[Was] Fullscreen mode, multi-monitor and changing items

I won’t mention which science fiction film I watched last night.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. NOOOO. NO NO NO.

But was it good? Oh well, only two months until it’s out on DVD. Sob. Still, at least I’ll get to see Creation at the cinema. :stuck_out_tongue:

You’re luckier than we colonials. No one is willing to show “Creation” over here, for fear of the g-d religious right. I’m packing for New Zealand.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … erica.html

waits a few minutes to see if her initial knee-jerk reaction to that was just a jerked knee

Nope. Still offended.

Think me silly and naive if you like, but please refrain from blaspheming my God when you cuss about me.

Wow. What a typical response.
Ignore the substance (Darwin movie) to fuss over style.
And beg pardon, but I didn’t blaspheme.
I carefully wrote two letters and a symbol.
So as not to offend sensitive ears.
YOU are the one who’s imagining ireverence!
Well, you seem to know your God pretty well.
Mine would never endorse censorship that dictates ignorance.

It was obvious what you meant with those two letters. Unless you were intending “gosh-darn”? (In which case, I apologize and rescind my complaint.)

You referenced a blaspheme–which, you’ll notice, is all that I protested. Not your valid complaint about the censorship.

I did not “Ignore the substance (Darwin movie) to fuss over style.” I merely had nothing of import to add to that aspect of the discussion. Note the difference. I’m perfectly capable of fussing over multiple things at once. I’m talented that way. :wink:

Gee druid, I figured that the “religious right” on this forum had already provided enough evidence to show that your stereotype views of us might be just as wrong as the “religious right” stereotype views of the “liberal left”.

Your exclamation is considered blaspheme. It has been subjected to censorship in public use on the grounds of blaspheme. It is highly offensive to many folks. To suggest that symbology lessens the offense, or places the responsibility of that offense on the the reader undermines your credibility. Especially given your rather vocal disdain for the ones who you are insulting.

But maybe I am overly sensitive. Maybe carradee is as well. Then again we are not calling your chosen belief system a propagator of ignorance.

How do you know that g-d means anything other than
gol-darn
gosh-dang
godfrey-dinger
galloping-dimwitted
or any other euphemisms?
See Y-W-H for Yahweh, etc.

And I repeat, my point is about censorship of a DARWIN film.
If you’re ready to discuss that, let’s deal.
If you really are offended by g-d, I apologize.
Did you know that Zounds (zoons) once meant God’s wounds?
It’s all over the place in Shakespeare. Ban that blasphemer!

But we’re avoiding the real issue, censorship imposed by religious bigots.
Plus the moral and fiscal cowardice of Hollywood.
And American ignorance of evolutionary biology.
We are the ONLY country where the film can’t find a distributor.

I agree with you that the level of yellow bellied executives makes me question the last stanza of the national anthem. Anyone remember “Last Temptation of Christ”? The uproar made the film. sigh

To further the censorship line, I find it funny how the line cuts both ways. The “R-R” manages to kill movies, but if you listen to the music in the grocery store… Then there is the whole “christmas” thing. Mountains out of mole hills. On both sides. I doubt we will ever learn.

Yes, druid, I got that the first time.

And I repeat, I agree with you that it shouldn’t have been censored.

[size=150]My[/size] point was that you were using an abbreviation that is standard to refer to a blaspheme. Does scuba mean something other than “Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus”? Are we redefining “thx”, “btw”, and “n00b” now?

Did we read the same article?

I see a quote from the producer of the film, suggesting that “The film has no distributor in America . . . because of what the film is about.” Even if we assume he is correct on why the US distributors have passed, there is no reference to boycotting or anything like that by the “right wing”. It quotes from some surveys and opinion sites while saying that the US distributors have passed on the movie. So if anyone’s “imposing” censorship, it’s the distributors.

Is it regrettable? Yes. Is it my fault as a conservative Christian? No. Is it conservative Christians’ fault? No, actually; we may be the justification that the distributors are using if they would be uncomfortable distributing the film, but that’s on them.

Then again, maybe they dislike a plot choice made in the film. For all we know, the film’s producer is wrong on why nobody’s taken it up in the US.

Are you done with the ad hominem, yet?

P.S. Not sure how influential Movieguide.org is, considering I’ve never heard of it, before.

EDIT: And I just found the referenced Gallup poll here. Per this, only 25% of the population don’t believe in evolution, most of them people with some college education (or less). Interesting, that.

I recall reading an article (I think it was in the Guardian, but it could`ve been one of the NY rags), describing how, as a matter of course, the Bush administration would canvas the Elders/leaders of the’End Timers’ and the, ‘End of Days’ brigade, for their take on this or that proposed piece of legislation. The reason being, the sheer number of them! The alienation of this crowd and consequential loss of votes, would almost certainly guarantee the losing of an election.

According to the insider source of this info, any proposed legislation not endorsed by them, never reached Congress for consideration.

Another disturbing point that the article raised, was that, apparently, the, ‘End Timers’, passionately believe that the End is nigh!! So! In their eyes, what`s the point of all the effort going into mitigation of the effects of global warming.

I have tried to bring up (Google), the article, but without success.
Vic

I enjoy all lively discussions here, but I prefer my rants informed. Anyone who cannot even spell ‘blasphemy’ should consider avoiding it as a topic…particularly if entertaining any hope of life as a professional writer. As for druid’s use of g-d, I am a culturally conservative Catholic, and I appreciate seeing the traditional Judeo-Christian abbreviation for the Deity. To object is to display real ignorance of history. G-d loves you, but she also gave you a brain. Use it.
PS: I would like to see the Darwin movie, very much. I might learn something.

I think you might be confusing “G-d” with an abbreviation for the profane phrase which features the same letters. The usage is considered entirely respectable (the ‘o’ is omitted, it isn’t an abbreviation), and in fact in some cultures is considered more reverent than spelling the entire thing out.

Vic, thanks for your comment on the Bush administration involvement with End Timers. Given their apocalypic views, we must wonder why they care to meddle with current legislation, or impose their narrow beliefs on the rest of us.

What set me off about the Darwin film was a piece in the UK Telegraph, and its reference to Movieguide.org, which I consulted. There I find, under the guise of “very, very Christian” values, a lying rant about Darwin, calling him a racist, bigot, and author of eugenics and mass-murder practices: i.e., he’s responsible for Hitler. People who write this sort of cr-p are beyond idiocy. They know nothing about Darwin’s ideas, and their notion of what’s Christian seems quite alien to the values of tolerance, generosity, equality, and democracy that Jesus preaches in the Gospels.

For the record, Darwin was an abolitionist, not just in word but deed. He was a vestryman of his local Anglican church. He argued, correctly, that race is not a biological condition, but a social prejudice. He estimated, correctly, that humans arose in east Africa, about 2.5 million years ago. He never advocated any form of artifical selection (abortion, murder) for any species, let alone humans. He gave a speech to Parliament on animal rights, and he opposed vivisection (medical experiments on animals). The ignorati who demonize him have never read a flipping word of his writings. (I avoided “bleeding,” since that’s an uncouth reference to Christ’s wounds.)

So, I should have explained myself more fully than just using an epithet (g-d) for the radical right. For their extreme views to control our freedom of speech and information is not just unfortunate. It’s a form of cultural apartheid. And they won’t stop until they shut us all up, with threats of heresy and blasphemy. They are very close equivalents of the Taliban.

Story: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … erica.html

Movieguide: movieguide.org/articles/1/46 … d-tomorrow

Carradee: “blasphemy” is a noun; “blaspheme” a verb. There’s no such thing as “a blaspheme.”

Some non-knee-jerk reading from reputable sources:

  1. Canadian news report on why US distributors are afraid of the Darwin film:
    cbc.ca/arts/tiff/story/2009/ … ne-us.html

  2. USA Today discussion of religious-right pressures to keep “Creation” out of US theaters:
    blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/20 … ion-t.html

  3. Los Angeles Times review of “Creation”:
    latimes.com/entertainment/ne … 0146.story

It’s apparently a family film, in the best sense. What is there to fear?

Those polls are hopelessly skewed. Would the Gallup poll ever say, “Folks, do you believe in gravity?” If evolution were not a fact, pharmacology would not exist. Species adapt. Natural selection happens. Bugs develop resistance to DDT.

Evolution is NOT a matter of belief, but of knowledge. The better question is “Do you know anything about evolution?” And there that 39% of No Opinon plus 25% of Don’t Believe would add up to a whopping 64% of ignorance.

Good point, but that requires the G to be capitalized. The one in question wasn’t. :slight_smile: That makes a difference.

And yes, a “blasphemy” is the official noun form of “to blaspheme.” But “blaspheme” is often used as a noun colloquially, just as “nauseous” is used as an adjective when people mean “nauseated”.

Science can only prove what is repeatable and observable. A fact is “a statement or assertion of verified information” (emphasis mine). Have any mutations added information, as is necessary for evolution to happen? No. Evolution has not been observed. The origin of man has not been repeated. Any belief about the validity of either is a belief, not fact.

The law of biogenesis states that life can only come from other living things. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe naturally becomes disordered. The principle of uniformitarianism states that the universe has always been as we see today and therefore we can use it to extrapolate about the far and distant past.

Polls are always loaded, druid. Ever taken a class that explored propaganda? It’s frighteningly difficult to form unskewed questions. My point was that the article itself was making its data sound more alarming, by quoting the 39% number.

I think we might want to take a deep breath or two. Me included.

Druid, I am not sure where folks get the idea that the “religious right” actually holds the views that are ascribed to “us”. And maybe that is the problem. The label is being applied with a very broad brush and is including folks that should be excluded. Maybe I know an inordinate number of christians who actually use their brains. Maybe all the christians I know are liars. Wither way, only idiots believe what that site indicates as “Darwin’s legacy”.

While the “religious right” may disagree with the origin, meaning the source, of human existence, I can not find one person who says that natural selection, global warming, or a person’s right to make decisions for themselves is “wrong”. The real disagreement will always boil down to the existence of a controlling deity. Even the “R-R” can’t agree on that.

Let’s all call a truce. My knee-jerk, yet very real, feeling of being attacked is … me being petty. If “g-d” was not intended to insult then I will believe you and I will ask your forgiveness of my continued slaughter of the english language (you to cece).

As to the Bush administrations actions… Whoever they talked to does not seem to represent the “majority” of christians. Not that this surprises me.

Jaysen’s right. A deep breath is a fine thing. So is actual, sustained thought. Start with this report of recently observed evolution, the kind Carradee insists does not exist. I found it in under 60 seconds via Google. Big hint: unbiased research often begins with real willingness to search, read, think…not parrot discredited ideas and sad, frightened little biases. The study of evolution begins with Darwin’s generation. The ongoing miracle, the glory of his tangled bank, is what his intellectual tools still help us discover, centuries later.

vetscite.org/publish/items/004245/index.html

:blush:

Sorry for going so dramatically off-topic. Anyone else want some tea? :smiley:

@cece: Adaptation within a species (aka “natural selection”) and cross-species evolution are two different concepts, though people use the term “evolution” to refer to both. Even evolutionary biology professors will tell you that. Your example doesn’t add information—which was my specific point.

EDIT: I’m not without training in genetics, so I actually am conversant in how all the heredity/mutation stuff works.
tea.jpeg