What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maria Cuervo

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Lisa Sparks : aka one smokin' mamma ~!

:yes: Yuh! I hear ya. I went from a 21 in HP monitor to using an 11 in Eee Pc... to an 8 in galaxy tablet to a 5 in android Samsung Note. :blush: If I can't find the cable I will be on the 4 in Evo by morning. I am already typing with an android pen. Oh...the shame of it.:duh:

I admit I have two screens. One is 37 inches. But I will be stuck on the iPhone and will not enjoy the big screen until I reformat. At least I can watch movies on it. Just no net. Was watching Oblivion earlier. I wrote a review on that a year ago but never published it.... The amount of writing I waste is sad. It's all about cloning. (That movie).
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Re: Lisa Sparks : aka one smokin' mamma ~!

I admit I have two screens. One is 37 inches. But I will be stuck on the iPhone and will not enjoy the big screen until I reformat. At least I can watch movies on it. Just no net. Was watching Oblivion earlier. I wrote a review on that a year ago but never published it.... The amount of writing I waste is sad. It's all about cloning. (That movie).

Which 'clone' movie? Oh...Oblivion!

I bought an HP media center PC all cable ready to hook up with Time Warner. It has the poorest pixel quality I've ever seen. Waste of time to store programs on it like a dvr.
 

Maria Cuervo

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Lisa Sparks : aka one smokin' mamma ~!

Which 'clone' movie?

I bought an HP media center PC all cable ready to hook up with Time Warner. It has the poorest pixel quality I've ever seen. Waste of time to store programs on it like a dvr.

Oblivion the movie with Tom Cruise. If I can get onto my other computer (also fussing) I will post what I wrote. But it is probably a very unusual reading.

It is cheaper to buy all the parts and assemble it. Better computer too.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Oddly enough, I really liked Oblivion. I've watched it a couple of times and thought it was a good movie with an interesting sub-text. :)
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I had a whole bunch of wiring problems go wrong with my autos last year. The guage needles wouldn't move. The wipers, the interior light went on only when it wanted to...All l Winter long I had this infuriating mystery to solve.



:yes:
 

Maria Cuervo

Gold Meritorious Patron
Maria's review of Oblivion....

What is Oblivion - would this be to cease to exist or to exist in infinite copies? A nightmare (for humans) would be endure infinite and identical doppelgangers of oneself (clones). Such a state of affairs would trivialize relationships and 'love'. If there are many mes, infinite mes, and they 'love' different persons then I am not special and neither are my truths and neither is this or that person or that 'feeling' special (following a sort of logic). All this causes a queasy feeling in humans, forcing them to suspect the very arbitrary nature of a life in the actual (world). If there is such a thing as a destiny a man stuck in story arc expectations and fears of melting into oblivion would not have the stamina to grab hold of a destiny if he was one clone of himself. He would not be able even in his best moments to seize a destiny.

Oblivion defined as the human being disappearing into infinite numbers of itself
Accordingly, maybe what drives the movie "Oblivion" is the fear of the oblivion of a way of life: the oblivion of the human form. In the story, Jack's form is cloned thousands of times by 'aliens' who have stripped the planet of most humans. The planet is not prettier after the departure of humans. Visual devastation is everywhere apparent. Apparently the remains of humanity are harder to get rid of and even uglier than the living version was: the planet is not seemingly improved by the absence of humans but perhaps according to the logic of robots it's now a simpler and more orderly place. And supposedly the 'humans' who are left, since they are clones, are better kept in line.

The oblivion of forgotten oppressors, or, every story arc needs an evil enemy

Oblivion is a movie that troubles itself with worry because the human race has mostly been annihilated. The earth is practically vacant (what a relief for the 'environment' some would say). The remaining 'ruling' inhabitants are clones whose only remaining form of human intelligence is obedience. They've internalized this obedience and obey on their own without question and without visible presence of enforcers (although killer drones are always at the ready to ensure compliance). What happened to the 'original' humans of which they are a pattern is less clear.

The few rebel humans that survive must fight a new fear: that the uniqueness of each human being is not inviolate, that the days of unique human beings are over. Uniqueness of humans is a state of affairs that was once a given but now enters into oblivion: a forgotten archaic detail of human history. The aliens are cloning certain humans and insofar as anyone can be 'copied' (in every detail being exactly the same as the original) any human 'captured' and cloned by the aliens (with memories of the original from which they are cloned intact) IS the original. This means that the clone will enjoy the identical (or close) emotions and intelligence and looks of the 'original' and, for all intents and purposes, will BE the person that was cloned - infinite times over as it turns out. In a perverse logic the aliens make thousands, perhaps infinite, copies of the main character Jack Parker. A difficulty with this has to do with the clones as supposed identical copies. If they are identical then why are the copies (initially) portrayed as such automatons if the original was not? Or maybe they are not automatons, maybe with the humans that are left fear their overlords?

The oblivion of the nostalgia-resurrection of days when humans were original and the earth not so empty

The movie is not particularly critical of the dilemma of the poor originals (shucks, they aren't originals after all!) and this is clear at the end where the story arc contrives to use this curious situation as part of a way to resolve the film into a happy ending (where the human wins, thus maintaining the human world and its values). The end involves a sentimental reunion of lovers - conveniently man and wife (even in an apocalypse the social order wants to uphold legal relations). And this happy ending occurs in an idyllic setting with a lake and cabin and woods - an approving nature in tow.

If we can overlook it, the catch (or price to be paid) is that the 'man' is a copy of another copy of a Jack Harper who is already dead. The wife of course overlooks that detail in order to go with the flow. The happy ending works anyway because viewers often want it that way. The need for neat story arcs lets viewers conclude along with the story writers that the 'consciousness' of Jack Harper is what counts. Since Jack Harper's consciousness is 'one' with that of the clone who appears at the end, viewers can conclude that therefore the ideal subject Jack Harper (the original who died) continues to lives in that clone. Plus, who hates a happy ending?

This transmutation (the return to humanity) is possible for any clone if only the clone finds a way to 'connect' with his true being (the pattern of the unique human it is cloned from). Since this particular clone at the end of the film is in touch with his inner Jack Harper then he passes muster. It so happens that in the film at least two Jack Harpers 'click' with the original and as a result qualify as the real Jack Harper. But one of these clones dies - a convenient detail insofar as the story arc says there should only be one original at the end. Everything needed for a restoration of human values is therefore possible in the ending of the movie: the lakefront real estate (a storybook retirement home), books (proof of cultivation, humanity and thought - humans not robots after all care about useless things like knowledge), an intact couple who miraculously manage to escape destruction and are able to maintain the human form of life, thus to show that there will be a future (ah, love survives, goodness triumphs!) All of these smaller story arcs of the actual (world, social order) are part of a more general story arc the film wants to convey: I-we-the human survives and what matters is not this problem of originals or copies.

Enter the aliens to bring on the oblivion and mess up what's left of human dreams and story arcs

In spite of a trite ending the problem of Oblivion is a serious one, the possibility in the future of the infinite replication or repetition of individual human beings and the horror that such cloning not only will happen but could happen to me. It is, after all, the main plot of the film (the twist) and the main 'revelation' to be confronted by one of the copies of Jack Harper and what causes a certain terror in him, the question, am I really me? Am I really who I am? He had believed himself original only to find out he was not. What seems to be a constant in the human form of being, that each human is unique and the only one, may not always be a constant.

This problem could only be a Western one since the West prizes both consciousness and the "I" with such vehemence. The ending doesn't really stop this replication or resolve the problem of copies but leaves the question in suspense, instead diverting concern with the whitewash of romance and 'nature'. The Jack Harper who fights back shows that a replicant-clone (or a few) can struggle against the destruction of the human form (even if we are no longer human and if humans have ceased to be we can still continue to celebrate them or their memory.) Further, in a mechanized society it is possible (even for a clone-automaton) to find its 'inner being' (the Jack Harper the original). Life has meaning. Another way of saying that, OK, we are not original beings but it's ok as long as we can connect with our inner being or a reasonable facsimile thereof. The discovery of its facsimile is good enough for the clone, allowing it to call itself human. Since the "Tet" (on which the clones feed and also the spaceship belonging to the aliens) is destroyed the fear that the infinite propagation of "I"s is going to persist is also assuaged. Maybe now the clones that are left will be unique again. Love wins and the evil is destroyed. Thus the human self (and consciousness) is safe once again and can go back to sleep!

preventing oblivion: on failing oblivion 101

What was less satisfying in the film then was the way that Jack Harper battled his other selves in order to restore humanity's equilibrium to return the world to the human order and remove it from future scenarios capable of upending that order. What was hinted was a problem that always bothers human beings - that ways of life, as well as entire civilizations, can come to an end and the way that technology plays in such ends. Even when they do come to an end humans will pretend it's not the case and build a mystique around a culture and a life (the original Jack Harper). The story arc is primarily involved with such mystiques - the denying of less than human endings and showing that there is a way to go on, that destructions are really continuations not endings. Why is it that an ending, which not always results in continuation, is so disturbing that creatures have to avoid endings at all costs? Just because a particular civilization ends its ending does not imply that it was not noble. Destruction and chaos do not check in advance the credentials of what is destroyed. Noble things end as well as ignoble things.

Oblivion as the culmination of the civilization and rearing of man

The clones are created as limited beings, less than human, precisely so the human will triumph. Another thought - it is not that they respond this way because they are clones: they are exact replicas after all. It is rather that some of their originals, Jack for example, were already good obedient herd animals and so the copies couldn't be expected to go much further. The clones of this film have no resources to draw beyond whatever qualities existed in that original.
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WALL-E

WALL-E (stylized with an interpunct as WALL·E) is a 2008 American computer-animated science-fiction comedy film produced by Pixar Animation Studios and released by Walt Disney Pictures. Directed by Andrew Stanton, the story follows a robot named WALL-E, who is designed to clean up an abandoned, waste-covered Earth far in the future. He falls in love with another robot named EVE, who also has a programmed task, and follows her into outer space on an adventure that changes the destiny of both his kind and humanity. Both robots exhibit an appearance of free will and emotions similar to humans, which develop further as the film progresses.

Poor WALL-E. I think Tom stold his plot

DI-Walle-1-DI-to-L10.jpg


f6dc35c19b7802ddc56c5e07f2bcaf35b39e6b7e.jpg
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Re: Maria's review of Oblivion....

What is Oblivion


Snipped

Enter the aliens to bring on the oblivion and mess up what's left of human dreams and story arcs

In spite of a trite ending the problem of Oblivion is a serious one, the possibility in the future of the infinite replication or repetition of individual human beings and the horror that such cloning not only will happen but could happen to me. It is, after all, the main plot of the film (the twist) and the main 'revelation' to be confronted by one of the copies of Jack Harper and what causes a certain terror in him, the question, am I really me? Am I really who I am? He had believed himself original only to find out he was not. What seems to be a constant in the human form of being, that each human is unique and the only one, may not always be a constant.

This problem could only be a Western one since the West prizes both consciousness and the "I" with such vehemence. The ending doesn't really stop this replication or resolve the problem of copies but leaves the question in suspense, instead diverting concern with the whitewash of romance and 'nature'. The Jack Harper who fights back shows that a replicant-clone (or a few) can struggle against the destruction of the human form (even if we are no longer human and if humans have ceased to be we can still continue to celebrate them or their memory.) Further, in a mechanized society it is possible (even for a clone-automaton) to find its 'inner being' (the Jack Harper the original). Life has meaning. Another way of saying that, OK, we are not original beings but it's ok as long as we can connect with our inner being or a reasonable facsimile thereof. The discovery of its facsimile is good enough for the clone, allowing it to call itself human. Since the "Tet" (on which the clones feed and also the spaceship belonging to the aliens) is destroyed the fear that the infinite propagation of "I"s is going to persist is also assuaged. Maybe now the clones that are left will be unique again. Love wins and the evil is destroyed. Thus the human self (and consciousness) is safe once again and can go back to sleep!

preventing oblivion: on failing oblivion 101

What was less satisfying in the film then was the way that Jack Harper battled his other selves in order to restore humanity's equilibrium to return the world to the human order and remove it from future scenarios capable of upending that order. What was hinted was a problem that always bothers human beings - that ways of life, as well as entire civilizations, can come to an end and the way that technology plays in such ends. Even when they do come to an end humans will pretend it's not the case and build a mystique around a culture and a life (the original Jack Harper). The story arc is primarily involved with such mystiques - the denying of less than human endings and showing that there is a way to go on, that destructions are really continuations not endings. Why is it that an ending, which not always results in continuation, is so disturbing that creatures have to avoid endings at all costs? Just because a particular civilization ends its ending does not imply that it was not noble. Destruction and chaos do not check in advance the credentials of what is destroyed. Noble things end as well as ignoble things.


Wall-e_and_Cockroach.jpg



Oblivion as the culmination of the civilization and rearing of man
.

The clones are created as limited beings, less than human, precisely so the human will triumph. Another thought - it is not that they respond this way because they are clones: they are exact replicas after all. It is rather that some of their originals, Jack for example, were already good obedient herd animals and so the copies couldn't be expected to go much further. The clones of this film have no resources to draw beyond whatever qualities existed in that original

I remember when I was a teen I would clay demo the time track and the falling away from the main body of theta to individuate down the line. This was on the old HSDC course after listening to the study and student hat lectures.. I thought each split from the timeline would be free to accrue new emotions and experiences making it less of a copy of the original theta. I guess the movie here isn't giving the clones hope for unique developmental outcomes. Are they arrested in this?

When I am out in the garden I marvel at the sameness of the marigolds and the trumpet plants which all have a life presence. I marvel when I remember my auditor at a Flag review when I told him "I am my 'own' clone here....and the situation is NOT to be unmocked!" Poor Rick Sheehy. :unsure: I was feeling it was a big mistake to audit me on any kind of earlier similar experience chain. I did not intend to run anything earlier similar I told him. I felt it was unmocking to the integrity of the postulate to BE an individual. The regressions were causing me to feel I was becoming 'unmocked' as a unique first-ever creation. At least in this for NOW unit of time.
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
Re: Lisa Sparks : aka one smokin' mamma ~!

On a lighter note . . . .;

Lisa Sparks major claim to fame is that in one 12 hour period she had sex with 919 men.

Now, if that doesn't open many lines of jokes & humor for some of you - add this fact : she did in Poland !

<><><><>


No tech nerds or geeks managed to get the importance of Ada Lovelace, so how about this one " Catherine of Siena " - who know who she was & her historical standing - if not significance ?

<><><><><>

Ah someone mentioned ' catholic & jewish ' as religions.

Some, like mentioning features like the " hawk nose " seem to be under the impression the jewish peoples are a race.

Which is it - religion or race.................perhaps both ?


I never really knew.

<><><><><><><>

I guess someone saying what they grew with as common usage is now what they are going to continue to use no matter what the rest of the world thinks.

There are, I guess, people from the deep South who had some words in the 40's & 50's that were in very common usage that one can continue to use today although most of the rest of the world finds offensive.

I think it may have been Oprah that said " Some people can't change. They are just going to have to get old & die before their ways are gone ".

In any event, I keep hoping one day we'll all look on one another as fellow members of the human race as we move away from all these divisive & derogatory put-down type names we've come up with for one another.

Love & Blessings

giz

What about John Holmes, aka Johnny Wadd?

The actor.

LOL
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I sometimes wonder why people bother to get *so* caught up in the significance of a thing. If I've learned anything in this life it's that most of it is insignificant.
Life; don't analyse it, just enjoy it while you still can. :)
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Ah someone mentioned ' catholic & jewish ' as religions.

Some, like mentioning features like the " hawk nose " seem to be under the impression the jewish peoples are a race.

Which is it - religion or race.................perhaps both ?


I never really knew.


Gizmo wrote the above.

Of course, Catholicism is a religion, people of any race or national background can partake of that religion and they do.

In the case of Judaism, things are different, very much different. The Jewish people started out as a "tribe" of people in a certain portion of the world inhabited by other tribes with similar racial and national backgrounds. The larger group of people, all tribes combined, tended to consist of what might be called a subdivision of a race, particularly a subdivision of the Causcasian race and that subdivision has become referred to as Semites, consisiting of people of Semitic origin.

Within Judaism, there were subdivisions as well, the Levites or Levi's, the Cohens and others. I am no expert on this. What distinguished the Judaic tribe from the others is their religiosity. The Judaic tribes, through one of their Patriarchs. Abraham, came to believe in just one God , Yahveh, as the source of the world and the universe for that matter; Non of the other tribes held this belief. That is what separated the tribes of Judea. the land on which the Jews dwelt, from the other tribes of similar racial characteristics, i.e. Semitic characteristics. At that point, what came to be known as the Jewish people separated out from their Semitic brethern.

Some parallels may be drawn with other tribal peoples, such as the tribes of the native American Indians. Those tribes appear to have originated from the far North portion of the Earth. You have the Laplanders in the Northern reaches of Sweden and Norway and you find people of similar racial features in Siberia and these tribes appear to have been able to migrate into North America on foot when the oceans of the far north froze over. The area called the Bering Straits in particular apparently froze over and enabled this migration. Those tribes did not divide on such a major issue as there being just one God or many Gods, thus even though those tribes had their differences, no separate religion or totally unique people ever spawned from those tribes the way the Jewish people broke off from other Semitic tribes.

So, getting back to the Jews, believing in Yawveh as their only God, really separated them from their fellow Semitic tribes. Physically, these tribes are of the same race. They are caucasions and yes, they do tend to have hooked noses as a common trait, they tend to have dark hair and dark eyes and their skin tends to be swarthy because those tribes first existed in the Arabian Peninsula and surrounding areas which contained large desert areas.

The Jewish people are unique genetically because they became Nomadic people when their country was totally destroyed by the Roman Empire in 70 AD. At that point their tribe was driven by force out of its homeland and literraly dispersed to all corners of the Earth. However, for a long time, the Jewish dispersion was limited primarily, but not exclusively, to Europe. The Jews initially arrived in Spain, the most powerful country in Western Europe for several centuries. Driven from there by the Spanish inquisition, they went to the Netherlands, a more free and welcoming society which was unique in that they gave the Jews more rights than other countries in Europe did. During this migratory phase, the Jewish people, former tribesmen in Judea, did not fit in with the Europeans. The racial characteristics between Semites and Teutonic type peoples of Europe was significant but much more significant than that were the religious differences. By the time the Jews were well ensconced in Europe, Western Europeans were for the most part all of the Catholic religion. Catholics were taught to convert non Catholics to Catholicism but the Jews were stubborn and resisted conversion.

The Jewish people became yet more unique by intermarrying with the non Jewish populations of Europe. This intermarriage produced mixed race off spring of a sort. True, both Jewish people and non Jewish Europeans were Caucasian but it was Semitic Caucasians intermarrying with Teutonic Caucasians. With these intermarriages going on for hundreds of years, the Semitic features of the Jews. being so much smaller in numbers than the Christians. began to be more like the Christian non Jews. Some Jews began to born with blonde hair and blue eyes and some Jews were born with a straight or even turned up nose, etc. Meanwhile, back in Judea and Palestine, the Semitic people living there were not intermarrying with Europeans and they retained their original Semitic look. I believe that it is this displacement of the Jewish people from one area of the World to another which tends to confuse people about whether or not Judaism is a religion or a race of people. Clearly it is a religion basically to one tribe of Semitic people who were displaced to another part of the world and did a lot of intermarrying with the populations of the newer parts of the world which they migrated too.

Compounding the fact that Jews looked different and resisted being converted away from Judaism and into Chistianity, the New Testament tended to put blame on the Jewish people for the death of Jesus. This was a very caustic mix for the Jewish people to deal with. Here they were, a tribe who had lost their homeland centuries earlier. They wanted to become part of the new countries where they were living but they looked different and did not accept Jesus as the Messiah and their Bible promised them that some day they would return to their old homeland in Judea. This was a very difficult situation for the Jewish people to deal with. Of course, this spawned hatred towards them from a populace which was not that well educated in mediaval times. In fact, the Catholic Church of those times preferred to keep a monopoly on knowledge within the Church rather than attempt to educate the common people en masse. This state of affairs continued until the Rennaisance.

I could go on much longer with this treatise or mine but it is already too long as it is so I will stop now. I have addressed Gizmo's comments to the best of my ability with only a layman's view of the history of the Jewish people vis a vis the world of Judea and the later world of Western Europe.

I will say this. When people of my generation pass on, it will not signal an end to improper use of perjurative words which tend to slander various minority races but what it will do is further dumb down Western society so that the man or woman on the street will have no concept whatever of why certain things now exist the way they do. Due to lack of knowledge, people of that future society will miss assign various facets of language and societal tribes and their customs to superstitions or wrong causes based on opinions made without knowing any of the facts of a particular situation.
Lakey

PS - this post is also in part an answer to Panda Termint's post above. Some understanding is better than living in a fog. Living without understanding makes life insgnificant. Only with more understanding may any worthwhile significance be brought to bear on life.
 
Last edited:

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973


So, getting back to the Jews, believing in Yawveh as their only God, really separated them from their fellow Semitic tribes. Physically, these tribes are of the same race. They are caucasions and yes, they do tend to have hooked noses as a common trait, they tend to have dark hair and dark eyes and their skin tends to be swarthy because those tribes first existed in the Arabian Peninsula and surrounding areas which contained large desert areas.


There's also the various sects which existed around the time of Jesus. They were the Essenes, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees (whose leaders Jesus came into conflict with).

The Pharisees evolved into modern Rabbinic Judaism. What distinguished the Pharisees from the other Jewish sects was their reliance on the Oral Law (Talmud), whose validity the other sects (as well as Christianity) rejected.
 

Maria Cuervo

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Maria's review of Oblivion....

Wall-e_and_Cockroach.jpg




I remember when I was a teen I would clay demo the time track and the falling away from the main body of theta to individuate down the line. This was on the old HSDC course after listening to the study and student hat lectures.. I thought each split from the timeline would be free to accrue new emotions and experiences making it less of a copy of the original theta. I guess the movie here isn't giving the clones hope for unique developmental outcomes. Are they arrested in this?

When I am out in the garden I marvel at the sameness of the marigolds and the trumpet plants which all have a life presence. I marvel when I remember my auditor at a Flag review when I told him "I am my 'own' clone here....and the situation is NOT to be unmocked!" Poor Rick Sheehy. :unsure: I was feeling it was a big mistake to audit me on any kind of earlier similar experience chain. I did not intend to run anything earlier similar I told him. I felt it was unmocking to the integrity of the postulate to BE an individual. The regressions were causing me to feel I was becoming 'unmocked' as a unique first-ever creation. At least in this for NOW unit of time.

In the movie the clones are actual physical copies with implanted memories but it is unclear what more they are. They seem to be complete human beings and the proof in the film is that Jack cares about useless things like books, poetry, music, giving his team member a plant in an old can, basketball. Plus he goes in to rescue others and he 'disobeys' the system he thinks he works for. He deviates from the game plan. And that supposedly shows he is normal, plus that he tries to save his fellow human beings from the droids that try to kill them. This 'weakness' or error in his clone programming is apparently given up as his humanity peeking through some how, or having survived.

Then the movie sort of shows - tries to sell - how great it is to be a clone because the ending shows how those who remain somehow remove the clone-making Tet ship, destroy it, and are now back to being in nature and all is well, tragedy averted. But without really commenting on how fractured they are and that those left are clones or that the real humans were killed. It is sort of saying "ok, don't worry that all the humans are gone....at least their clones are sort of like them and the clones like books too and they fall in love so what's to worry?" A weird happy ending where as the movie goes on the viewer identifies with the clone wanting to survive because although damaged it is all that is left of being human.

What is different in the branching out you describe (going into future, differentiating) is that that sort of identical physical copy never happens....the dna combines with other dna and the similarities are not exact...as for going back into the time track and being unmocked...yes. I feel that too. I have no desire to run any track at all...I think those processes do unmock and lead one into the unreal. But a lot of that is how stiff and formal the whole process is.

What I notice in all these sci-fi technology movies is that man's future is depicted as heartless and efficient and orderly, in the way a machine would want it....and this lack of heart is really ugly and disconcerting to watch...like the movie reduces the question of the clone only to the body and its being controlled within a technological framework. And to make that framework work there is always fear of something bad. The system is going to protect the clone from those outside, from exposure to radiation, from something.....and in the movie the radiation turns out to be a lie. It is a very dystopian up ended world in that movie...and in a way the movie tries to say, "now now dear, it's ok...it's all over now, don't you fret."
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Re: Lisa Sparks : aka one smokin' mamma ~!

I think by degenerating the issue was giz' name. (See churchhill's post.)

Being positive and upbeat as I am, I found the silver lining. Everyone should be happy that the fried up computer means I will use less words... :)

giz is short for gizmo....my user name.

I must be really dense as I'm entirely missing how my name degenerates the thread.

Help me. Explain it to me.

My grandfather used to refer to items that, at the moment, he didn't remember ( or care ) what the name of was. It'd be like " get me that gizmo " or " bring that gizmo over here".
So, it was just a word used for a nameless object.

I grew up with 'gizmo' meaning a nameless something or other thing.

I sort of thought that on a chat board using a name that meant nameless was sort of half assed 'cute' - now I find some feel it is degeneration of the thread?

I guess as I can see where the usage of some words some people find OK & others find the same word as not PC. We've seen a little of that crop up time to time in this thread, too.


My question is this : Who gets to approve user names ?

Is there a self appointed approver of user names that must give user names an OK to be welcome on a thread ?


Maybe leaving it the Board Moderation Team is going to be good enough & I just shrug off opinions of fellow posters designed to censor others.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top