HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shimkevi@buchmf.bu.edu (Sergey Shimkevich)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:33:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boston University Chemistry Department

In article <3456@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:

>	ANIME. Like most things, a lot of it is garbage, but there are some
>REALLY good pieces which should be contenders in "best" lists for SF or
>Fantasy.

Yes, definitely. The problem is, most of the critics who made the choice
probably never heard of it.

>	     GUNDAM -- The Zeta Gundam sequence and  Char's Counterattack.
>If you like to add psionics to your space opera, this is perhaps as good as
>it could ever get.

I absolutely agree about Gundam (except Gundam F-91).

Also, let's not forget WINGS OF HONNEAMISE (well, don't know if it is really
sci-fi, more like a regular drama) and NAUSICAA OF THE VALLEY OF THE WIND. 

>	This is one of those constantly recurring SF arguments that will
>never be resolved. 2001 is one of those movies which divides people into
>two violently opposed camps, with VERY few neutrals in the middle. You
>either loved it or you hated it.

Regarding 2001, I'm in the middle. Neither loved, nor hated it.

(BTW, an interesting 2001 snip (not really related to this thread, sorry). I
remember that when 2001 (the book) was translated into Russian, circa 1980, I
think, the last three chapters were left out. Moreover, they had the nerve to
state the following in the translation: "The last three chapters are deemed to
be of no interest to the Soviet reader and as such are cut off". Rough, eh?)

Some of the films by Tarkovsky (like STALKER) also should be in the top ten.
Sure beats the "Body Snatchers".

>                                 Sea Wasp
>                                   /^\
>                                   ;;;

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Ryan: What is it to you, demon?       //// Sergei Shimkevich             //
// Lune: It is Sir, Demon to you, worm!  //// shimkevi@buchmf.bu.edu        //
// -Phantasy Star III                    ////                               // 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood)
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Reply-To: ccw@prefect.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 20:38:33 GMT

[I've messed up the attributions completly...]

Discussing Forbidden Planet...

>> I disagree. The movie on videotape (or on broadcast TV) is only a rough
>> (very rough) approximation of what FORBIDDEN PLANET should be.

I agree times 10 with this

>> What one *should* do is find someone with a laserdisc player and rent a
>> copy of the letterboxed disc.

>Perhaps, but it's still a good movie on video tape.  I wish 
>theatres would revive it from time to time, though, since it
>is a lot nicer on the big screen.

It is a lot nicer on the big screen.  Cropped to TV dimensions, the
alien control room doesn't have anywhere _near_ the impact as the film
did...

I am going to get the letterboxed videodisc real soon now...

>--
>Jim Mann       jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  Stratus Computer


Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com
From: corwin@ensta.ensta.fr (Gilles Gravier)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien 3
Date: 26 Jul 92 09:21:36 GMT
Organization: Ensta, Paris, France
NNTP-Posting-Host: ensta.ensta.fr

In article <fmonro.711717284@neumann.une.edu.au> fmonro@neumann.une.edu.au (F J Monro) writes:
>mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>
>>whichever way it works.  Really great, you have a planet with Aliens
>>running loose, you kill one of them, and they're history, for all
>>practical purposes.  Really consistent with the idea of creatures
>>optimized for survival.  Ha.
>
>Why not look at it the other way around? With only one alien needing 
>the ability to reproduce, the others are free to specialize in defence

	Yeah... Look at it this way: Take a species optimized for survival, 
say, a species that you find *EVERYWHERE* on good'ol earth, even in places
where they are not supposed to be, let me introduce you to ants...

	This species on insects are tough, they'll survive lack of water,
too much heat, killing a fair amount of them. They hide during the bad
season, know how to raise livestock (in a limited way, sure, but they raise
aphids, which they then use as food - they collect fluids from them which
they then use to feed ther larvae...). OK, I'll stop the coparison with the
Alien... Just one more thing, the Alien is nothing more than a big insect, if
you look at it the right way, say, a big ant...

	Well, an ant colony is organized aroung a UNIQUE fertile female, called
the queen - as with the bees - and quantities of specialized workers: 
harvesters, nurses, fire-men (in some varieties of ants, they through fluid at
small flames), fighters... None of these workers has the ability to reproduce.
The only one that can is the queen. Which has to be surrounded by males... an
other specialized worker!

	Kill the queen, and the few queen larvae and there you are, no more
ant collony. Same with bees...

	Sure, it not only takes the queen, but also some of the larvae... But
you have time for these last... They take time before they hatch... And
without the queen you have some time before you.

	Helps?

	Gilles.

-- 
 This message has been brought to you by Gilles GRAVIER - corwin@ensta.fr
                       ***** Amber Forever! *****
    I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am
       sure, you realize,  that what you heard is not what I meant.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:6067 rec.arts.sf.starwars:4851
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.sf.starwars
Subject: Re: Who is the Bad Guy in E.T.?
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:33:21 GMT
	<BD.92Jul27094814@fluent.UUCP> <1992Jul27.171218.7762@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

In article <1992Jul27.171218.7762@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

   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.

Didn't do anything wrong?  Invade a person's home without a warrent,
encase it in some sort of big plastic bag, separate mother from
children, hold without charge or conviction, and in general take over
their lives without a by your leave?  What country do you live in?

Every time I see that scene, with strange suited beings at every
window and door, herding a mother and her children into frightened,
cowering heaps, I want to stop the film, run in and give her a
shotgun, and start it going again.

The "scientists" in this film portray the worst form of
totalitarianism.  The family has no rights whatever (not even
mentioning any rights on the part of an alien visitor, about which
there can be some argument).  To state that they did nothing wrong
betrays a basic misunderstanding concerning constitutional rights.

"Nothing wrong", indeed!

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: uhschreg@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Wizards and Star Wars
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:33:44 GMT
Organization: Student Pool, CSD, University of Erlangen, Germany

krisk@Apple.COM (Kris Kreutzman) writes:

>I also saw the preview while waiting for Wizards.  It was the
>second time I saw the movie and had sneaked a tape recorder in to capture
>the audio.

You did what? Then do You smuggle in Your camcorder by now? Sheesh!
(Eh! Maybe that's how video pirates do it.)


May the Cool be with You!

(C)OOL mcmxcii
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Who is the Bad Guy in E.T.?
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:41:04 GMT
	<BD.92Jul27094814@fluent.UUCP> <1992Jul27.171218.7762@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
	<DLB.92Jul29143321@fanny.wash.inmet.com> <JEFFT.92Jul29204458@w20-575-74.mit.edu>
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


in article <JEFFT.92Jul29204458@w20-575-74.mit.edu> jefft@athena.mit.edu (Jeff Tang) writes:

>The government acted perfectly reasonably considering the potential threat.
>What if the family had been infected by a hypothetical dangerous disease:
>highly communicable, incurable, deadly.  Would the there behavior have been
>justified?  The threat to public health imposed by an alien visitor is
>potentially that bad.  When the Europeans came to America, many Native
>American were simply wiped out by disease to which they had no immunity to.
>Consider the end of War of the Worlds.  Combine this threat with the
>possible national security/military implications, and the governments
>action was highly justifiable.
>
>What would you have done if you were in charge?

Although I agree with the basic premise that the scientists were not
really bad guys, I also agree with Dave Barton when he raises objections
to the way the scientists dealt with the situaiton.

What would I have done?  First off, I would have knocked on the door,
court order in hand, and I would have calmly talked to the family about the
situation, with all my scientist friends and their equipment parked a few
blocks away.

Once I had explained to them the need for the quarantine, I would then
bring on my forces, and quietly, calmly, quarantined the house.  It would 
have taken only an hour longer than the way they did do it, and I think
that's time well spent.

-- 
    Brice Dowaliby         |    I may speak fluently, but 
(bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu)  |    I don't speak for Fluent
From: joshuali@usc.edu (Joshua Ling)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Solar Crisis
Date: 27 Jul 1992 16:21:17 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

	I'm new to this group so this topic may have already been 
discussed.
	What ever happened to Solar Crisis? With Charleton Heston
and effects by BOSS?
	Is it ever gonna come out?

-joshuali@usc.edu
From: seawasp+@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Who is the Bad Guy in E.T.?
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:47:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BD.92Jul23131956@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>I didn't save it, so I can't quote directly, but in the second
>of the "David Brin" posts he says that one of his favorite tricks
>is to ask audiences who the bad guy in E.T. was.

>Personally, I don't think there was a bad guy in E.T.  Anyone venture
>to guess what Brin was tlaking about?  Is there a hidden bad guy
>that I was supposed to have seen?

	The Bad Guy is actually one we never see; it's Spielberg and co,
who once more show that:

	Love and Trust and Stupid Cute Kids are far superior to the
poor, fragile, shallow brains of adults.

	Scientists are all a bunch of psychotics who will gladly dissect
any alien that lands here without so much as a how-de-do.

	The Military/Government are EEEEEVIL and will do anything to
cover up such a landing, help the psychotic Scientists get hold of
the Harmless Alien, and use anything they learn to Destroy The World (tm).


	E.T. was an anti-intellectual piece of trash. Cute, but definitely
trash.

	By contrast, Spielberg's CE3K showed something far more balanced.
Yes, the government WOULD try to cover things up, but there would be
limits. And the scientists were just that; scientists. Men and women of 
intelligence and genuine curiosity. There were no great villains here.
The aliens zapped human minds with a casual disreguard for our welfare;
our government tried to keep the landing secret just to keep it controlled
(imagine trying to conduct that scientific experiment in communication with
30,000 fanatics from alt.alien.visitors hanging out on one side and
all the television networks on the other...).


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: wcstom@alfred.carleton.ca (Tom Hamill)
Subject: Re: Nightfall & Isaac Asimov
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:11:25 GMT

In article eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>Well, since you purposfully left out whether or not you really liked or
>hated the movie, I will respond with my real opinion and not some
>sarcastic(sp?) jibber.
>
>I * * H A T E D * * this movie.  It was like they took the best short story
>ever writting, said that they would make a movie about it and they
>completely ignored it.  There was nothing recognizable between the short
>story and the movie exect for the comming of nightfall.  I could go one
>about the differences, but I wish to get some sleep in the next two days...
>
>I beg you, NOBODY SEE THIS MOVIE!  (I rented it in a video store when I saw
>it and only because I didn't know what it really was and I am a great fan
>of ASIMOV.) 
>

So, you hated the movie, but as near as I can tell, _only_ because it
did not follow Asimov's story.  Certainly, your "real opinion" is as
subjectively valid as that of the person you were responding to, but
what did you think of it in terms of it standing on its own?  I'm
curious because I intend to rent it this weekend, in spite of your
plea not to.  It seems to me that far too many people make judgements
about the 'quality' of a book or movie based soley on their expectations
of it rather than on the intrinsic merits of the item in question.

---tom

l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l
l      CRUSH---CompassionRespectUnderstandingSelfHonesty---CRUSH      l
l         How could you have ever lived your life without it?         l
l               Join Now, Apply Within.  Spread the word.             l
l____________________________      ---me, trying to save the world,   l
l wcstom@alfred.carleton.ca l                      from itself.       l
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: cwilliams@guvax.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Jurassic Park and Star Wars
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:55:35 -0400
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

Can anyone send me info they might have on both the making of
Jurassic Park into a movie and the making of a possible
Star Trek IV?

Please send it to the address below.

Thanks!


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@        
Carol Williams
Bitnet/Profs address: BITNET%"CWILLIAMS@GUVAX"
Internet:  EDU%"CWILLIAMS@GUVAX.GEORGETOWN.EDU"
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

      

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: cstudly@athena.mit.edu (Todd Sterling Anderson)
Subject: Re: Brin: Writers should be read and not heard
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:12:19 GMT

	I think it is laudable that he is even reading the rec.arts.sf.  In
addition, he doesn't submit anonymously or under a pseudonym, which again
shows alot of guts.  I don't think it is a question of anyone's relative
importance, which seems to be hurting alot of people's delicate egos, but 
rather a question of privacy.  The network is very young and as such is
still experiencing some growing pains such as this one.

todd
anderson
From: gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIENS- mysterious marine.
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:04:14 GMT
Organization: Ironpig Arcadia, Coventry, UK

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?

This is Crowe. Wierzbowski is the podgy one that Hicks pulls away from the
railings just as the ammo is about to explode. Fact is, that in the middle
of a battle, in the dark, when everyone's wearing the same uniform, it's
difficult to tell who's who. This is why (IMO) Hicks calls in to the Lt.
that Crowe and Wierzbowski are down, and then shouts after Wierzbowski
as he gets taken away. I think that Someone else was actually getting hit,
but Hicks thought it was Ski.


-- 
		 **Ridley McIntyre - Ronin Ironpig**
		     gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk
		 -----------------------------------
             "Oh man, this is too real." - The Hard Way
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: andy@rocky.gte.com (Andrew Busa)
Subject: Jurassic Park
Organization: GTE Contel Federal Systems
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 15:03:52 GMT

Hi, 
I'm new to the news group and I've noticed quite a few references to the
title Jurassic Park. Since this wasn;t in the FAQ list could somebody
please EMAIL some info on what this is about.

Thanks in advance.

Andy
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Who is the Bad Guy in E.T.?
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:19:56 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


I didn't save it, so I can't quote directly, but in the second
of the "David Brin" posts he says that one of his favorite tricks
is to ask audiences who the bad guy in E.T. was.

Personally, I don't think there was a bad guy in E.T.  Anyone venture
to guess what Brin was tlaking about?  Is there a hidden bad guy
that I was supposed to have seen?

Clearly, on the surface (seen from the kid's view of the world, that
is), the big guys (mostly the scientists) were supposed to be the bad
guys and that clearly is not what Brin was talking about.

Who are the bad guys?
-- 
    Brice Dowaliby         |    I may speak fluently, but 
(bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu)  |    I don't speak for Fluent
From: tnt@netcom.com (Terry Turner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:22:43 GMT
	<1992Jul20.164052.19868@nntp.uoregon.edu> <3389@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
	<1992Jul21.140754.13098@engage.pko.dec.com>
	<8ePeyQu00iUxQ1R8k=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Watch the Skies

In article <8ePeyQu00iUxQ1R8k=@andrew.cmu.edu> Bill Thomas <bt16+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

	[list deleted]

   A pretty good list. I'd like to plug in The Road Warrior. Bizarre, grim,
   hilarious and totally over the top like no other movie ever. I'd bump

road warrior is the best movie of its kind.

   Invasion of the Body Snatchers (I assume they mean the original). It was
   clever, but not brilliant, and its real contribution is in showing the
   anti-communist paranoia of its day. It does it very well, which makes it
   a fine movie. But as science fiction it has very little going for it.

iotbs is one of the best sf movies ever. and once again i would 
like to correct a common misconception. iotbs is not about 
communism. according to the director it is about the hollywood 
establishment (which instituetd the black list against alledged 
communists). he has been quoted, "they never knew the movie was 
about them". there is an irony in the fact that they (the studio 
big wigs) forced him to add the prologue/flashback and hopeful 
ending.
-- 
terry
	tnt@netcom.com
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Premiere's Top Ten SF Movies
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:00:48 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Jul21.104715.3221@ifi.unizh.ch>, by hafner@ifi.unizh.ch (Michel Hafner):
>>8.  Forbidden Planet
> Why? Because it was x years in the working and had neat effects for the time?

I'd say, because it has a great plot (no, it's not merely the
"Tempest", it's what you make of it.  Wooden acting notwithstanding,
this one belongs on the list.
 
>>9.  A Clockwork Orange
> Wrong category. 

Why? 
 
>>10. Alien
> If you say "Alien" you have to say "Aliens"!

Ha!  Definitely not.  If Alien is #10, Aliens must be somewhere around
15-20.

> Where are the "artsy" movies?
> ( Solaris, The man who fell to earth... )

Yes, I'd gladly exchange Invasion of the Body Snatchers for Solaris.
"Dark Star" is missing as well (not artsy, but a must in the top 10).
Personally, I would also put Zardoz somewhere in there (though I guess
hardly anybody will agree with me).
-- 
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: joshuali@aludra.usc.edu (Joshua Ling)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Where's Star Wars 4
Date: 27 Jul 1992 16:11:41 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

I wouldn't believe it.  Look at all the new SW merchandise being introduced
and/or in the works:
	New novels.
	New Comics.
	Vitamins?!!?!??!
	New Models Kits.
	A SW chess set is in the works.
	As is a Topps card set.
	The radio series will be released next year on tape.

Lucas' original plans were to release SW 4 by '97.  I think with the success
of YOUNG INDY though, may have pushed it back a year or two.
SW 4 WILL be here.

-joshuali@usc.edu
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Brin: Writers should be read and not heard
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:16:54 GMT
	<1b603c59.ARN21d0@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au>
	<MeP8I4q00VpNA1YldQ@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Jul23.195050.11829@hsv3.lsil.com>
	<AePqmjW00Vp0QGBF1R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 24 Jul 92 02:36:31 GMT

In article <AePqmjW00Vp0QGBF1R@andrew.cmu.edu> lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:

   Mike Van Pelt writes:
   >I was unaware that two (2) messages constituted "extended
   >exposure".

   There's quite a lot in those two notes.  Brin, himself, tells
   us that he spent "several hours", writing for our benefit.

Ah, no. He spent several hours _reading_ the responses,
I can give you a word count if you like, but we're talking
a fair amount of traffic. 

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*
From: koreth@twitterpater.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Grimm)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Who is the Bad Guy in E.T.?
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:53:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems Federal, Milpitas, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM

In <BD.92Jul23131956@fluent.UUCP> bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:
>Personally, I don't think there was a bad guy in E.T.  Anyone venture
>to guess what Brin was tlaking about?

Call me an insensitive clod, but I'd say the bad guy was E.T. him(it?)self.
I mean, E.T. wanders off from the ship where all the others are hanging out,
and proceeds to ruin the lives of (or terrify) just about everyone involved
from that point on.

But I'd be interested to see what Mr. Brin was talking about.

---
Steven Grimm  koreth@eng.sun.com   Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st
"We must be brave, and not let them know how frightened we really are."
                 -- OPEN LOOK Graphical User Interface Functional Specification