HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: sound in space
Date: 22 Nov 1992 20:34:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

>>Well, where in Star Wars was there "sound in space"?  If you mean the space
>>battles, then I'm sure that the pilots of each ship would hear those
>>swooping noises...  (hear it of their own ship that is).  I though that
>>those noises were due to the engine, etc.
>>
>>If you mean the explosion of the Death Star, then sure you'd hear that.
>>I mean, such an explosion surely releases a shock wave of matter... you'd
>>hear it all right, when the shock wave reached you.  Or, if you mean
>>the destruction of Alderaan... same principle.  Surely the people in the
>>Death Star heard it, not to mention the people on the planet itself
>>(of course, they all died right away)...

>Sorry Keith,

>Sound waves do not travel in space. Sound waves can't travel through a
>vacuum. Therefore, no matter how great the explosion, the sound waves
>will not be heard.

Come on, you're not thinking here.  When something massive exploads, it
is going to spew off quite a bit of matter.  This matter will form shock
waves which will impact anything in its path.  These shock waves will cause
a ship, for example, to vibrate.  These vibrations can be felt, and if there
is air inside the ship (such as in the X-Wings and the Falcon), the waves
will be heard as well.  You see, it is not actually sound travelling through
a vacuum, but matter that causes a sound that is moving.  Get it?

keith
From: jacob@plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu (Jamey Jacob)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: New Frankenstein movie(s)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 22:07:56 GMT
Organization: UCB Space Sciences Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu

In article <2B0A6D2A@ssd0.laafb.af.mil>, KitchenRN@SSD0.LAAFB.AF.MIL writes:
|> Excerpts from an article in the November 17 "Los Angeles Times":
|> 
|> REAL STORY OF A GUY AND HIS MONSTER
|> By Jeff Kaye
|> Special to the Times
|> 
|> . . .Frankenstein on a dog sled in the Acrtic Circle?  It's a weird idea that 
|> probably would have been deemed utterly preposterous and tossed in the trash 
|> if not for the person who thought of it.  That person was Mary Shelley, whose 
|> 1818 novel "Frankenstein" begins with a disfigured creature and its creator 
|> locked in a deadly chase across the great white North.
|> 
|> Boris Karloff and the legion of square-headed descendants who have played the 
|> Frankenstein monster in countless films may have provided hours of thrilling 
|> entertainment with their versions of the creature.  But what really wound up 
|> hideously disfigured in those movies was Shelley's novel.
|> 
|> Now comes Turner Network Televison to set things right.  . . .
|> 
|> . . . with Randy Quaid as the monster (no, his name is not Frankenstein) and 
|> Patrick Bergin [an aside -- this was the bad guy in "Sleeping With the 
|> Enemy".] as his creator, (his name *is* Frankenstein.)
|> 
|> . . . With Coppola just announcing that his American Zoetrope will produce a 
|> new version of Frankenstein starring and directed by Kenneth Branagh [Henry 
|> V], there appears to be something of a mini-trend toward recharging the 
|> careers of aging fright-meisters.
|> 

	There was a fairly faithful adaptation of Frankenstein,
	where the creature at first looks and acts fine, and
	then decays into the monster, eventually battling for his
	life with his creator over a frozen sea.  I haven't seen
	this in probably ten years.  Does anybody remember what
	this was called and know anything else about it?  It seems
	to have been made in the late 60's perhaps (I'm only
	guessing) and from my vague memory seemed very good and
	true to the novel.  The only thing I can remember about
	the title of this film is that the opening or ending
	credits and a rose in the background.  (How's that for
	vague?)


____________________________________________________________________
"common human laws and interests     "I wouldn't exactly call it a
 and emotions have no validity        a happy dogma, but it makes me
 or signifigance in the vast          feel better about not 
 cosmos-at-large..."                  getting laid..."
		-HP Lovecraft                 -R. Carter
____________________________________________________________________

                                       ______   ______   __     
                                    | /\  ___\ /\  ___\ /\ \    
  jacob@plasma1.ssl.berkeley.edu    | \ \___  \\ \___  \\ \ \___
                                    |  \/\_____\\/\_____\\ \_____\
                                    |   \/_____/ \/_____/ \/_____/
From: cs92mjd@cen.ex.ac.uk (M.J.Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: sound in space
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:26:35 GMT
	<BxuFFB.5B6@cs.psu.edu>
Organization: Computer Unit. - University of Exeter. UK

In article <BxuFFB.5B6@cs.psu.edu> antunes@astro.psu.edu (Sandy Antunes) writes:

   >Oh, and the movie was called "Silent Running", and starred a young Bruce Dern,
   >and is a classic movie in most senses of the word.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Eeerrrmm...most senses of _which_ word, exactly? Classic or movie? 

Best put in a :-), I s'pose.....

Mikey D
                              
--




"Ride and find where all the freedom has gone..."

Michael J. Davis          |   M.J.Davis@ac.uk.ex.cen
Dept of Computer Science  |   M.J.Davis@cen.ex.uk.ac
University of Exeter      |
UK                        |   #include<disclaimer.std>




   








--
From: fong_jh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Julian H Fong)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Brainstorm ending?
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:16:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: jhunix.1992Nov18.161614.12231
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore


	Since filming on <Brainstorm> seemed to have been cut short because
of Natalie Wood's death, does anyone know how the movie was originally
intended to end?



-- 
           ____  "Okay, the situation is totally under control as of
     |____|____   this moment in time." -- Zaphod Beeblebrox
 ____|    |
                  Julian Fong: fong_jh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao)
Subject: 2001 question
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:59:57 GMT


In 2001, why is there normal gravity in the moon bus?
I thought you could only make gravity by centrifugal force.
The moon bus is the one that carried Floyd and his friends to
see the monolith.
By the way, when Floyd earlier eats on the earth-to-moon ship, there
are little illustrations on his tray. One picture is of a brown thing
with all these red squares coming out. What was that supposed to mean?
-- 
Robert Chao
Oakland, California
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Dracula (No Spoilers)
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:55:58 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <4wNcuB1w165w@memalph.UUCP> system@memalph.UUCP (Woody  
Harper) writes:
> I just saw Dracula on Sunday (the latest version) and I was sorely 
> disappointed. Mr. Copola told myself and about 2000 others at the  
San 
> Diego Comic Convention that this would be an accurate adaption of  
the 
> original novel. I read the novel the day before I saw the movie and  
I 
> must say that Mr. Copola LIES! There are so many significant  
deviations 
> that it is unfair for the two to share a title. When more folks  
have seen 
> the flick we can discuss these differences. Also, the movie looked  
cheap. 
> It lacked production value and had the appearance of a  
"made-for-tv" 
> movie. I was very excited going into this show and very  
diasappointed 
> coming out.
> 

Are you sure you saw the correct movie?  Whatever its faults
(and I think Dracula had several), its production values were
incredible.  The movie is worth watching for its lavish
sets, lighting, costumes, etc.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Subject: Re: Alien biology
Organization: In Effect Enterprises
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:51:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.224702.24412@gasco.com>, mos@gasco.com (Mark O'Shea  x1527) writes:
> 
> 
> In article <75258@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
> |> In article <myers.722046856@hickory.cs.scarolina.edu> myers@cs.scarolina.edu (Daniel Myers) writes:
> |> >Just something worth noting...
> |> >
> |> >It was made pretty clear (at least as I remember it) that the Alien
> |> >critters were a artifically created life-form, made to be the perfect
> |> >weapon, and that they were extremely adaptable to adverse conditions.
> |> 
> |> Um, no.
> |> 
> |> Ash states that they are the "perfect organism", but neither he nor anyone
> |> else ever states that they were artificially created.
> 
> In either the book (which came after the movie) or the movie.  It was stated
> that the Aliens were genetically engineered.

No, neither the book nor the movie state any such thing.  I think what you're 
remembering is a couple of people in this forum speculating on this. In short,
you've had your brain fried from reading too many Alien posts on the Net.  

Say. . .

Kevvy Kev
"Hmmm...  do ya think they'd give us a bulk discount if we all went and 
 got a life at the same time?"
   -Guinny
From: rtravsky@news.uwyo.edu (Rich Travsky)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: The Day the Earth Stood Still
Date: 21 Nov 92 14:00:24 MST
Distribution: world
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <1992Nov18.183332.8979@ac.dal.ca>, 01fortec@ac.dal.ca writes:
> In article <BxvB9H.LAD@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
  writes:
>> Right on!. The political message at the end of TDTESS is pure libertarian
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> limited government philosphy. That is to say Government is a policeman,
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Say what!?
Ditto. I wonder if that chap was watching the same movie ;)

>> not a welfare agency or a charity. I consider TDTESS to be one of the best
>> put together SCI-FI movies.  
>> 
> [whackity whack] 
> I was left with the impression that for Klaatu's political body it was a matter
> of children growing up. In the context of the movie, Earth had nukes, and they
> were developing rockets capable of delivering them. Having reached this level,
> humans were now a danger to themselves as a race, and a potential danger to
> the universe at large if allowed to proceed without restriction. While 
> Klaatu's ultimatum might be simplistic and dictatorial ( it also smacks of
> divine intervention ), Earth was invited to join a group of planets and races
> who had similar restrictions imposed on them. 
> 
> Given the period this movie was released in, I am amazed that it survived in
> any form whatsoever. It was highly critical of government posturing and made
> light of what are (to diplomats and politicians) serious issues. It also
> took that unforgivable approach: it painted everybody with the same brush.
>
TDthESS came out in 1951. Commie Hysteria. Nuclear war jitters. The Korean
War. McCarthy hearings. Paranoia.

This was a fatalistic movie: "We can't control ourselves, so we make an 
agency to do it for us". There's no libertarianism that I can see.

+---------+    Richard Travsky   RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
|         |    Division of Information Technology
|     U W |    University of Wyoming   (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
|      *  |    "Wyoming is the capital of Denver." - a tourist
+---------+    "One of those square states." - another tourist
From: jester@ihlpm.att.COM
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Restored THE ABYSS coming out on LD!
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:14:00 GMT


>      A friend of mine with a laserdisk player told me the other night
> that the long-awaited *full* version of James Cameron's THE ABYSS will be
> coming out letterboxed on LD in CAV with 37 minutes of restored footage,
> and a batch of behind-the-scenes stuff.  Thank God!

This is rather old news.  I first heard it a few months ago, shortly
after the release of the deluxe ALIENS.  I've also heard that they want
to give the same treatment to TERMINATOR 2.

>      Can a videotape (and theatrical?) release--letterboxing or no--be
> that far behind?

Yes.  It is unlikely they will do a video (or theatrical) release of this
film, for the same reasons they didn't do so for the extended version of
ALIENS.  Sorry.

			    E n r i q u e  C o n t y
			      jester@ihlpm.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.sf.written
From: gdr11@phx.cam.ac.uk (Gareth Rees)
Subject: Re: Are *YOU* Human?
Keywords: Bladerunner, Philip K. Dick, Replicants
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:10:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.192643.8619@ugle.unit.no>, oscar@Lise.Unit.NO (Rune Aasgaard) writes:
|> Question : Was Deckard a replicant or not?

Depends on whether you're reading the book or watching the movie.  In the book,
Deckard is not an android, because he can use the empathy boxes and take part in
the religion of Mercerism, whereas the androids cannot because they have no
ability to empathise.  I remember reading the book and feeling sorry for the
androids because they so obviously wanted to be able to feel and empathise, but
owing to their construction were frustrated in this aim.  The ending is
especially significant -- here the androids in the media expose Mercerism for the
fake it is but don't realise that this won't stop people believing in it.

I haven't seen the re-cut film.  Is it true about the unicorn?

-- 
Gareth Rees <gdr11@phx.cam.ac.uk>
From: spongebo@cithara.login.qc.ca (THE EYE-BALL KID)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Deckard WAS a replica
Date: 22 Nov 92 02:35:29 GMT
Organization: Organ Grinders Monkeys Union With Penguins As Mascots

ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

> >mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
> 
> [Arguements about unicorn deleted.]
> 
> > 3: The MATH was wrong - "Six replicants jumped a shuttle, one got fried 
> > in an electrical feild," and Decard is assigned to kill only four. Five 
> > when you add Rachel, but she was created on Earth. Who is the extra 
> > Replicant?
> 
> Am I missing something?  I realize that I've only seen this movie once,
> but I just don't understand your logic.
> 
> "Six replicants jumped a shuttle.  One got fried in an electric field."
> 
> This leaves FIVE.
> 
> "and Decard is assigned to kill only four.  Five when you add Rachel, but she
>  was created on Earth.  Who is the extra replicant?"
> 
> Well, are you including Rachel or not?  At first it seems you are ("Five when
> you add Rachel," and then it seems you aren't "but she was created on Earth."
> 
> So which is it?  Because if you are, then it makes perfect sense.  There are
> five.  Decard has to kill 4, and Rachel is the 5th.  The sixth one got fried
> in an electric field.  What's the problem?
> 
> If you're not including Rachel, why bring her up at all?
> 
> -- 
> Jorge Diaz                       | "I want you to remember, Clark... in all

Well, since this post looks remarkably like one I placed here, I'll take 
the liberty of jumping in and answering it:

Rachel was NOT one of the Six that jumped the Shuttle. She was asigned to 
Decard later in the movie. He killed Zhora, Bryant met him "regular one 
man slaughter house," and then said "four to go."

Decard argued that there were three, and then Bryant told him to kill 
Rachel as well. Zhora was the first replicant Decard killed.

In other words: Six jump the shuttle. One gets fried, leaving five. 
Bryant is assigned to kill the remaining FOUR. He kills Zhora, then is 
assigned to kill a replicant NOT ON THE ORIGINAL LIST -- Rachel.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Spongebo - THE EYE-BALL KID (:::::-)

spongebo@cithara.login.qc.ca
From: edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: sound in space
Date: 16 Nov 1992 10:42:14 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University, Dept. of Math.
NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu

>>How many SF films are realistic enough that they show there is no sound
>>in space? All I can think of is 2001.

One movie (I forget which) used in its advertising the phrase:
"In space, no one can hear you scream."


-- 
  Gerald A. Edgar                Internet:  edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu
  Department of Mathematics      Bitnet:    EDGAR@OHSTPY
  The Ohio State University      telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office)
  Columbus, OH 43210             -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Dracula (No Spoilers)
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:37:32 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov18.143517.4069@wkuvx1.bitnet>  
barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
> In article <dsanders.8.722102127@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>,  
dsanders@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (David Sanderson) writes:
 And were we supposed to feel Drac was
> evil incarnate or feel sorry for him?  

Yes.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:8780 rec.arts.sf.written:14983
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Are *YOU* Human?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:06:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu
Keywords: Bladerunner, Philip K. Dick, Replicants

In article <1992Nov16.192643.8619@ugle.unit.no> oscar@Lise.Unit.NO (Rune 
Aasgaard) writes:>From: oscar@Lise.Unit.NO (Rune Aasgaard)
>What are the replicants? They aren't Terminators, T1000's or any such thing!
>They are merely extremely advanced test tube babies, genetically engineered and
>designed, with human DNA as the building piece. They are human in every sense,
>except that they were conceived in a dish and born in a tank. They are freaks,
>they have close to perfect genes, and we "normal" and "not-so-perfect" humans
>hate them for it! Let's kill the bastards!

In the movie, yes. Not in the book. In _DADOES_, the replicants have no 
empathy. This is why they must die -- they are stronger and smarter than we 
are, but have no respect for anything other than themselves.
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: jfarrell@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (James Farrell)
Subject: Re: sound in space
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:01:38 GMT

In article <1eo1igINNs3l@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:
>
>>In article <u906789.722151763@bruny> u906789@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner) writes:
>>>rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes:
>>>
>>>>How many SF films are realistic enough that they show there is no sound
>>>>in space? All I can think of is 2001.
>>>
>>>If you're going to complain about "sound in space", what about : who's playing
>>>all that music you always hear in films. Is there an orchestra(sp?) just of
>>>screen or what...?
>
>>I remember Arthur C Clarke making the same point just after "Star Wars" came
>>out, in an interview. The interviewer was surprised to hear that Clarke had
>>liked SW, and asked him if things like sound in space bothered him. Clarke
>>replied, "Not at all. It's a convention, just like the music."
>
>
>Well, where in Star Wars was there "sound in space"?  If you mean the space
>battles, then I'm sure that the pilots of each ship would hear those
>swooping noises...  (hear it of their own ship that is).  I though that
>those noises were due to the engine, etc.
>
>If you mean the explosion of the Death Star, then sure you'd hear that.
>I mean, such an explosion surely releases a shock wave of matter... you'd
>hear it all right, when the shock wave reached you.  Or, if you mean
>the destruction of Alderaan... same principle.  Surely the people in the
>Death Star heard it, not to mention the people on the planet itself
>(of course, they all died right away)...
>
>keith
>

Sorry Keith,

Sound waves do not travel in space. Sound waves can't travel through a
vacuum. Therefore, no matter how great the explosion, the sound waves
will not be heard.

Jim Farrell

SIG. under construction
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien biology
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:28:03 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <75256@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz):
> In article <1992Nov17.111357.8942@ac.dal.ca> 01fortec@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>2 - Ash was onboard as a last minute replacement and went snaky when his
>>new assignment violated his "Asimov protocols".
 
> Heh.  What makes you think that he has "Asimov protocols"?
> Besides, this is Ash, not HAL.

Note that HAL conclusively proves that he does not follow the Three
Laws, either.  Makes him that much more human :-)

> He was given this assignment because the company had received the signal.  They
> wanted to know who was out there, so they put him on board and sent them
> on their merry way, knowing that the ship would be re-routed and that they
> would have to investigate.

Indeed.  His mission, from the moment he went on board, was to deceive
the crew about the nature of what they were investigating (not that he
had that clear a notion, but still much less murky than that of the
other crew members), while collecting information and specimens.
-- 
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
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Blade runner..... (what are replicants)
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:48:58 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <RATINOX.92Nov11232358@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, by ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri):
> Replicants are, for all intent and purposes, robots built from
> engineered human genetic material force-grown to "adulthood."

While the description is correct, I've never seen or heard the term
"robot" applied to anything that was not predominantly artificial
(electronic/mechanical/whatever, but not made out of living tissue).
Thus, a Terminator is a robot, but a replicant is not.
-- 
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
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien biology
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:22:25 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <myers.722046856@hickory.cs.scarolina.edu> myers@cs.scarolina.edu (Daniel Myers) writes:
>Just something worth noting...
>
>It was made pretty clear (at least as I remember it) that the Alien
>critters were a artifically created life-form, made to be the perfect
>weapon, and that they were extremely adaptable to adverse conditions.

Um, no.

Ash states that they are the "perfect organism", but neither he nor anyone
else ever states that they were artificially created.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | "I want you to remember, Clark... in all
Georgia Institute of Technology  |  the years to come, in your most private
Office of Information Technology |  moments...my hand at your throat.  I want
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |  you to remember the one man who beat you."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies