HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Subject: Re: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*S
Organization: In Effect Enterprises
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:45:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.130619.14253@fwi.uva.nl>, welter@fwi.uva.nl (Richard Welter) writes:

[snip]
 
> It knew how not to hurt Kane so it also knew how not to hurt Ripley, like you
> say, it's Alien, we don't know how it know's this, but it does.

Okay, so in effect we have no disagreement.  For you it's enough to postulate
an alien creature that "somehow knows exactly where/how to secrete insanely
corrosive fluid, in order to impregnate a host that it's never been exposed 
to before."  Oh, and "Knew the exact thickness of Kane's helmet, so it could
apply just the right amount of acid to get through it but not sear Kane's face
off, even though just one drop too much would've eaten through his face and 
skull, leaving smoking holes in his brain." 
For me it's not. End of discussion. 
This was only part of my point, though. . ."acid" secretions aside, if the 
f'hugger was strong enough to break the cryotube, it was strong enough to get 
past Ripley's hands. 
And no, Newt wouldn't have been able to hold the other one off, either. 
Gutty kid, though.
 
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: dug@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dug Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien 3
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:10:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard ISG-SBU-PWD, UK.

I think the basic problem with Alien^3 is that it tries to be like Alien, with
a weaker plot.  Alien could have got away with a weaker plot, as we learnt
about the alien with the crew, so the suspense was real.  I found in Alien^3 I
just kept thinking "Jeez, how can you not have figured it out by now" or 
wondering why they took so long to barricade themselves in and start acting
scared.  I'd have enjoyed this film much more if I hadn't seen Alien or Aliens.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: equnlivn@unix1.tcd.ie (Eoin P. O'Coindealbhain)
Subject: Re: Alien^3: religious and pre-modern
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 09:48:36 GMT


From article <5536@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, by news@pitt.edu (USENET News System):
> Only a rather rabid Freudian would find much sexual about
> the Alien. [...] 

		Having seen a lot of Geiger's work(he designed the 
	Alien) I would suggest that he did design it with a strong
	sexual image.A lot of Geiger's work takes what many people
	would consider pornographic and gives it a twist that turns
	it into something that's anything but sexualy stimutating
	(except to the most warped of minds).
		Dead Kennedys were charged with pornography after
	giving a Geiger poster "Penis Landscape" away w/ one of 
	their albums but charges were dismissed by the jury because
	the poster was too 'horrible' to sexualy arouse (the picture
	was a 'landscape' of penii penitrating vaginas,all of which
	was in an advanced stage of decay).

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:7027 alt.cult-movies:7834
From: 10726446@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (LAU WAI KUEN)
Subject: Re: MAD MAX
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:37:47 GMT

In article <15SEP199209500483@portal.lasc.lockheed.com> l495426@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Eric Zorawowicz x2032) writes:
>From: l495426@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Eric Zorawowicz x2032)
>Subject: MAD MAX
>Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 16:43:00 GMT
>Can someone tell me how to obtain a video copy of MAD MAX that
>hasn't been dubbed in Americanese.  I assume it must be possible
>to obtain a copy somewhere in Australia if none are available in
>the US.
>
>Sorry if this is already in a FAQ somewhere.
>
>=============================(^oo^)====================================
>| Eric Zorawowicz                   Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. |
>|                                   D74-74 B229 P2                    |
>| Engineering Computational         25100 Rye Canyon Rd.              |
>|     Simulation Center             Valencia, CA 91355                |
>|                                                                     |
>| inet: ez@portal.lasc.lockheed.com              Tel. (805) 295-2032  |
>=======================================================================

   dubbed????  you must be kidding.

Hal
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: daynem@byron.u.washington.edu (Dayne Miller)
Subject: Re: I think Alien^3 has been flogged to death.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:04:16 GMT

In article <Bu71wq.Lpv@acsu.buffalo.edu> v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
>
>     I've noticed that this newsgroup tends to flog a dead horse until
>     all you've got left are bones and hair.  
>
>        re: Alien^3
>        ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!
>
>        Let's not make this another Terminator2, shall we?

Sir, as I see it you have three options:

  1) unsubscribe from this newsgroup
 
  2) learn to use a KILL file

  3) bring up some other subject that might interest others


     -Dayne Miller
        daynem@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*S
From: Philip.Banks@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Philip Richard Banks)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:37:06 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.

In article <1992Sep8.222258.2245@tandem.com> Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev) writes:
[lots amputated without leaving any blood. :-) ]
>Let's try some chemistry. 
>Glass doesn't shatter after being "damaged by acid."  This is what I meant by
>"seared" through it. . .the acid would just melt a hole through the tube, as
>it did through Kane's helmet.  Recall also that it happened Very quickly in
>the first movie, as the f'hugger attached to Kane. . .but that's a plot hole
>for another time. . .

   Actually Kane's helmet was plastic *not* glass, evidenced by the way they
cut it off him. Not to mention the melted look it had around the f'ugger.
It is an interesting question as to whether the Alien's acid can affect glass.
The stasis tubes in 2 were glass, and if the acid was effective against it, the
f'hugger could have tried to burn it's way out (trying to seal itself against
the tube presumably to prevent the liquid diluting the acid).

   I would tend to suggest that an Alien cannot burn it's way through glass
merely break it... Not to mention it is hard to envisage a f'ugger getting
sufficient grip on a slick, round glass tube to break it. Especially when said
tube is much larger than the f'ugger.

   Philip

-- 
 Philip R. Banks  pbanks@comp.vuw.ac.nz (An Arc owner with a mission)  @@@@@/|
    (Quite what mission I am not too sure yet. But I do have one!)     @@@@/#|
 "There may be an om in moment,but there's very few folk in focus!"    @@@/--|
	--'Hallowed be thy Name' by Emerson,Lake & Palmer.             @@/###|
From: thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Thomas Kiefer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Arnold as The Toothfairy? (was: Re: <None>)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:10:49 GMT
Organization: yeah, right.

In article <1992Sep4.181845.1@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu> bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole) writes:
>This rumor has circulated many times...and according to "good sources"
>(read something someone heard somewhere) Arnold has also "agreed" to be in:
[...] 
>6. The Toothfairy (right GMS?)  
>
>Any way...unless you hear it from more than one person, and hear their 
>*sources* I wouldn't believe it.


Actually, I read about Arnold in "The Toothfairy" (I don't know if that
would be the real title) in Aboriginal Science Fiction magazine a little
while ago.  I think it was still in the negotiation/rumor stage, but I'm
not sure.  I can dig out the blurb if there's interest...

-- 
===================================================================
===========================Thomas Kiefer===========================
===================thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu===================
===================================================================
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Re^2: PLEASE - No more Alien posts!
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:23:55 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <4082@novavax.UUCP>, by vest@novavax.UUCP (Steven Vest):
> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>>How about learning how to use a killfile?
>>/Alien/:j

> The titles keep changing and it's a 
> pain to have to keep updating them.

True.  There is no killfile entry that will remove all films that are
extensively discussed.  Or did you mean article subjects?  In that
case the above example with 'Alien' (or, to be complete, include
ALIEN) is completely sufficient to kill all subjects about these
films.  It would even kill this thread here.

> Killfiles are not the answer to a
> newsgroup that's being dominated by a single subject.  

That depends on how easy that subject is to kill (very easy, in this
case), and on whether that domination is permanent, which is not the
case with movies.  Otherwise, we'd already have
rec.arts.sf.movies.blade_runner, rec.arts.sf.movies.total_recall,
rec.arts.sf.movies.2001 (no discussions of (yuck) 2010, there,
please), rec.arts.sf.movies.terminator and
rec.arts.sf.movies.terminator2.  Where are they?  Nowhere, because
there's no need for them.  All of these discussions go away after some
time.

The real answer is patience.  "Domination" in this group is temporary
and relative.  Bring up an interesting topic.
-- 
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: kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: DROP THE DISCUSSION OF ALIENS ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:21:48 GMT

orlando@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J. Orlando) writes:
>Many of us are not saying not to discuss the topic, but stop
>repeating the same stuff over and over.  

Oh, you mean if some people enjoy rehaashing the same stuff over and over 
again, they should stop, because you are not interested.

>                                          Discussion are suppose
>to have some constructive purposes.  

Well, this might not have occured to you, but the constructive point might be
that they are enjoying their conversations, even if you are not.

>And please people, stop saying use kill files.  If a person does that, how 
>will I be able to see any new or interesting topics that do arise.  

Ah, so your point is that since you want to bbe able to read post that are 
interesting to you, we shouldn't post any that are not.  Look. I have been
bored with these Aliens post for a long time. I stoped being interested in
them a week or so after the film came out. And then you know what I did. I
stopped reaading them. I didn't add to my kill file (I don't like to use 
them) in case something interesting came up, but (and heres the big thing)
I didn't insist that everyone stop posting them. If you are tired of the
posts iin some topic, skip them. I know that this is a radical idea, but 
trtrry it for a while.
>
>I made some slams, my apologizes.  I just hated people slamming on
>some of the posts that HAVE been polite and have asked reasonabely
>to halt some of the aliens discussion. (Yes, there have been some.)

I don't know which posts you were reading, the one I reponded to was some moron
shouting at us.

Michael

-- 
Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
 kaufman        | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
  @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be
                | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die.     Roy Batty 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: 10726446@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (LAU WAI KUEN)
Subject: Re: Judge Dredd movie!!!Like the subject line says, there is a Judge Dredd movie in the
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University 
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:12:39 GMT

In article <92248.101555JW83HISW@MIAMIU.BITNET> <JW83HISW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
>Subject: Judge Dredd movie!!!Like the subject line says, there is a Judge Dredd movie in the
>From: <JW83HISW@MIAMIU.BITNET>
>Date: Friday, 4 Sep 1992 10:15:55 EDT
>works.  Dredd is a comic book character, a futuristic cop, that was
>created in England and imported to the U.S.  The cool thing is the
>guy who's going to play Dredd . . . Arnold Schwarzenegger!
>     This is no rumor.  A producer named Pressman is looking at scripts
>now, and Arnold has agreed to do the movie.  The budget for F/X alone
>is $50 million!  This is going to be the next BIG SF/action movie, and
>will hopefully do justice(pun intended!) to the Judge Dredd character.
>     IMO - Arnold is perfect for Dredd.  The lasting success of the
>movie will hinge on the script and the supporting cast - effects won't
>be important, as long as they aern't cheap looking.

   Yeah... right.

Hal.
From: orlando@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter J. Orlando)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: DROP THE DISCUSSION OF ALIENS ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:36:53 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Sep9.184157.15460@eecs.nwu.edu>, kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.065606.29245@mel.dit.csiro.au> gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green) writes:
> >EVEN KILL FILES DONT HELP !
> >THESE BLOODY THREADS POP UP FASTER THAN YOU CAN KILL 'EM !
> 
> Gosh Stevie, here's an idea for you. Don't kill the whole subject line. Kill
> the words "ALIEN" and "Alien".
> 
> I still don't understand why some people would rather take the time to send out
> email spoiling other people's fun then to use their tools properly. My theory
> is they they want to show off how clever they are. "Oh..still discussing that..
> how passe."
> 
> Michael


I dont like wasting bandwidth on this, but I think Michael here deserves one.
Many of us are not saying not to discuss the topic, but stop
repeating the same stuff over and over.  Discussion are suppose
to have some constructive purposes.  I like to find out NEW stuff about the
movie.  Not people who for some reason bring up a point.. then discuss it
for about a week, then someone say "OH.  Did you see this point?"
And its the same point over and over again.  And for those who say 
"Oh, this is the first time I seen it so there!"  I think that is
irrelevant.  If you havent seen it, ask someone who posted something
to EMAIL!  Wow.  That is a totally new concept.  (Sorry for the 
smart ass remark.  Long day.)  And please people, stop saying
use kill files.  If a person does that, how will I be able to see
any new or interesting topics that do arise.  

All that people are trying to say is stop arguing over mute points that
have been discussed to death previously.  And one last comment.
For those who say well, we enjoy it?  Then, I personally think that 
those people should run for office or become a lobbyiest (sp?) because
your talents for arguing over topics are defintely wasted on this
news networks.

I made some slams, my apologizes.  I just hated people slamming on
some of the posts that HAVE been polite and have asked reasonabely
to halt some of the aliens discussion. (Yes, there have been some.)

Peter Orlando.

PS  To some of the people who did reply to my email, you did make good 
comments and I thank those people who KNOW how to use the email system.
ALL COMMENTS TO THIS POSTS.... PAY ATTENTION... POST THEM BACK TO 
ME AND ONLY ME!  Please dont waste the bandwidth on this net.

login ---> orlando@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
> 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: rschoen@laborixsai.mathematik.uni-ulm.de (Reinhard Schoen)
Subject: Re: DROP THE DISCUSSION OF ALIENS ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keywords: Don't!
Reply-To: rschoen@laborixsai.mathematik.uni-ulm.de (Reinhard Schoen)
Organization: University of Ulm, SAI, Germany
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 13:24:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.065606.29245@mel.dit.csiro.au>
gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green) writes:
 >EVEN KILL FILES DONT HELP !
 >THESE BLOODY THREADS POP UP FASTER THAN YOU CAN KILL 'EM !

This is just my opinion and therefore completely unimportant to
you all, but:

Today I subscribed to this newsgroup with the single purpose to
read something about Alien^3 because I am still undetermined
wether to see it or not. I don't care for Nike ads, Startrek,
or Bladerunner, but I don't yell in CAPS: Stop the discussion
of Non-Alien topics! I just skip these and pick out what is
important to me.

BTW, I am still undetermined....

Reinhard,
who loves Alien, hates Aliens, loves H.R. Giger and gets his
nightmares from reading Lovecraft
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: Kenneth Gordon <kgordon@courier6.aero.org>
Subject: Attn Advocates of Deckard Replicance
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Sep 92 14:54:39 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:52:01 GMT

I have been reading net traffic on _Blade Runner_ so I
finally went out and rented it this past weekend.  
What a great movie!  Now I see why there is so much 
discussion about it here.

I am interested in the theory that Deckard is a replicant.
I have only seen the movie once, so I missed any clues
given.  In the interest of avoiding messages like
"COULD YOU PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT DECKARD AS
 A REPLICANT" maybe it would be best to E-mail me...
Has anyone saved old posts summarizing evidence found
in the movie?  If so, please mail them to me at:

    kgordon@courier6.aero.org

Thanks in advance,
															Ken Gordon
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Subject: Re: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*S
Organization: In Effect Enterprises
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:20:54 GMT

In article <BuAt1v.HzA@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, Philip.Banks@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Philip Richard Banks) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep8.222258.2245@tandem.com> Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev) writes:
> [lots amputated without leaving any blood. :-) ]
> >Let's try some chemistry. 
> >Glass doesn't shatter after being "damaged by acid."  This is what I meant by
> >"seared" through it. . .the acid would just melt a hole through the tube, as
> >it did through Kane's helmet.  Recall also that it happened Very quickly in
> >the first movie, as the f'hugger attached to Kane. . .but that's a plot hole
> >for another time. . .
> 
>    Actually Kane's helmet was plastic *not* glass, evidenced by the way they
> cut it off him. 

??? They used a high-tech, only-to-be-found-in-sf-movies laser to cut it off
him.  How do you glean from this the inescapable conclusion that it was 
plastic *not* glass?

> Not to mention the melted look it had around the f'ugger.
> It is an interesting question as to whether the Alien's acid can affect glass.
> The stasis tubes in 2 were glass, and if the acid was effective against it, the
> f'hugger could have tried to burn it's way out (trying to seal itself against
> the tube presumably to prevent the liquid diluting the acid).

This spirals further and further. . .why are you so certain that the stasis 
tubes were glass?  This is as unsupported as the assumption that the helmet
was plastic.  
All of which is so far beyond the point that it's ridiculous.  Look: the 
idea here is that these creatures can secrete/spit/bleed a fluid ("acid" is
probably not a good word) that is Incredibly corrosive.  Eats through every-
thing. . .several layers of a spaceship, an environmental protective suit,
flesh, pens. . .everything.  It went through all of that, it would've gone 
through the holding tubes in _Aliens_ or the cryotubes in ^3.  Period.  The
writers f--ked up.

>    I would tend to suggest that an Alien cannot burn it's way through glass
> merely break it... Not to mention it is hard to envisage a f'ugger getting
> sufficient grip on a slick, round glass tube to break it. Especially when said
> tube is much larger than the f'ugger.

A couple final points: Regardless of what any of us may wish, the cryotubes in
^3 *were* cracked, Not melted through.  This is clear from the movie, as well
as the two adaptations I've seen.  Finally. . .I may not be the best chemist
in the world, but I find it hard to conceive of a substance that eats through
Everything In The World With Frightening Speed Except Glass.  Assuming, of
course, that the substances were glass.  Not.

Kevvy Kev
"The entire world revolves around this wretched Alien."
 -H.R. Giger
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Deckard is a replicant?
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:03:06 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Sep13.135512.9507@news.columbia.edu>, by egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy):
> In article <92257.025142TJS107@psuvm.psu.edu> Sime <TJS107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <rabjab.95.0@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
>>says:
>>>What evidence is there in the film and the book it's based on that Deckard
>>>is a replicant?  Interesting idea.

>>The rest of the net will be sorry too, if I'm not mistaken...this topic has
>>been beaten to death, hasn't it?

> Aah, but the Director's Cut has been released since the last time it
> was beaten to death....
 
> Time to pull out the clubs again....

Yes, and hit the Director's Cut over the head with them, or at least
the unicorn scene...

At least those who have gotten sick of the Alien discussion now will
be able to read nothing but Blade Runner articles for the next months.
-- 
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: dianetti@acsu.buffalo.edu (Donald J. Dianetti)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: I think Alien^3 has been flogged to death.
Summary: So stop reading the Alien articles!
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:05:59 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Sep9.181621.19336@tandem.com> Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev) writes:
> 
>I hope I don't offend anyone, but I'm genuinely curious: why do a large number
>of posts on any one topic offend people?  I finally had to ask, because there
>is a recurring pattern: people start talking about a movie, it generates one
>or more long threads, other people complain, the complainers are then told to
>use a killfile or unsubscribe.  All this makes me wonder:
> 
>1) No one ever answers the question, "why not learn to use a Kill file."  So
>   I'm asking it again, in semi-open forum: Why do those of you who are 
>   annoyed by certain articles continue to read them?  If you can't use a 
>   killfile, what is the problem with paging past them?  I'm using an 
>   application called "NewsWatcher" on a Macintosh, which doesn't have 
>   killfiles, but when I see a thread I'm not interested in, I don't get
>   angry. . .I just don't read any of the articles.  I'm sorry to ramble,
>   but again, I'm honestly curious.
> 
>  2) Could this be put in the FAQ?  Something along the lines of, "Don't 
>     complain if you see articles you don't want to read. . .just 
>     ignore/kill them."
>
>  Okay.  In our inflectionless medium here, I'm sure I've offended somebody; 
>  so be it.  But I'd really just like to hear from some of you who are annoyed
>  at the threads you don't like.  
>  
I second this opinion.  I also don't understand why anyone would take the
time to complain about a thread they are sick of when it is much easier to
just ignore it.  As far as this whole Alien thing goes, I've lost interest
in the discussion, too.  But I find that the effort involved in pushing one
or two keys on this keyboard is not all that demanding, and thus my problem
is solved.  I recommend this approach to others.  It will save you a lot of
aggravation. 

-- 
Don Dianetti  --  SUNY at Buffalo  --  dianetti@acsu.buffalo.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Spock, where the hell is that power you promised me?!"
"One damn minute, Admiral"