I don't know how many of you have heard about Serenity, the new action-sci fi-western-comic-drama movie from Joss Whedon (creator of Buffy The Vampire Slayer), but I want to make sure that you all hear about it now.
Serenity is a feature-length adaptation/extension of Whedon's TV show, Firefly, which was tragically cut short after only a single season. (I blame the Fox Network, as they completely and utterly bungled the advertising for the show, and I really think it was one of the better shows to come out this century.) If you missed Firefly, it's been released on DVD and is absolutely worth checking out. Particularly if you like intergalactic geishas, scruffy mercenaries, train robberies, and superpowered crazy people.
Now, for a variety of reasons, I have not yet seen Serenity. Indeed, while I am most certainly going to see it as soon as possible, I may not get a chance to see it while it is in theaters. The thing is, I want Joss Whedon to get filthy rich, so I am hoping at least one person who reads this will go see Serenity and will therefore be taking my place at the box office. GO SEE THIS MOVIE. If you're cool, you'll like it. You don't even have to take my word for it...it's getting very good reviews, and many reviewers are emphasizing that Serenity is one of the rare from-TV adaptations that manages to please long-time fans while also entertaining viewers who never watched the TV show.
One last time: please give Joss Whedon your money. Go see Serenity. If nothing else, it's a great excuse to chow some popcorn and avoid talking to your date.
21 Comments:
Can I just cut him a check?
Yes, Aleks, you may just cut Joss a check if you wish. But you might actually like the movie...it features several attractive women who could kick your ass, and I seem to remember you enjoying movies like that.
You know, I've always been slapped once (by a blindfolded Danielle T, aiming for some other jerk in AP Psych), and yet from another perspective nearly every attractive woman I've ever known has kicked my ass. I don't want to call you a mistake, for fear you'll be recalled, but God sure blew it if He thought he could create your ilk and not expect the cosmic order to be shaken up a bit.
Now is a very good time for me to fly, and I've got weekends off (but only for October), so let me know if you're up to some brief company in DC.
Oddly enough, I just caught an hour of of your precious Firefly. The Geisha was having a lesbian affair with a blond, which can't have meant ratings were good.
And do let me know if now is *not* a good time for blitz visitations, I know you're a busy student and I will be moving to Maryland after all. So don't be shy about making your needs known.
Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.
http://www.nytimes.com
/2005/10/01/politics/
01educ.html?hp&ex=1128139200&en=
2ca0f9a90d76f517&ei=5094&partner
=homepage
But how will the sheep hear about how competent and honest Bush is if he can't use taxpayer money to buy ads disguised as news (anymore)? Oh yeah, Fox.
You know what's the best part of that story, Aleks? There's no penalty for breaking that law.
Still, it's nice to have that grey area clarified. How were they supposed to know there was anything wrong with using taxpayer money to buy campaign commercials and disguise them as news stories? These are the ilk Citizen F considers competent and honest and votes for every single time, so what kind of rational or moral judgement do you expect? Shant thou knowest the shepard by his flock?
A meatball view of creation
John Foyston, Newhouse News Service
October 2, 2005 FSMVAR1002
Folks proposing intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of evolution should recognize as brothers in arms -- er, noodles -- the Pastafarians, who seek equal time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster," wrote Bobby Henderson in a recent letter to the Kansas State Board of Education. Henderson, 25, lives in Roseburg, Ore., and is hoping that someone will offer him a job that doesn't make his head explode, as he puts it.
Judging from his summer, he's had some spare time since his last job as a software development engineer -- enough to become the head prophet of Flying Spaghetti Monster in response to the Kansas education board's recent proposed new science education standards, which open the way for intelligent design to be taught along with the traditional theory of evolution.
Intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Adherents stress the search for evidence of design in nature and downplay their nearly universal belief that the intelligent designer in question is God as worshiped by Christians.
Henderson, owner of a physics degree from Oregon State University, says that as long as there's room for intelligent design in science curricula, then there's room for some meatballs and marinara sauce, too. "It was He (Flying Spaghetti Monster) who created all that we see and all that we feel," Henderson wrote. "We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him."
A fond vision of the future
After expressing his hope that legal action will not be required to make it so, Henderson closes his letter to the Kansas board with this fond vision of the future: "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country and, eventually, the world; one-third time for intelligent design, one-third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one-third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
http://www.startribune.com/stories/389/5642760.html
Are you folks just NOW catching on to the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I've been a loyal FSMist for months!
I was worshipping sentient pasta before it was cool!
I'm not one of you hip young people, always looking for the next new thing (thang, I believe, to you). I like to see that a theory has been "vetted by reality" for awhile, say 5700 years, before I make any snap judgements.
And if you were doing it months ago, how'd it take so long to become cool?
What does it tell you about someone when they make up something about someone outside of the discussion every time they try to make a point? Nothing good, I think. Here's one of those tree-falling-in-the-woods hypothetical questions that one can ponder but never truly answer: If Aleks had never heard of me, would he make up things about someone else or be content making points that only address current issues, completely omitting the fictious thoughts, actions and words of people he's never met? I guess none of us will ever really know the answer to that. I can stop reading this blog for a month, but when I come back I still see my handle mentioned and my words misquoted. I can only conclude that as long as this blog is read by Aleks, he will post comments with fake facts about me. In some ways it's flattering, but in more ways it's just really sad...then funny...then sad again.
Yours,
Citizen F
If you'd never accused me of being a "sheep", of agreeing with Kerry on "every single issue", of insulting the military, and had never 'asked' if my uncle was a child molester or said that Author "probably" wanted the President to die, I wouldn't even say that you had, much less someone else. Does it dent your amazing and factproof image of yourself that I cite you accurately and you consider it vile slander, while you consider yourself wonderful for being the person who actually said these things? In any case, you seem unable to provide a single instance of an "issue" on which you provided a "fact" that I failed to "overcome" and thus tried to "supress". But that won't even slow you down, will it whiny little martyr?
You know, just for the record, I do not wish death upon George W Bush. I believe President Bush would be doing this country a favor if he admitted his mistakes and resigned his post, but I don't think his death would accomplish anything.
ZDK,
Aleks continually quotes me inaccurately and out of context. PLEASE don't take anything he says seriously. The quote he was mentioning was made as a clear exaggeration of your disapproval of the President. That was OBVIOUS in the original post. Again, please don't believe Aleks when he quotes me. You know that you can take anything out of context and make it sound like it means anything, especially if people are speaking figuratively, joking or exaggerating.
CF
To be frank, CF, you've been making unfounded generalizations and assumptions since your debut here, including misrepresenting what I (and others) have said on many occasions. It brings a smile to my face to see you complaining about how unfair it is to reap what you sow.
My suggestion? Write more clearly, more carefully, and more accurately. Then, if Aleks misrepresents what you have said, you can pull up your clear, careful, accurate quote, and shut him down soundly. I like seeing shut-downs a whole lot more than I like having people whining about how they're being picked on. As long as you keep in mind that you are all here to dance about for my ammusement, you'll do fine...:)
ZDK,
I understand why you would feel that I've made unfounded generalizations. I'm 100% sure that's true, and many times, as you've accurately pointed out, it is my fault for not clearly stating the tongue-in-cheek nature of some of those generalizations or other comments I've made (such as "your analysts" which was a tongue-in-cheek comment as I am well aware that you don't care for those analysts). As I said, often times my fault. Those same generalizations and assumptions have been made about me, though, and I react simply by correcting the individual who made the false assumption. In this anonymous realm, assumptions will occur, it's unavoidable. I try my best to apologize when I've been corrected by you or anyone else on this page after making an assumption, and I hope you've noticed that as well.
At the same time, isn't it just mildly laughable that someone would quote me inaccurately when he could not provide the source for the quote and could not be called on the inaccuracy since all the posts are gone? Isn't it also just a little bit comical that someone might mention the same single-word quote with no context from me when that quote was made over a year ago? I don't want to sound like I'm whinning, even though I sort of am, but I should at least be able to make fun of the guy if he's going to do that. I can't provide the correct context and the accurate quote because they're gone (and even if I could I'd just end up with no progress after 373 comments), so it seems like it's at least fair that I point out how silly it is when he does it and defend myself when someone sounds like they might be buying it.
But you are 100% right in the sense that I have made inaccurate assumptions and over-used generalizations and fully deserve to be set straight when I do it. I just hope you, and others, understand that I've never done it intentionally. So maybe I'm reaping what I have sown(sp?) to some extent, and it's true we are all here for your amusement, but I think I at least have the right to make fun of him for using my year-old fake quotes in his posts before I even comment on the issue. Let me know if you disagree.
CF
Actually, CF, I started saving lists from when we first discovered that they were erased. I suggested that you do the same, and you chose not to and now accuse me of lying when I refer to those conversations that you had every opportunity to preserve for yourself. But if you want to explain the context for your suggestion that my uncle molested me that makes you noble for making it and me a villian for condemning it, please do. Seems like a perfect test case for your claim. Unlike yourself, who just make up claims I've supposedly made about Halliburton, or hypocrisy by Author when she supposedly attacked "the Right" for making "political speeches in church" when in fact I'd never mentioned Halliburton and she'd never mentioned a political speech made in a church, I've been very accurate in quoting you. I have no reason not to be! Obviously your self image is not subject to being "vetted by reality", but don't you wonder why you consider it unfair and cruel to be quoted accurately?
Aleks, you know I don't have those lists so you know I don't have those quotes. I am not using year-old quotes in my arguments, so I don't have any need for them. If you need to use a year-old quote in order to make a point, you can easily provide the context because you have it readily available.
For the record, I didn't say it was "cruel" I said it was "comical" that you needed my year-old fake quotes to make a point.
From this point on, I would rather discuss the current issues then make extreme accusations about what you said in the past regarding my family, my feelings about the military, and my honesty. I don't need to make those accusations to make my point. My position will stand or fall by my own words, I won't use yours to enhance it. You don't have to follow my lead. I won't let you drag me down into those discussions anymore. From now on (1:56 PM Central Daylight Time on October 7th, 2005) if you make an extreme accusation about me, I might defend myself but won't respond in kind. In the future, please point it out immediately if you feel I have made an extreme accusation about you so that I can withdraw it and apologize.
CF
There you go again, you just made another "extreme" and completely dishonest accusation. I have not used a single "fake" quote. Do you think you're clever for claiming to be taking the high ground in a post with insults and lies like that? Didn't you claim to have read the New Testiment? Hypocrites don't do as well as you probably hope to.
It must be nice, though, to go through life with all your actions being someone else's fault. [I won't let you drag me down into those discussions anymore.] I "drag [you] down" the path of claiming I insult the military and insinuating that my uncle is a child molester? I somehow forced you to suggest that Author wanted the President of the United States to die? [I would rather discuss the current issues then make extreme accusations about what you said in the past] Any "extreme accusations" you might make are about what *I've* allegedly said, not your claims that I am a "sheep", agree with Kerry on "every single issue", and insult the military? So you, as a "wolf", are pretty much just an innocent bystander being persecuted for righteousnes' sake! How mean and unfair of me to criticize you for your false and vicious claims, the right thing have been to agree and congratulate you on the eloquence, morality and dignity with which you pursue those "facts" and "issues", right?
Aleks, I apologize. I did not believe defending the context of my quotes and pointing out that they were not legitimate would be considered an extreme accusation. I will not refer to them as "fake" quotes anymore and I withdraw that comment fully. Again, I apologize. I will instead say that you have used words attributed to me that I don't believe represent the original intent of the statements in which they were used. Do you still consider that an "extreme accusation"? If so, can you please suggest away for me to defend myself against your use of my words without links or full context that you don't consider extreme?
CF
In principle, a good happen, support the views of the author
Post a Comment
<< Home