfect sense.
> The good guy wins.

Or rather, the bad guy BECOMES the good guy, and then wins.

And absolutely nobody dies. Although the fish nearly ended up sleeping 
with the fishes... wait, what?

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 5:25 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>
>>> ....wait, that didn't make any sense, did it?
>>
>> It makes perfect sense.
>> The good guy wins.
>
> Or rather, the bad guy BECOMES the good guy, and then wins.

And the good guy wins.

Moral, the good guy wins.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:54:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Generally speaking, I agree but it is tiring that the good guys always
> win and the black hats always lose.

That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV 
series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.

I really liked the remade Battlestar Galactica for this reason - I mean, 
the clarity in the start between the "good" and "bad" guys was clear, but 
as the programme progressed, you saw that it wasn't really as clear cut.

Breaking Bad was similar, in that there really weren't /any/ good guys at 
all - all the characters were flawed to some extent.

But writers and producers seem less willing these days to write stories 
that have such ambiguity in them.  Well, let's face it - these days, 
we're lucky to get anything that's actually a well thought-out story.  
It's more likely to be some "reality TV" garbage that's cheap to produce 
and makes shedloads of money from advertisers.  Heck, the "Sci Fi" 
channel (now sickeningly called "SyFy") is mostly *Wrestling* shows.  WTF?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV
> series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.

One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?

Let's face it, how many actual humans set out to do something "because 
it's evil"? Mostly people set out to do things because they think it's 
necessary, or because they don't see what trouble it will cause, or 
whatever. Most people don't wake up and think "what's the most evil 
thing I could possibly do today?"

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 04:08:53 -0500, Warp wrote:

> In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
> are not murderers.

[Spoiler warning:  If you haven't watched Man of Steel and don't want to 
know how it ends, don't read any further]

That was one of the things about Man of Steel that was disappointing.  
Overall, I thought it was a good reimagining of the Superman / General Zod 
story, but Superman basically was completely unaware of the scale of his 
destruction both in Smallville and in Metropolis.

Which I can accept to a point - he was still figuring out who he was and 
what he stood for in that version of the story.  But he didn't find a way 
to let Zod live.

As an American hero, Superman is supposed to represent the so-called 
"American Exceptionalism" - but in this particular telling, the bar for 
such exceptionalism has been lowered, rather than holding it to a high 
standard with the character.  So while I actually really liked the way 
the story was told, with a focus on Clark's difficulties as a child, and 
perhaps the violence of his defense of the planet being the product of 30
+ years of bottled-up-rage that he could never let out because if he did, 
bad things would happen to his target - that was one part that was 
disappointing.

But at the same time, it introduces some of that moral ambiguity, too, 
which I like.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:35:31 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or
>> TV series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
> 
> One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?

That's a good thing to look for.  It's also interesting to listen to 
actors talk about playing the "bad guy" - most of the time, what they're 
looking for before they inhabit the role is the character's motivation - 
and usually it's because they think it's the right thing to do.

> Let's face it, how many actual humans set out to do something "because
> it's evil"? Mostly people set out to do things because they think it's
> necessary, or because they don't see what trouble it will cause, or
> whatever. Most people don't wake up and think "what's the most evil
> thing I could possibly do today?"

That's one of the complexities of Zod in Man of Steel that was 
interesting - he really thought he was doing the right thing, in order to 
save the people of Krypton.  That he was going to do it by wiping out 
humanity was incidental to him, because it was about the survival of 
*his* race.

That does make for an interesting story.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22/12/2013 7:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:54:25 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Generally speaking, I agree but it is tiring that the good guys always
>> win and the black hats always lose.
>
> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV
> series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
>

I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man, 
indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult watch. 
Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.

> I really liked the remade Battlestar Galactica for this reason - I mean,
> the clarity in the start between the "good" and "bad" guys was clear, but
> as the programme progressed, you saw that it wasn't really as clear cut.
>
> Breaking Bad was similar, in that there really weren't /any/ good guys at
> all - all the characters were flawed to some extent.
>

It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in 
American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something 
bad has got to pay for it.


> But writers and producers seem less willing these days to write stories
> that have such ambiguity in them.  Well, let's face it - these days,
> we're lucky to get anything that's actually a well thought-out story.
> It's more likely to be some "reality TV" garbage that's cheap to produce
> and makes shedloads of money from advertisers.

That seems to be the way of most things now-a-days.


> Heck, the "Sci Fi"
> channel (now sickeningly called "SyFy") is mostly *Wrestling* shows.  WTF?
>
Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am 
on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>
> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>

Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest? :-D

John

Post a reply to this message

Spoiler alerts below for Breaking Bad (read no further if you don't know 
how it ends).

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:23:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
> I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man,
> indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult watch.
> Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.

Theater itself probably does have more complexity in its storytelling, 
that's for sure.

>> I really liked the remade Battlestar Galactica for this reason - I
>> mean, the clarity in the start between the "good" and "bad" guys was
>> clear, but as the programme progressed, you saw that it wasn't really
>> as clear cut.
>>
>> Breaking Bad was similar, in that there really weren't /any/ good guys
>> at all - all the characters were flawed to some extent.
>>
>>
> It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in
> American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something
> bad has got to pay for it.

Watching the story, I wasn't so sure - Walt didn't really *pay* for his 
crimes, in the end, his death was a bit more of an easy way out.  It 
wasn't a "fair" punishment, and it wasn't clear how they were going to 
wrap it up.  Having it be an accident as a result of his own hubris had 
kind of a poetic justice to it, but it was far from the punishment he 
deserved.

>> But writers and producers seem less willing these days to write stories
>> that have such ambiguity in them.  Well, let's face it - these days,
>> we're lucky to get anything that's actually a well thought-out story.
>> It's more likely to be some "reality TV" garbage that's cheap to
>> produce and makes shedloads of money from advertisers.
> 
> That seems to be the way of most things now-a-days.

Yeah, sadly.

>> Heck, the "Sci Fi"
>> channel (now sickeningly called "SyFy") is mostly *Wrestling* shows. 
>> WTF?
>>
> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)

Depends on whether we're talking about the subject as a singular object 
or not. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:33:36 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>>
>>
> Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest?
> :-D
> 
> John

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 12:33 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>>
>
> Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest? :-D
>
> John
>

I'm not. I don't want to think of Jim wearing his waistcoat with his 
kecks around his ankles. Let him keep his dignity and his braces. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 3:10 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Spoiler alerts below for Breaking Bad (read no further if you don't know
> how it ends).
>

Or if you live in a media vacuum. :-)

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:23:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
>> I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man,
>> indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult watch.
>> Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.
>
> Theater itself probably does have more complexity in its storytelling,
> that's for sure.
>

Sorry, it was a TV play. Every now and again a drama budget is spent on 
drama.


>> It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in
>> American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something
>> bad has got to pay for it.
>
> Watching the story, I wasn't so sure - Walt didn't really *pay* for his
> crimes, in the end, his death was a bit more of an easy way out.  It
> wasn't a "fair" punishment, and it wasn't clear how they were going to
> wrap it up.  Having it be an accident as a result of his own hubris had
> kind of a poetic justice to it, but it was far from the punishment he
> deserved.
>

(How to put this without sounding overly critical, or personal?)
It is that attitude, the one that expects people (exclude politicians) 
to pay for their wrong doings, to the N th. degree, that disturbs me.
It is reflected in American literature and films. Which is where I came in.


>>>
>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>
> Depends on whether we're talking about the subject as a singular object
> or not. ;)
>

It is a collective noun.
The different branches are singular.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 22.12.2013 20:35, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> That's one thing I really look for when I'm looking for a good film or TV
>> series - ambiguity in who the good guys and the bad guys are.
> 
> One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?

Don't ask that, because we all know but fear the answer.

You see it in the daily political discussions. Everywhere they shout: We
must fight against "terrorism"!

But nearly no-one ask: Why do young men get so despaired in their lives,
that they bomb themselves away? Why are they so disappointed about our
world, about their future in this world that they hope for salvation in
a promised heaven?

It would be quite easy to stop all of this "terrorism" in a few years:

1) stop to support the preacers of hate with money and political patronage.

2) invest in education in the so-called "3rd world" countries.


But no-one really wants it. Educated people in these countries would be
a threat for our prosperity. But dumb people who shoot each other are a
solid customer for our arms and ammunition for decades.

Moreover: The vivid fear of abstract "terrorism" is a welcome reason to
degrade freedom, human rights and democracy in Western countries.

Hollywood does support this trend by its movies, so the people are
trained to accept "causeless evils" and not to ask "Why are they evil?"

Actually, it works. :-(


			Lars R.

Post a reply to this message

>> One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?
>
> Don't ask that, because we all know but fear the answer.
>
> You see it in the daily political discussions. Everywhere they shout: We
> must fight against "terrorism"!
>
> But nearly no-one ask: Why do young men get so despaired in their lives,
> that they bomb themselves away? Why are they so disappointed about our
> world, about their future in this world that they hope for salvation in
> a promised heaven?

This is something I've never figured out.

It's apparently no secret that the Muslims want us dead. But I haven't 
got the vaguest idea *why*.

(And of course, "the Muslims want us dead" is such a wild exaggeration 
that nobody should ever take such utter nonsense seriously.)

The best I can come up with is "somebody out there is really good at 
convincing impressionable young people to kill themselves in a way which 
they find profitable". Which isn't an especially convincing argument...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> And absolutely nobody dies.

Kids' movies are exempt from the rule (mostly, at least.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 04:08:53 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
> > are not murderers.

> [Spoiler warning:  If you haven't watched Man of Steel and don't want to 
> know how it ends, don't read any further]

> That was one of the things about Man of Steel that was disappointing.  

Well, at least they set it up so that clearly Superman didn't want to
kill him but had no other choice, and it caused him great pain.

I still disagree with the decision, though. Why can't they just follow
the principle in the comics? Bad guys are punished, not murdered. If for
no other reason, then for a pragmatic one: You can use the same badass
villain in a sequel, bringing more money in. If anybody, producers should
know this.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 04:30 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> And absolutely nobody dies.
>
> Kids' movies are exempt from the rule (mostly, at least.)

One could argue that Megamind is more than just a mere kids' movie.

On the other hand, The Incredibles is a film of a similar style, and 
actually a *hell* of a lot of people die in that... (Including the bad 
guy, predictably.)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:22:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 3:10 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Spoiler alerts below for Breaking Bad (read no further if you don't
>> know how it ends).
>>
>>
> Or if you live in a media vacuum. :-)

Well, some people do manage to avoid spoilers for a while, so I thought 
I'd be courteous. ;)

>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:23:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
>>> I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man,
>>> indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult
>>> watch.
>>> Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.
>>
>> Theater itself probably does have more complexity in its storytelling,
>> that's for sure.
>>
>>
> Sorry, it was a TV play. Every now and again a drama budget is spent on
> drama.

Well, yeah, but even still - the development process is similar to actual 
theatre productions.

>>> It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in
>>> American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something
>>> bad has got to pay for it.
>>
>> Watching the story, I wasn't so sure - Walt didn't really *pay* for his
>> crimes, in the end, his death was a bit more of an easy way out.  It
>> wasn't a "fair" punishment, and it wasn't clear how they were going to
>> wrap it up.  Having it be an accident as a result of his own hubris had
>> kind of a poetic justice to it, but it was far from the punishment he
>> deserved.
>>
>>
> (How to put this without sounding overly critical, or personal?)
> It is that attitude, the one that expects people (exclude politicians)
> to pay for their wrong doings, to the N th. degree, that disturbs me.
> It is reflected in American literature and films. Which is where I came
> in.

No, not taking it personally at all - over here, there is a rather strong 
belief that people get the punishments they deserve.  Which is odd, 
because just as with Walt in BB, it's rarely the case.  Justice wouldn't 
have been death, it would've been a long time in prison, knowing his 
family hated him.

But don't forget that we don't expect the wealthy to pay for their 
misdeeds either.  We call people who get to a position of wealth and 
power who get away with stuff "successful".  Makes me sick.

>>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>>
>> Depends on whether we're talking about the subject as a singular object
>> or not. ;)
>>
>>
> It is a collective noun.
> The different branches are singular.

Exactly what I was saying.  One might be talking about a singular "math 
branch."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:57:29 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 12:33 AM, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest?
>> :-D
>>
>> John
>>
>>
> I'm not. I don't want to think of Jim wearing his waistcoat with his
> kecks around his ankles. Let him keep his dignity and his braces. :-D

Makes a note of another tool to punish Stephen with. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 12:59:59 +0100, Lars R. wrote:

> Why do young men get so despaired in their lives,
> that they bomb themselves away?

That's an easy answer, unfortunately.  They're malleable, disaffected, 
and highly suggestible, and they are told half-truths laced with 
falsehoods and are misled into doing terrible things by people who 
present themselves as if they care for them, but they really don't.

Just read some about Maajid Nawaz, because he talks about his own 
radicalization and how he was recruited.  He got out, and now is working 
to provide a counter-message to what got him involved in being a 
terrorist.  It's interesting stuff.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:27:13 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> It's apparently no secret that the Muslims want us dead. But I haven't
> got the vaguest idea *why*.
> 
> (And of course, "the Muslims want us dead" is such a wild exaggeration
> that nobody should ever take such utter nonsense seriously.)

Especially since it's only a small fraction of them, not *all* of them.

And while you say it's such a wild exaggeration, it's important to point 
out that it's a very small minority who do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:34:11 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 04:08:53 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
>> > are not murderers.
> 
>> [Spoiler warning:  If you haven't watched Man of Steel and don't want
>> to know how it ends, don't read any further]
> 
>> That was one of the things about Man of Steel that was disappointing.
> 
> Well, at least they set it up so that clearly Superman didn't want to
> kill him but had no other choice, and it caused him great pain.

It didn't come across that way to me at the time, but I can see your 
point and how the scene also plays that way.

> I still disagree with the decision, though. Why can't they just follow
> the principle in the comics? Bad guys are punished, not murdered. If for
> no other reason, then for a pragmatic one: You can use the same badass
> villain in a sequel, bringing more money in. If anybody, producers
> should know this.

Well, yes, exactly.  My wife and I had a discussion about this (she's a 
big comics geek), and the thing about Superman is that he's supposed to 
be the embodiment of "American Exceptionalism" - a high standard that we 
strive to achieve.  By murdering Zod, though, Nolan lowered the bar for 
that standard.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 6:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yes, exactly.  My wife and I had a discussion about this (she's a
> big comics geek), and the thing about Superman is that he's supposed to
> be the embodiment of "American Exceptionalism" - a high standard that we
> strive to achieve.  By murdering Zod, though, Nolan lowered the bar for
> that standard.

IIRC from my youth. Superman had never killed anyone. He always 
delivered them to Justice.
Bad show, that man.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> But nearly no-one ask: Why do young men get so despaired in their
>> lives, that they bomb themselves away? Why are they so disappointed
>> about our world, about their future in this world that they hope
>> for salvation in a promised heaven?
> 
> This is something I've never figured out.
> 
> It's apparently no secret that the Muslims want us dead. But I
> haven't got the vaguest idea *why*.

Okay, you already oversimplicate it. :-(

It has nothing to do with Islam. Religion is just a vehicle to carry an
oversimplied message. Why simplified? So it can be understood by people
without education.

As always: It is much easier to blame other people for own misery. That
principle works exactly the same "here" (in Western Europe and Nothern
America) and "there" (the Eastern Hemisphere, the Muslim world etc.)


The only way to overcome such thinking is: education and enlightenment.
But instead of investing in schools and universities we "invest" in
armament and support apologists of stupidity, not only in Muslim
countries, also in our own ones. :-(


If you want to understand the native people in Iraq or Afghanistan:

Imagine, you have to grow up a land where some foreign troops would have
occupied your country? If they would behave arrogantly like "world
sheriffs", kill native people here and there without regard whether they
are men, women, children? If you and every friend you still have would
have victims of the war in his own family. People who are dead or
severely wounded by a war you don't understand, a war that you didn't
have begun. Of course, due to war there is no regular economy, no jobs
for your parents. You just don't know how to survive the next weeks.

And due to war there is also no regulary school for the pupils, since
many many years. The only bit of education you received in your whole
life you got from your local religious leader or from local combattants
that also won't tell you the truth, but you have absolutely no chance to
figure that out. You trust them, because there is nothing else to trust
in your little war world.

But they tell you: "If you want to take revenge for your father, your
dead uncle and your injured niece, just come with us and we will give
you to eat and to drink and if we all fight together we will chase away
that bad occupiers and free our country!"

Wouldn't you join them? Especially if the other option would be the fear
that you (and your family) would be suspected to be a collaborateur and
your little brother is killed next day? Of course, you will!


And last, but not least:
Neither the native people in Iraq nor in Afghanistan had a choice
whether they want to live in a battle zone for their whole life. But the
foreign troops ompletely consists of volunrary(!) figthers. Isn't it
understandable that the natives just dislike them already just for that?


Lars R.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 18:50:35 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 6:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, yes, exactly.  My wife and I had a discussion about this (she's a
>> big comics geek), and the thing about Superman is that he's supposed to
>> be the embodiment of "American Exceptionalism" - a high standard that
>> we strive to achieve.  By murdering Zod, though, Nolan lowered the bar
>> for that standard.
> 
> IIRC from my youth. Superman had never killed anyone. He always
> delivered them to Justice.
> Bad show, that man.

Yep, that's Amy's recollection as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 07:09 PM, Lars R. wrote:
> And last, but not least:
> Neither the native people in Iraq nor in Afghanistan had a choice
> whether they want to live in a battle zone for their whole life. But the
> foreign troops ompletely consists of volunrary(!) figthers. Isn't it
> understandable that the natives just dislike them already just for that?

...so what you're saying is, harassing anybody and everybody who is or 
appears to be Muslim is the most effective way to end this sad state of 
affairs, which is why major world governments are currently doing 
exactly that?

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 6:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:22:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>

>> Or if you live in a media vacuum. :-)
>
> Well, some people do manage to avoid spoilers for a while, so I thought
> I'd be courteous. ;)
>

You are right, of course.
But even I heard about the ending.


>> Sorry, it was a TV play. Every now and again a drama budget is spent on
>> drama.
>
> Well, yeah, but even still - the development process is similar to actual
> theatre productions.
>

There is an obvious difference between drama and the usual.

> No, not taking it personally at all - over here, there is a rather strong
> belief that people get the punishments they deserve.  Which is odd,
> because just as with Walt in BB, it's rarely the case.  Justice wouldn't
> have been death, it would've been a long time in prison, knowing his
> family hated him.
>
> But don't forget that we don't expect the wealthy to pay for their
> misdeeds either.  We call people who get to a position of wealth and
> power who get away with stuff "successful".  Makes me sick.
>

We will have you singing the Red Flag, yet. ;-)


>>>
>>>
>> It is a collective noun.
>> The different branches are singular.
>
> Exactly what I was saying.  One might be talking about a singular "math
> branch."
>
Exactly! Then you should call it Arithmetic (not, "you do the math."), 
Geometry, Trigonometry etc.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 6:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not. I don't want to think of Jim wearing his waistcoat with his
>> >kecks around his ankles. Let him keep his dignity and his braces.:-D
> Makes a note of another tool to punish Stephen with.;)

In your own time. My lively lad.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:59:16 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 6:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Or if you live in a media vacuum. :-)
>>
>> Well, some people do manage to avoid spoilers for a while, so I thought
>> I'd be courteous. ;)
>>
>>
> You are right, of course.
> But even I heard about the ending.

:)  Yeah, it probably is pretty well known by now.

>>> Sorry, it was a TV play. Every now and again a drama budget is spent
>>> on drama.
>>
>> Well, yeah, but even still - the development process is similar to
>> actual theatre productions.
>>
> There is an obvious difference between drama and the usual.

Yep.

>> No, not taking it personally at all - over here, there is a rather
>> strong belief that people get the punishments they deserve.  Which is
>> odd, because just as with Walt in BB, it's rarely the case.  Justice
>> wouldn't have been death, it would've been a long time in prison,
>> knowing his family hated him.
>>
>> But don't forget that we don't expect the wealthy to pay for their
>> misdeeds either.  We call people who get to a position of wealth and
>> power who get away with stuff "successful".  Makes me sick.
>>
>>
> We will have you singing the Red Flag, yet. ;-)

LOL.  Then I'll be hauled before a McCarthy-era panel to prove that I'm 
not a communist or something.

>>> It is a collective noun.
>>> The different branches are singular.
>>
>> Exactly what I was saying.  One might be talking about a singular "math
>> branch."
>>
> Exactly! Then you should call it Arithmetic (not, "you do the math."),
> Geometry, Trigonometry etc.

--- snip ---

math, n.3
View as: Outline |Full entryQuotations: Show all |Hide all
Pronunciation:  Brit.	 /maθ/ , U.S. /mæθ/
Forms:  18– math, 18– math. (with point).
Etymology:  Shortened < mathematics n. (probably originally as graphic 
abbreviation). Compare later maths n. and French math (1880).
N. Amer. colloq.
 
  Mathematics (esp. as a subject of study at school or college).
Cf. maths n.   (the usual British colloquial abbreviation).

--- snip ---

Seems the OED accepts the Americanised version as well as the British 
version. :P

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> And last, but not least: Neither the native people in Iraq nor in 
>> Afghanistan had a choice whether they want to live in a battle zone
>> for their whole life. But the foreign troops ompletely consists of
>> volunrary(!) figthers. Isn't it understandable that the natives
>> just dislike them already just for that?
> 
> ....so what you're saying is, harassing anybody and everybody who is 
> or appears to be Muslim is the most effective way to end this sad 
> state of affairs, which is why major world governments are currently
>  doing exactly that?

I don't know _why_ a certain government does this or that. But it seems
cynical but completely logical foe me: if you're the leader of a
weapon-exporting country, you must ensure that there are always anough
conflicts and wars in the world to bring enough orders for your local
military industry.

And to do this, you should calm down your own citizens so they don't
disturb your pervert game. And how to do that: Keep them dumb (e.g. by
shorting a broad education in your population), tell them again and
again your lies that you're fighting a common enemy, until even the last
one in your country beleave it without doubt. (And only a few remind
that your current "enemy" was bred by yourself some years ago. History
repeats itself.)


To make a long story short: Neither "the Islam" nor "Al Qaeda" nor any
other so called "terrorism network" is the real problem. The real prblem
is the greed. The greed that prevent effective actions for more
education and enlightenment in the world, not only in the so called "3rd
World".

Dumb, lazy and inert people are much easier to govern than intelligent,
well-educated and discerning people.


				Lars R.

Post a reply to this message

Lars R. <rou### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> And to do this, you should calm down your own citizens so they don't
> disturb your pervert game. And how to do that: Keep them dumb (e.g. by
> shorting a broad education in your population), tell them again and
> again your lies that you're fighting a common enemy, until even the last
> one in your country beleave it without doubt. (And only a few remind
> that your current "enemy" was bred by yourself some years ago. History
> repeats itself.)

You do realize that many muslim terrorist attacks have been executed by
muslims who had lived and studied for years in a western country, some
of them even having a higher education?

It's more than just education. It is very much about the religion and
its indocrination.

I think that a very good demonstration of this is that recently a poll
was performed in the UK, and one of the questions was about homosexuals.
From the about 500 muslims that participated in the poll exactly 100%
opposed homosexuals. Many of these muslims had been born in the UK and
had studied there all their lives.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 9:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Seems the OED accepts the Americanised version as well as the British
> version. :P

Sigh! You have worn me down. Maths it is.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:56:15 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 9:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Seems the OED accepts the Americanised version as well as the British
>> version. :P
> 
> Sigh! You have worn me down. Maths it is.

;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message