RE: [scifinoir2] It's Official: Craig's 007
When I just heard blonde I was concerned. But seeing Craig, that's a non-issue. The press makes it seem like he looks like Brad Pitt--he doesn't. The hair's really not a problem. Many have said he's too ugly for the role, which I find surprising. If you look at Sean Connery from his days as Bond, I don't think he was what you'd call a pretty boy either. He had those rugged looks, that manly man look that was popular, but he wasn't handsome in the way of, say, Robert Redford or a young Paul Newman. It was his presence that really made him Bond. And on that score, Craig has a similar craggy, hard-edged look to him. So I say give Craig a chance--he just may pull this off. -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tracey de Morsella Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 00:18 To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] It's Official: Craig's 007 As expected, English actor Daniel Craig (Layer Cake) was announced as the new James Bond on Oct. 14 in a news conference in London, ending months of speculation over who would take over from Pierce Brosnan as 007, the Reuters news service reported. The 37-year-old actor swept up the River Thames on a power launch to a news conference, escorted by Royal Marines boats, the news service reported. Craig will become the first blond Bond and told reporters: I'm kind of speechless at the moment. The casting of one of cinema's most iconic characters closes the successful four-film run of Irishman Brosnan. Craig will make his debut as the martini-swilling superspy in Casino Royale, the 21st Bond film, which starts shooting in January. Craig's hiring ends months of speculation about who would replace Brosnan. Candidates included Britons Clive Owen and Jude Law, Australia's Hugh Jackman and TV's Goran Visnjic. Only five actors have played Bond since the first film, Dr. No, more than 40 years ago. Brosnan, Sean Connery and Roger Moore were well-loved mainstays as the secret agent, while George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton were less successful. __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ _ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS *Visit your group scifinoir2 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2 on the web. *To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . _ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Life without art music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/FXrMlA/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/LRMolB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [scifinoir2] FW: Dinosaurs Used to Win Creationism Converts -FOLLOW UP
The more things change... Thank you again, Keith, for stating the obvious. Sorry I've been gone so long, but I've been without a computer since July. If I've missed anything, I'll do my best to catch up. Keith Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a Christian who believes in one God, the Creator. I also fancy myself a scientist--and a scifi nut to boot. This means I'm fine learning about evolution and things like C-14 dating that show the Earth is four billion years old...I'm also fine with the Bible as a moral and allegorical guide to living..I'm also okay with the idea of life on other planets...and I don't believe that Christianity is the only way to salvation. Do I think that a Creator had a hand in the way the Universe is shaped and evolves, as religion says? Yes. Do I think there is trully a thing called science that can be used to understand the universe? Yep. Do I think the two are mutually exclusive? No. Given the wonder and mystery of Life itself--that we have self-awareness, that we live in a reality of gravitation, energy fields, and expanding universes, that ANYTHING can exist at all (since I still can't wrap my mind around the concept of existence coming from a nothingness)--it feels natural to me to believe in a Mind behind it, a being that shapes reality according to a grand idea. And seeing that we understand so little about the nature of reality, it doesn't really cause me too much grief to bring God into equations that are already strange and inscrutable--such as the weirdness of the quantuum world, the concept of zero point energy, self-awareness, etc. Whether you believe in a Unified Field Theory--or a god that unifies all fields--you're still entering realms that are mystical and magical to my mind. How do we know that God isn't the force that we perceive as wave/particle duality, that God isn't the stuff of which energy in a vaccum can exist, that superstrings and M-branes aren't the body of God, that Uncertainty isn't just an aspect of God's unknowable Mind? It may not be right, but it's no more wrong than scientific theories that perforce change and evolve over the years. So no, I have no issue with beliefs in a higher being (or beings, if you will) managing the ebb and flow of reality itself. But do I want this taught in the classroom? DEFINITELY NOT! If you want to speak of religious and mystical matters, they should be confined to religion courses. The last thing you need is discussions of gods entering into classes on astronomy, physics, and biology. Aside from fact that Creationists should no more be allowed to dispute science with their theories than a scientist should be asked to go to my church on Sunday and prove God is a lie, the question is *which* belief structure is taught? Do supporters of Intelligent Design believe in only the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or the one that fathered Christ, or one from Hinduism, or one of the many African belief structures? Which creator is the right creator, and how do you decide? If a kid told his science teacher that he believed in ID, and that the creative force was Brahma, what would the teacher say? Suppose the kid said the creative force in the universe was actually a gestalt mind formed from all the mental energies of all the sentient beings in the multiverse: that is, that WE are actually God? Would that go over well? Would the teacher say Okay, cool--whatever you think?, or would the kid then be slapped with a bunch of Christian doctrine, or, at best, an irritated admonishment NOT to discuss the particulars of who or what is behind ID, just to accept that something is? Then we have an unsatisfactory and incomplete conversation. If you're going to mention ID, then you must be allowed to discuss the being(s) behind ID, and *then* you're gonna have to decide what diety or force is behind it. In other words, you have to be allowed to go into a religious discussion, and now you've crossed the line. Unless everyone agrees there is a Creator or Creators, the discussion has no place in science. Unless everyone agrees on only one Way to only one God, the discussion has no place in science. Unless we can prove the existence of God, the discussion has no place in science. So let those teachers who feel they must discuss God start teaching religion. Let those parents who can't bear to have their kids taught evolution, send those kids to church on Sunday. I grew up struggling with the sometimes conflicting concepts of science and religion, and reconciling the two didn't destroy me. In the end I see this as another way to dumb down America, to control the world through controlling what people think. And we can't allow that to happen. [Story from Yahoo News follows...] Professor slams intelligent design in Penn. schools By Jon HurdleWed Oct 12, 7:03 PM ET A professor on Wednesday slammed the teaching of intelligent design as a blow to science education as he testified in a lawsuit over whether the theory
Re: [scifinoir2] Surface marathon on Sci Fi Channel
I've caught three eps of it, and I just can't swing into it. Is it me? Do I need to give it more of a chance? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:http://www.scifi.com/schedulebot/today.html For those who want to catch up, the Sci Fi Channel is showing all four episodes of Surface beginning at 7 tonight. A friend spoke highly of the scifi series Surface, so I decided to give it a look. I've only seen two shows so far. Not sure if I want to stay with it or not, but it has potential. I'm trying to figure out how these 200-ft long sea monsters can be snacking on whales, biting submarines like they're--well, sub sandwiches--and swallowing people in sinkholes in Texas, yet the general public is still mostly unaware of the threat. And what's up with the dopey teen who's raising one of the beasties at home? How long before it eats him or one of his family members? Last night it gobbled down the poodle of some obnoxious girl who'd been missing with the kid, which was funny. The underwater scenes of the creatures are suspenseful. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] SPONSORED LINKS Science fiction and fantasy Genre magazine - YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group scifinoir2 on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. - Excuse me while I whip this out. Cleavon Little , Blazing Saddles - Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/LRMolB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[scifinoir2] The 31 Days of Hallowe'en - The Moonlit Road
http://www.themoonlitroad.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/LRMolB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[scifinoir2] OT: Ohio Riot: Scarier than any Halloween Tale
I just shook my head in sadness when I watched this unfold yesterday. All these people did was give credence to the words of a bunch of racists. Assuming the reports are true, the protesters--whether they started the violence or not--escalated things to the point of throwing things at the cops, and, burning and pillaging? How does that get justified under any excuse of anger at bigots or even opressive cops? I understand completely being pissed a bunch of Nazi's marching in your neighborhood: that'd drive anyone to anger. I can even understand the Blacks in the area having a shaky relationship with the cops. But none of that justifies getting violent, and then they set fire to a store and turned over some cars??? Weren't those things possibly owned by Black people? If not, what did destroying propery accompish? Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to dismiss or minimize Black anger and frustration. The Nazi's marching in the area is sickening to me, and the police are probably no friend to the Black community (I don't know this, just guessing). I've had my own run-ins with cops, and I must admit I understand viewing them with suspicion. But in the end, we only hurt ourselves when things go to this level. hell, the Nazi's had *left* and things continued to devolve. And since when did gang members--who honestly can do more harm to their own people than a bunch of idiot would-be fascists--speak for the community? The march was definite provocation, but we have to be better than this. Police: Ohio Riot Was Worse Than Expected By JOHN SEEWER, Associated Press Writer 45 minutes ago Police began receiving word midweek that gangs were going to descend on a neighborhood where a riot erupted over a planned march by a white supremacist group, but the resulting disturbance was worse than expected, the police chief said Sunday. The riot broke out Saturday when protesters confronted members of the National Socialist Movement who had gathered at a city park. Rioters threw baseball-sized rocks at police, vandalized vehicles and stores, and set fire to a neighborhood bar, authorities said. More than 100 people were arrested and one officer was seriously injured. Officers who work in the area reported that gang members were planning to turn out in force, and authorities made plans to handle any disturbances, Police Chief Mike Navarre said at a news conference Sunday morning. We knew during the preparation that it was going to be a tremendous challenge, Navarre said. Anyone who would accuse us of being underprepared I would take exception with that. However, he added the protest lasted longer and was more intense than expected. About two dozen members of the supremacist group, which calls itself America's Nazi Party, had gathered at a city park just before noon Saturday to march under police protection. The march was called off after rioting started. Authorities want to determine why protesters turned their anger toward police after the Nazi group left, Lucas County Sheriff James Telb said. Officers wearing gas masks fired tear gas canisters and flash-bang devices designed to stun suspects, only to see the groups reform and resume throwing rocks. People were highly angry over the idea that someone from outside the community could come in and insult them in their neighborhood, Mayor Jack Ford said. Twelve officers were injured, including an officer riding in her cruiser who suffered a concussion when a brick came through a side window and hit her in the head, Lt. Ron Pfeifer said Sunday. A state of emergency remained in effect through the weekend. About 200 officers patrolled the neighborhood overnight, Navarre said, and police reported no problems. Another overnight curfew was to be in effect starting at 8 p.m. Sunday. City officials stressed the disturbances were confined to a 1-square-mile area. Police arrested 114 people on charges including assault, vandalism, failure to obey police, failure to disperse and overnight curfew violations. The neighborhood northwest of downtown, full of tree-lined streets and well-kept brick homes, once was a thriving Polish community. But within the last decade it's become home to poorer residents. A spokesman for the National Socialist Movement blamed police for losing control of the situation. The neo-Nazi group became interested in the neighborhood because of a white resident's complaints to police about gang violence, Bill White, a group spokesman, said earlier this month. WilliAnn Moore, president of the Toledo NAACP chapter, had said she worried the march would exacerbate an already tense situation, and urged black youths to ignore the demonstrators. Local leaders were taking steps so this doesn't turn into some kind of race war, she said. Only a few people were out Sunday morning raking leaves, walking dogs in a park or going to church. This never should have happened, 80-year-old Ed Kusina, who has lived in the neighborhood nearly all his life, said Sunday. They
RE: [scifinoir2] FW: Dinosaurs Used to Win Creationism Converts -FOLLOW UP
There you are! We'd been worried. What happened to your PC? What type to do you have? If I can help, let me know. -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Pratt Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:51 To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] FW: Dinosaurs Used to Win Creationism Converts -FOLLOW UP The more things change... Thank you again, Keith, for stating the obvious. Sorry I've been gone so long, but I've been without a computer since July. If I've missed anything, I'll do my best to catch up. Keith Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a Christian who believes in one God, the Creator. I also fancy myself a scientist--and a scifi nut to boot. This means I'm fine learning about evolution and things like C-14 dating that show the Earth is four billion years old...I'm also fine with the Bible as a moral and allegorical guide to living..I'm also okay with the idea of life on other planets...and I don't believe that Christianity is the only way to salvation. Do I think that a Creator had a hand in the way the Universe is shaped and evolves, as religion says? Yes. Do I think there is trully a thing called science that can be used to understand the universe? Yep. Do I think the two are mutually exclusive? No. Given the wonder and mystery of Life itself--that we have self-awareness, that we live in a reality of gravitation, energy fields, and expanding universes, that ANYTHING can exist at all (since I still can't wrap my mind around the concept of existence coming from a nothingness)--it feels natural to me to believe in a Mind behind it, a being that shapes reality according to a grand idea. And seeing that we understand so little about the nature of reality, it doesn't really cause me too much grief to bring God into equations that are already strange and inscrutable--such as the weirdness of the quantuum world, the concept of zero point energy, self-awareness, etc. Whether you believe in a Unified Field Theory--or a god that unifies all fields--you're still entering realms that are mystical and magical to my mind. How do we know that God isn't the force that we perceive as wave/particle duality, that God isn't the stuff of which energy in a vaccum can exist, that superstrings and M-branes aren't the body of God, that Uncertainty isn't just an aspect of God's unknowable Mind? It may not be right, but it's no more wrong than scientific theories that perforce change and evolve over the years. So no, I have no issue with beliefs in a higher being (or beings, if you will) managing the ebb and flow of reality itself. But do I want this taught in the classroom? DEFINITELY NOT! If you want to speak of religious and mystical matters, they should be confined to religion courses. The last thing you need is discussions of gods entering into classes on astronomy, physics, and biology. Aside from fact that Creationists should no more be allowed to dispute science with their theories than a scientist should be asked to go to my church on Sunday and prove God is a lie, the question is *which* belief structure is taught? Do supporters of Intelligent Design believe in only the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or the one that fathered Christ, or one from Hinduism, or one of the many African belief structures? Which creator is the right creator, and how do you decide? If a kid told his science teacher that he believed in ID, and that the creative force was Brahma, what would the teacher say? Suppose the kid said the creative force in the universe was actually a gestalt mind formed from all the mental energies of all the sentient beings in the multiverse: that is, that WE are actually God? Would that go over well? Would the teacher say Okay, cool--whatever you think?, or would the kid then be slapped with a bunch of Christian doctrine, or, at best, an irritated admonishment NOT to discuss the particulars of who or what is behind ID, just to accept that something is? Then we have an unsatisfactory and incomplete conversation. If you're going to mention ID, then you must be allowed to discuss the being(s) behind ID, and *then* you're gonna have to decide what diety or force is behind it. In other words, you have to be allowed to go into a religious discussion, and now you've crossed the line. Unless everyone agrees there is a Creator or Creators, the discussion has no place in science. Unless everyone agrees on only one Way to only one God, the discussion has no place in science. Unless we can prove the existence of God, the discussion has no place in science. So let those teachers who feel they must discuss God start teaching religion. Let those parents who can't bear to have their kids taught evolution, send those kids to church on Sunday. I grew up struggling with the sometimes conflicting concepts of science and religion, and reconciling the two didn't destroy me. In the end I see this as another way to dumb down
RE: [scifinoir2] FW: Dinosaurs Used to Win Creationism Converts -FOLLOW UP
MARTIN! Missed you, guy... Keith Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:There you are! We'd been worried. What happened to your PC? What type to do you have? If I can help, let me know. -Original Message- From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Pratt Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:51 To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] FW: Dinosaurs Used to Win Creationism Converts -FOLLOW UP The more things change... Thank you again, Keith, for stating the obvious. Sorry I've been gone so long, but I've been without a computer since July. If I've missed anything, I'll do my best to catch up. Keith Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a Christian who believes in one God, the Creator. I also fancy myself a scientist--and a scifi nut to boot. This means I'm fine learning about evolution and things like C-14 dating that show the Earth is four billion years old...I'm also fine with the Bible as a moral and allegorical guide to living..I'm also okay with the idea of life on other planets...and I don't believe that Christianity is the only way to salvation. Do I think that a Creator had a hand in the way the Universe is shaped and evolves, as religion says? Yes. Do I think there is trully a thing called science that can be used to understand the universe? Yep. Do I think the two are mutually exclusive? No. Given the wonder and mystery of Life itself--that we have self-awareness, that we live in a reality of gravitation, energy fields, and expanding universes, that ANYTHING can exist at all (since I still can't wrap my mind around the concept of existence coming from a nothingness)--it feels natural to me to believe in a Mind behind it, a being that shapes reality according to a grand idea. And seeing that we understand so little about the nature of reality, it doesn't really cause me too much grief to bring God into equations that are already strange and inscrutable--such as the weirdness of the quantuum world, the concept of zero point energy, self-awareness, etc. Whether you believe in a Unified Field Theory--or a god that unifies all fields--you're still entering realms that are mystical and magical to my mind. How do we know that God isn't the force that we perceive as wave/particle duality, that God isn't the stuff of which energy in a vaccum can exist, that superstrings and M-branes aren't the body of God, that Uncertainty isn't just an aspect of God's unknowable Mind? It may not be right, but it's no more wrong than scientific theories that perforce change and evolve over the years. So no, I have no issue with beliefs in a higher being (or beings, if you will) managing the ebb and flow of reality itself. But do I want this taught in the classroom? DEFINITELY NOT! If you want to speak of religious and mystical matters, they should be confined to religion courses. The last thing you need is discussions of gods entering into classes on astronomy, physics, and biology. Aside from fact that Creationists should no more be allowed to dispute science with their theories than a scientist should be asked to go to my church on Sunday and prove God is a lie, the question is *which* belief structure is taught? Do supporters of Intelligent Design believe in only the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or the one that fathered Christ, or one from Hinduism, or one of the many African belief structures? Which creator is the right creator, and how do you decide? If a kid told his science teacher that he believed in ID, and that the creative force was Brahma, what would the teacher say? Suppose the kid said the creative force in the universe was actually a gestalt mind formed from all the mental energies of all the sentient beings in the multiverse: that is, that WE are actually God? Would that go over well? Would the teacher say Okay, cool--whatever you think?, or would the kid then be slapped with a bunch of Christian doctrine, or, at best, an irritated admonishment NOT to discuss the particulars of who or what is behind ID, just to accept that something is? Then we have an unsatisfactory and incomplete conversation. If you're going to mention ID, then you must be allowed to discuss the being(s) behind ID, and *then* you're gonna have to decide what diety or force is behind it. In other words, you have to be allowed to go into a religious discussion, and now you've crossed the line. Unless everyone agrees there is a Creator or Creators, the discussion has no place in science. Unless everyone agrees on only one Way to only one God, the discussion has no place in science. Unless we can prove the existence of God, the discussion has no place in science. So let those teachers who feel they must discuss God start teaching religion. Let those parents who can't bear to have their kids taught evolution, send those kids to church on Sunday. I grew up struggling with the sometimes conflicting concepts of science and religion, and reconciling the two didn't
