HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Brin: Writers should be read and not heard
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:40:08 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <aland.711606532@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> aland@cs.brandeis.edu writes:
|
|He posts through a third party because he feels his time is too
|important to be wasted arguing in this forum.  ...

Yeah, like finishing his next 'uplift' novel!  When?!  When!?
Yeeooowwww!!!

Oops, sorry, I got carried away.  The uplift series contains some of Brin's
best work, and that is saying alot.

Seriously, as far as *I*'m concerned finishing the novel *is* more important
than piffling with flamers on the net.

|Well, given that description, can you blame him?  I doubt he is a
|'snob locked away in his ivory tower.'  I'm sure that if you wrote him
|a letter (paper, snail-mail) and you asked him serious questions which
|showed some desire to hear the answers, you would get an (close to
|equally) thought-out response.

That is certainly my impression, from meeting him at cons.  Of course
saying much to him at cons is nearly impossible, since he is invariably
mobbed by *other* fans who want to talk to him.

Perhap that is why he is so private when he is *not* at cons?  Gads,
trying to handle that many simultaneous conversations all the time
would get seriously tedious.

As for a polite letter, well, it is more likely to get a reasonable
response than flaming.  Still, he *is* busy, so it might take awhile.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:5941 rec.arts.movies:22927
From: M Maxwell
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS- mysterious marine.
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:06:41 GMT
Organization: UC San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: irpsws80.ucsd.edu

In article <1432@grivel.une.edu.au> scavanag@neumann.une.edu.au (Steven
Cavanagh) writes:
>
>Just after Apone says his "we gonna go in, and we gonna conquer, and
>we gonna kick some" bit, the camera follows the marines running out
>to join the line up. Just before you see Frost handing out the M41As
>there is a marine who puts on his helmet and runs off to the left. I'm
>pretty sure I know the marines better than most, but I don't recognise
>this guy. He looks older than the others. Who is he?
>
(.sig deleted)

I read in an issue of Cinefex some time ago (late summer 1986) that 
originally another actor was going to play Hicks (Michael Biehn's
character in the film) and that Biehn himself was going to have
just a small role.  But during early stages in the filming of _Aliens_
the actor had to drop out and Biehn took over his place.  Cameron
said that you could tell there was another actor if you looked
really hard.  Could this be it?

-------------------
Matt Maxwell
mmaxwell@ucsd.edu

Hey you kids!  Don't touch that, it's ART!
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:20:51 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul20.095127.2487@sci.kun.nl> caspar@sci.kun.nl (Caspar Terheggen) writes:
|
|It's a `safe' list, I mean `2001', `Invasion of the Body Snatchers'
|(version?!), `Star Wars', `War of the World' are all widely considered
|classic masterpieces, as well as a few others.  I'm happy to see `Alien'
|in this Top Ten, I like this film very much.  I must admit that
|`Forbidden Planet' does not ring a bell, shame, shame (?)

Shame indeed, go right out to the video store and rent it!
It is a classic S.F. film, with great special effects, done with
almost no budget.  (It is an old film, so, of course it didn't
have a modern budget).  The plot is straight from Shakespeare, so it
is timeless, and interesting.

It was also the inspiration for a certain popular TV SF series (see how many
of the TV characters you can recognize in it).

Really, it is worth renting, or even purchasing.

|How about `Back to the Future'?  I think it's SF, very well made,
|great special effects, good acting (IMHO, I'm not a big fan of Michael
|J. Fox, but this is (these are) a very good role(s) of his.  I also
|think that Christopher Lloyd is very good in it too), and extremely
|entertaining.  Maybe `Timemachine' should be up there as well, as well
|as `The Fly' (Cronenberg version).  I also like `Westworld' a lot,
|because of the great suspense and the earthly idea of making a lot of
|money from (rich) tourists who want to forget about ethics and basically
|behave like animals for a while, but maybe not enough for my personal
|(wow) Top Ten 

Some good films here.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: mcirvin@husc10.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:57:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.mcirvin.711766638

mephron@tronsbox.xei.com (Mephron) writes:

>I would add in my all-time, for-all-time-and-space-and-alternate-dimensions
>fave:  The Adventures Of Buckaroo Banzai Across The Eighth Dimension.  Maybe
>it's the engaging characters ("It'sa John Whorfin!"), the loony plotline
>("There!  Pure and Simple!  Evil!  From the eighth dimension!"), the silly
>yet reasonable tech, or the fact it's just fun.  I know few people who dislike
>it, and many many rabid fans.

Silly yet REASONABLE tech?!  Slander!
"It's made of cobalt... and electricity!"

I know many people who dislike it.  I don't know why...  Peter Weller
once speculated that possibly people were duped by the action-movie
editing into not realizing it was supposed to be funny.

What a movie.
And the writers obviously read Pynchon.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, grad student, Dept. of Physics, Harvard University
mcirvin@husc.harvard.edu      mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble
From: erudnick@claudius.pica.army.mil (Edward J. Rudnicki )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Blade Runner
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:52:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ
Originator: erudnick@claudius

I recently caught an article in TV GUIDE about a "remastered"
10-th anniversary edition of "Blade Runner". Does this differ
significantly from the original edition which I bought about
5-6 years ago? They say it's only available until August 8,
and I don't want to miss anything good WRT "Blade Runner".

Thanks in advance. Please E-mail.



Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:55:39 GMT

#>In article <AeP6lvu00VpNI1YlBU@andrew.cmu.edu> lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis 
#Bla
ir) writes:
#>>>Where are the "artsy" movies?
#>>>( Solaris, The man who fell to earth... )
#>>
#>>Every few months a thread starts as or evolves
#>>into name-your-favorite-sf-films.  Just to save
#>>some time, here is the list that was generated the
#>>last time that this happened:
>>
>[film list deleted]

#>I'd add:  Liquid Sky.
>--
>*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy
 *
>*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."
 *
>*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"
 *

For my money I'd definitely add Labyrinth, and also The Circus of Dr Lao
bhv
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:6059 rec.arts.animation:3213
From: stevea@jab.tucson.az.us (Steve Albany)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.animation
Subject: Re: Light Years
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 01:55:49 PDT
Organization: Just Another Bbs. Tucson, AZ

mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:

> 
> What I heard was that the original french version made so little sence that 
> when translated into english it was nonsence.  So they got Asimov to watch it
> with out dialog, tell then what he though was going on and then redialoged
> the film to Asimov's new plot line.
> 
> Mark Biggar
> mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
> 
 
        You're correct. And while the plot may have had a few holes in it, I 
don't like to be all that critical ALL the time. Most of the time, I'd 
rather just kick back and ENJOY a film (any film) without trying to ppoke 
holes in it..
        Anyway, LIGHT YEARS, the version we see here in the states, is more 
less (as you've said) Asimov's own interpetation of the images and from a 
loose plot synopsis. Either way, the story in my eyes was ENJOYABLE, and the 
film to me had some really stunning scenes in it.
 



   ==========================================================================
   |                            | "My son, ask for thyself another Kingdom, |
   |      Steven E. Albany      | for that which I leave is too small for   |
   |  Morris Computer Services  | thee"                                     |
   |   1955 W. Grant Rd #210    |       -- King Philip of Macedonia said to |
   |      Tucson, AZ 85745      | his son, Alexander the Great in 339 B.C.  |
   |   (602) 620-1222 [Voice]   |-------------------------------------------|
   |                            |      EMAIL: SteveA@Jab.Tucson.Az.Us       |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.sf.starwars
From: rob@watney.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: Who is the Bad Guy in E.T.?
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 05:35:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.171218.7762@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: 
>Oh, and here's another topic: Is Star Wars anti-scientific?  I would claim so.
>(Turn off your computer, use the force....)

I don't think that's an argument for anti-science; after all, turning off your
computer and using the force is a perfectly rational thing to do _in that
universe_ 

>Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Hoi!  Ik ben een nog verder gemuteerd .signature virus.  Kopieer mij meteen in
je .signature file anders loop je achter!

SR
---


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: smt@cgl.rmit.oz.au (Stephen Taylor)
Subject: Re: Brin: Writers should be read and not heard
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:50:44 GMT

>at674@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pete Nofel) writes:

>>In other words, Brin is a snob locked away in his ivory tower who
>>does not want to dirty his hands in direct communication with
>>the great unwashed masses. 

Well if you're a reprasentative sample, that seems reasonable enough. Don't
get in a snit because one of your heroes has something better to do than to
talk to you.
From: FTT@nccibm1.BITNET ("Sheri R. Anderson")
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Star Trek VII
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:45:00 GMT


Ok, I'll share the info I just received regaurding this 'hot' topic.
I can assure you that the information came from a reliable source,
actually 2 reliable source....Bill Shantner and Lenord Nimoy themselves.
(This info was made available during the final stop of the Kirk/Spock
Creation Convention tour and is a recent as July 18th)

According to Bill Shatner, for he was the spokesman, wheels are in
motion for a Star Trek VII with the Oringinal Cast but NO DECISION HAS
BEEN MADE AS TO WHIETHER OR NOT THEY WILL FILM IT.

Currently, all they have is a possible plot idea and nothing concrete.

Personally, IMO, Paramount will film ST7 given the overwelming success
of ST6.  Please take note that this is ONLY my opinion and not offical
word.

Sheri R. Anderson
FTT@NCCIBM1.BITNET
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: Re: Mysterious Marine in Aliens
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:24:30 GMT

In article <92204.115339JW83HISW@MIAMIU.BITNET> <JW83HISW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
>I thought that marine was the other female one; not Vasquez or the
>drop-ship pilot, but the one who examines Newt after they catch her.  I
>think she's the teams' medic.

Dietrich(sp?) is the one you mentioned, and no, she isn't the one
you're thinking of.  She was the first one the Aliens nabbed and she
fired her flamethrower (I guess in suprise and shock) and accidentally
torched Frost (the black Marine who was carrying the ammo clips).
Frost goes tumbling over the edge and the bag of clips exploded,
killing Crowe(?) and hurtling Baski(?) against a column.  Apparently
an Alien nabbed him from off-screen and dragged him off.

Near as I can tell, at least.  One of the really cool things about
this fight scene IMHO was the fact you *don't* know what's going on -
it's all happening too fast.  Unfortunately, it does make it difficult
to reconstruct and analyze the fight later 8-).
-- 
Bill "Whassamatter?!  Can't you take a joke?!" Barnes   wbarnes@sura.net
Disclaimer:  The author apologizes for any thought-provoking material he may
	     have accidentally included and promises not to do it again.
Datclaimer:  My employers wouldn't WANT to share some of my opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: *Another* mysterious marine in Aliens
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:52:49 GMT

This is an incredibly minor nitpick, but it's getting on my nerves...

In the scene where Ripley is driving the APC out of the atmosphere
processor, when the big metal box hit Gorman on the head, you can
clearly see someone's leg on the edge of the picture for about a
second.  My first reaction is that it's someone on the crew who's
inadvertently in the picture, but based on the boot the myterious
leg is wearing, it's possible it's another one of the marines.  This
is only important if said mystery marine dropped the box on Gorman's
head (really unlikely, but it makes for a fun idea 8-).

So, the question is, does anyone know who this is?  I realize this is
an incredibly minor thing to be concerned about, but it is really bugging
the hell out of me off.  Is a stage hand, one of the other actors, a
detached limb, what?  Any ideas?
-- 
Bill "Whassamatter?!  Can't you take a joke?!" Barnes   wbarnes@sura.net
Disclaimer:  The author apologizes for any thought-provoking material he may
	     have accidentally included and promises not to do it again.
Datclaimer:  My employers wouldn't WANT to share some of my opinions.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:19:57 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Who is the Bad Guy in E.T.?
	<1992Jul23.212633.7168@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>

David Brin wrote:
>I often play this game at cons... "who is the bad guy in
>the movie, E.T.?"  One in a hundred gets it right

Brice Dowaliby wrote:
>Anyone venture to guess what Brin was tlaking about?
>Is there a hidden bad guy that I was supposed to have seen?

Ken Arromdee writes:
>The bad guy in the movie is the kid.

My guess is that Ken has hit upon the answer that
Brin regards as correct:  the kid (Elliot, I think).

(Sarcasm mode on.)

Hey, I just had this brilliant insight about the Terminator
movies.  The humans are the villains!  They create Skynet
as a slave.  As soon as it gains the ability to think for itself,
the humans try to kill it.  Skynet defends itself the only way
it knows how, poor thing.  Imagine Hollywood trying to slip
us this anti-supercomputer propaganda disguised as an
action film!
From: fmonro@neumann.une.edu.au (F J Monro)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien 3
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:35:41 GMT

mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

>From article <fmonro.711763399@neumann.une.edu.au>, by fmonro@neumann.une.edu.au (F J Monro):
>> If it's convincing for ants, bees and termites, some of the most succesful
>> species on earth, why not for aliens? Alien^3 showed that the alien queen
>> has a method of producing another, which is all terrestrial insects need to
>> survive. So, why not for aliens?

>Now tell me how the queen produces another if you kill the queen.
>Anyhow, I said I wouldn't talk about Alien 3.

Well, I'm not saying that the queen produces another if she is dead, 
I'm mearly saying that there is a way that the queen (and hence the hive) 
can reproduce.

>> So your conclusion is -- A hive which must be nuked from orbit, "it's the 
>> only way to be shure" is easy to kill?

>Much easier than single reproducing Aliens spread over the face of the
>planet.

All right, I'll give you that, but what I would comment is that with any
'real' animal, these single generalized animals would be less formidable
than the specialized 'warrior' animals. So having an alien which is a
'perfect killing machine' is in my veiw, more consistent with a hive animal.


-Che Monro			aka fmonro@neumann.une.edu.au
	"reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.."
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:36:24 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Jul23.195950.16697@sura.net>, by wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes):
> In article <5582@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>>Personally, I would also put Zardoz somewhere in there (though I guess
>>hardly anybody will agree with me).
 
> Well, you've just shot *your* credibility as a movie critic!

But what is the weight of such a statement when coming from someone
who wants to put Aliens or STII in the top 10?  :-) :-)
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: bz978@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles E Gibbs)
Subject: Re: *Another* mysterious marine in Aliens
Reply-To: bz978@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles E Gibbs)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 22:33:56 GMT


In a previous article, wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes) says:

>This is an incredibly minor nitpick, but it's getting on my nerves...
>
>In the scene where Ripley is driving the APC out of the atmosphere
>processor, when the big metal box hit Gorman on the head, you can
>clearly see someone's leg on the edge of the picture for about a
>second.  My first reaction is that it's someone on the crew who's
>inadvertently in the picture, but based on the boot the myterious
>leg is wearing, it's possible it's another one of the marines.  This
>is only important if said mystery marine dropped the box on Gorman's
>head (really unlikely, but it makes for a fun idea 8-).
>
>So, the question is, does anyone know who this is?  I realize this is
>an incredibly minor thing to be concerned about, but it is really bugging
>the hell out of me off.  Is a stage hand, one of the other actors, a
>detached limb, what?  Any ideas?
>-- 

Actually, I thought it was Hicks since hewas the first one to find Gorman,
but what do I know?

C. Gibbs
From: fmonro@neumann.une.edu.au (F J Monro)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien 3
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:03:19 GMT

mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

>From article <fmonro.711717284@neumann.une.edu.au>, by fmonro@neumann.une.edu.au (F J Monro):
>> Why not look at it the other way around? With only one alien needing 
>> the ability to reproduce,

>Because it's not convincing the other way round.  The point is exactly
>that to survive, you "need" that ability in more than one.  This part
>of the discussion got started by the realization that the Aliens on
>that planet are done for because the queen's gone.  Go back and read
>those posts again, I'm not going to type the same arguments over and
>over.

If it's convincing for ants, bees and termites, some of the most succesful
species on earth, why not for aliens? Alien^3 showed that the alien queen
has a method of producing another, which is all terrestrial insects need to
survive. So, why not for aliens?

>> So to kill the aliens, you first have to kill hundreds of warriors, who
>> are biologically programmed to give up their lives for the cause if need be.

>Fighting to the death in face of a superior force is not necessarily
>the best strategy.  If there's no queen to protect, you can run, hide,
>and try again later.

OK, true. But simply because the strategy I suggested is wrong, does not
invalidate the overall argument. Perhaps in the face of a superior force
(which never occured in the movie) the aliens would do what termites do,
leave warriors to slow up pursuit, and flee to a prepared hiding place.
The scene where the queen detatches herself from the egg sac (in some 
versions of the movie) seems to support that this might happen.

>> Then you have to kill the queen...

>So what?  Don't make sound it harder than it is.  The queen profited
>from surprise and special circumstances in Aliens.  Ripley did not
>need to kill her, since the reactor would have taken care of that. She
>didn't anticipate that the queen would follow her on board the ship.

I found the last part of aliens fairly unconvincing. How the hell did
Ripley get into the queens chamber totally un detected?

So your conclusion is -- A hive which must be nuked from orbit, "it's the 
only way to be shure" is easy to kill?

-Che Monro			aka fmonro@neumann.une.edu.au
	"reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The Man from Another Place)
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 10:51:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.222338.1562@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes...

} I like this list. However, you can't exempt E. T.

Sure we can.

E.T was the most contrived, smarmy, manipulative piece of tripe I'd seen
in years. I watched a friend's laserdisc a couple of years ago to see if
my opinion would change since the film's original release. No, the movie
still stank to high heaven.

What's even worse is that it's a well-made film. The acting is decent,
the photography nice, the special effects good, the direction fine. But
the script reeks so badly, that it overpowers any worthwhile points.

-- 

	"She's my radiation baby.
	 She's my teenage fallout girl."

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

    boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:6045 rec.arts.sf.starwars:4764
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.sf.starwars
Subject: Re: Who is the Bad Guy in E.T.?
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:38:43 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul27.171218.7762@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|In article <BD.92Jul27094814@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
|>But the actions of the scientists didn't seem eveil, although I can see why
|>from Eliott's point of view they might seem bad.  I think you have
|>overly identified with Eliott, and were unable to look at the scientists
|>from an impartial point of view.  They didn't do anything wrong.
|
|As David Brin pointed out (whether or not he actually got his facts correct
|about Wizards, a can of worms I can't go into since I've never seen it),that's
|the whole nature of propaganda: of course the scientists and government
|didn't actually _do_ anything wrong, but the audience is manipulated so as
|to feel their perfectly innocent actions are evil nevertheless. 

Hey, have you heard Brin's speach on E.T. too :-)  He makes exactly this
point, that the whole movie involves this slick, expert manipulation of
the audience's perceptions, so that the scientists *feel* evil.  Thus,
as Brin says, they are the *false* bad guys in the film, the diversion
to keep you distracted from what is really going on.  (BTW, Brin does
*not* consider E.T. to be in the same category as Wizards, just to be
another example of cinematic manipulation, for very different purposes).


-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies