HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donnell@morayeel.micro.umn.edu (Your Heinous)
Subject: Re: BR: was the U.S. defeated by Japan in a war?
Organization: none
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:24:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.110242.3545@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> daniel@csgi64.dcs.leeds.ac.uk (D N Crow) writes:
>In article <1aog6dINNcjj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>> 
>> 
>
>Philip K. Dick wrote many novels and short stories in which he changed one
>historical event and then projected forward to see what sort of world
>resulted. Often this was that Watergate never happened and Nixon became a
>dictator of the USA. On a couple of occasions he did: what if the Axis
>countries had won WWII? He usually presumed that Germany got Europe and
>Japan took over America. I don't recall whether this is part of the plot of
>DADOES (anyone?) but it is certainly part of PKD's "world". So yes, I think
>there may be something to what you note.
>
>-- 
>Dan Crow
>daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk

The main book by Phillip K. Dick that explores the idea of Japan being in
control of the U.S., is "The Man In The High Castle". He won a Hugo award for  
the book, and it is one of his best.

Concerning Bladerunner, though, isn't it possible that they are referring to
an economic takeover? Ridley Scott could be prognosticating...
In some parts of the country, Kanji is being used more and more...

					--Judex--

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: Deckard is NOT a Replicant
Organization: AOTC - CSSC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:38:33 GMT

mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>The point is not that Deckard is weaker, but that he is TOO WEAK to do
>his job properly, considering the opposition he is up against.
>Therefore his being a replicant is not PLAUSIBLE because it would not
>be a REASONABLE assignment.  

Or, his being a human is not plausible because it would not be a reasonable
assignment. Cuts both ways.

-- 
Internet: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au   UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!cssc-syd!pete
Snail: 1/18-20 Orion Road, Lane Cove NSW 2066 Australia    Phone: +61 2 911 3130
"Nothing is pulling it. Nothing is pushing it. It must be devil's work!"
From: st1qp@Rosie.UH.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien director's cut
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:41:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: menudo.1992Oct3.064135.25457
Reply-To: st1qp@Rosie.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston

In article <BvF051.5Ev@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, daf31428@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David A. Fleming) writes:
>	Well, I haven't seen it mentioned here, so I guess _I_ will. :-
>
>	The last time I was up in an store specializing in LDs in suburban
>Chicago, they had a notice put up for the director's cut of Alien (no, NOT
>plural :-).  It's the same kinda deal they had for the sequel -- CAV,
>letterboxed, added scenes, blahblahblah.  Cost?  Only $100.  Not TOO much,
>huh?  Right... :-
>	If I remember correctly, the release date was to be sometime towards
>the end of October -- maybe Halloween.
>
>
>			Dave Fleming
>			daf31428@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>

It is out (released Thursday).  Haven't got my copy yet, but the extra footage
isn't suppose to be in the movie, but part of the extras disc.  Apparently
Scott has happy with the final edit of the movie (unlike Cameron, who seems
to release a new cut of all his stuff every so often).  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: "james kewageshig" <james.kewageshig@canrem.com>
Subject: br ii????
Reply-To: "james kewageshig" <james.kewageshig@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:03:23 EST

duke@portal.paperboy.osf.org (Robert Robillard) writes:

RR>   Someone in r.a.movies said they heard on MuchMusic (canadian MTV)
RR>   that Ridley Scott wants to do Bladerunner II, but with Gerard
RR>   Depardieu...
RR>   Anyone else care to confirm this?

RR>At Worldcon, the film studio guy who was showing previews said that
RR>a Bladerunner II was in the works.

RR>It could be okay as long as Deckard and Rachel and all don't appear
RR>(or hardly appear).  Like, you could make more good movies in that
RR>SF world, as long as there weren't real "sequels."

I was the guy who posted that note in r.a.movies,
I just hope that if they do make a sequel it doesn't turn
into something like 'HighLander II - The Sickening'...

I do like the thought of Gerard being the lead, he is a GREAT
actor, and he just finished working with Ridley Scott on '1492'.
 _________________________________________________________________________ 
|0 ___ ___  ____  ____  ____                                             0|\
|   \ \//    ||    ||    ||                James Kewageshig               |\|
|   _\//_   _||_  _||_  _||_      UUCP: james.kewageshig@canrem.uucp      |\|
|   N E T W E R K    V I I I    INET: james.kewageshig%canrem@lsuc.on.ca  |\|
|0_______________________________________________________________________0|\|
 \_________________________________________________________________________\|
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #8086  Head of Co*& XV$# Hi This is a signature virus. Co
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Date: 28 Sep 1992 04:16:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel) says:

>mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>
>>> b) This is supposition on your part - there's nothing in the film to support
>>>    you.
>
>>No, Tyrell explicitly mentions that the purpose of memory implants is
>>to *inhibit* the development of emotions after a replicant is released
>>into the real world.
>
>Go find me a quote. In the version I have on tape, nothing that Tyrell says 
>indicates that implants CANNOT be retrofitted.

This is akin to saying, "prove to me that UFOs do not exist!"

You are not arguing logically.


-- 
Whom first, whom later         No one is fool enough to choose war instead of
did you kill in battle,        peace - in peace sons bury fathers, but in war
Patroklos, when the gods       fathers bury sons.  It must have been heaven's
were calling deathward? HOMER  will that this should happen...      HERODOTUS
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:7691 rec.arts.movies:29427 alt.cult-movies:8672
From: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Computers or physical? (was Re: Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!)
Date: 5 Oct 1992 04:08:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu





In a previous article, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) says:

>In article <BvF43o.7IE@acsu.buffalo.edu> majcher@acsu.buffalo.edu (Salamander~) writes:
>>fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>
>>>>I'm not convinced Roy is all that smart.  What he accomplishes he 
>>>>accomplishes by brute force, not intelligence, and he failed at his 
>>>>one goal - gaining a longer life from Tyrell.  I'm not going
>>>>to argue that Roy was dumb, but there isn't a lot of evidence
>>>>for him being bright, either.  Poignant, yes.  Bright, maybe.
>>
>>>  Didn't Roy checkmate Tyrell while waiting in the elevator?  Seems
>>>like Tyrell is a pretty good chess player...
>>
>>	That's brute force.  Trust me - computers don't play chess the
>>way humans do.  Maybe replicants don't either.  Check out an AI text
>>sometime...it's not pretty.
>
>And how many human actions cannot or never will be explained by
>an algorithm?  And what about Roy's seemingly-creative suggestions
>of ways of extending his life that Tyrell's people had already
>tried?  Sure, you could explain this with a "random idea generator",
>but if he appears intelligent, he is.  Think Turing.
>
>I'm not sure you want to turn this into a debate on the "essence of
>human intelligence".  It would go on for a long time, certainly.
>
>GMS
>

WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT????

Roy *IS* human!

Do you think he's a robot or something?

He is a genetically engineered HUMAN slave.

YOU'VE MISSED THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!

As Roy himself said:

"We're not computers... we're physical."

Now back to our regularly scheduled "is he or isn't he" argument.  :-)


Sorry if I've come across as a prick, but I have *STRONG* feelings about
people (genetically engineered) being labeled as androids (which,
according to the OED, they are), turned into slaves, and sold to people
who think "android = robot."  Even if it IS just a movie...


-- 
Whom first, whom later         No one is fool enough to choose war instead of
did you kill in battle,        peace - in peace sons bury fathers, but in war
Patroklos, when the gods       fathers bury sons.  It must have been heaven's
were calling deathward? HOMER  will that this should happen...      HERODOTUS
-- 
Whom first, whom later         No one is fool enough to choose war instead of
did you kill in battle,        peace - in peace sons bury fathers, but in war
Patroklos, when the gods       fathers bury sons.  It must have been heaven's
were calling deathward? HOMER  will that this should happen...      HERODOTUS
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: Richard A. Swift <Richard.A.Swift.1@nd.edu>
Subject: Re: Computers or physical? (was Re: Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!)
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6F77BA6E003401C@rswift.aero.nd.edu>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:21:42 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Aero. & Mech. Eng.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:17:07 GMT

In article <1ar32lINNg5g@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Ross W. Starkey,
bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>"What if I go north?"

I wont follow you......but someone will.


Rich
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: Deckard is NOT a Replicant
Organization: AOTC - CSSC
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:17:33 GMT

des@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Desmond Irvine) writes:
>[Deckard is a weaky]

This argument has already been done to death.

>Also in the book by P.K. Dick, which the movie is based upon, it is Deckard's
>partner that is the replicant not him.

The movie is an answer to the book, and differs in many many places.

>Ridley Scott intended that Deckard's character be very ambiguous so that we
>would have to think about the possiblity of him being a replicant.  However,
>he doesn't give us any irrefutable evidence of this so we should dismiss it.
>If we had any hard facts then we could say it is so, but we don't.  Remember,
>"innocent until proven guilty."

Replicants are surely more innocent than humans. Therefore, by your "argument",
Deckard is a replicant. You got it right when you said Deckard's nature is 
intentionally ambiguous, but anything beyond that comes down to "Chacun a son
gou".

-- 
Internet: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au   UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!cssc-syd!pete
Snail: 1/18-20 Orion Road, Lane Cove NSW 2066 Australia    Phone: +61 2 911 3130
The game is afoot!
From: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:50:54 GMT
Reply-To: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) says:

>In article <BvF43o.7IE@acsu.buffalo.edu> majcher@acsu.buffalo.edu (Salamander~) writes:
>>fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>
>>>>I'm not convinced Roy is all that smart.  What he accomplishes he 
>>>>accomplishes by brute force, not intelligence, and he failed at his 
>>>>one goal - gaining a longer life from Tyrell.  I'm not going
>>>>to argue that Roy was dumb, but there isn't a lot of evidence
>>>>for him being bright, either.  Poignant, yes.  Bright, maybe.
>>
>>>  Didn't Roy checkmate Tyrell while waiting in the elevator?  Seems
>>>like Tyrell is a pretty good chess player...
>>
>>	That's brute force.  Trust me - computers don't play chess the
>>way humans do.  Maybe replicants don't either.  Check out an AI text
>>sometime...it's not pretty.
>
>And how many human actions cannot or never will be explained by
>an algorithm?  And what about Roy's seemingly-creative suggestions
>of ways of extending his life that Tyrell's people had already
>tried?  Sure, you could explain this with a "random idea generator",
>but if he appears intelligent, he is.  Think Turing.
>
>I'm not sure you want to turn this into a debate on the "essence of
>human intelligence".  It would go on for a long time, certainly.
>
>GMS
>

WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT????

Roy *IS* human!

Do you think he's a robot or something?

He is a genetically engineered HUMAN slave.

YOU'VE MISSED THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!

As Roy himself said:

"We're not computers... we're physical."

Now back to our regularly scheduled "is he or isn't he" argument.  :-)


Sorry if I've come across as a prick, but I have *STRONG* feelings about
people (genetically engineered) being labeled as androids (which,
according to the OED, they are), turned into slaves, and sold to people
who think "android = robot."  Even if it IS just a movie...


-- 
Whom first, whom later         No one is fool enough to choose war instead of
did you kill in battle,        peace - in peace sons bury fathers, but in war
Patroklos, when the gods       fathers bury sons.  It must have been heaven's
were calling deathward? HOMER  will that this should happen...      HERODOTUS
From: ckt4x@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Genghis Cohen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott
Date: 2 Oct 92 03:29:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

wakesm@sage.cc.purdue.edu  writes:
> Does anybody have a complete list of Ridley Scott films?

OK, I think this is complete...

The Duellists
Alien
Blade Runner
Legend
Someone To Watch Over Me
Black Rain
Thelma And Louise
1492

and various commercials, not the least of which is the cool
first televised ad for Macintosh computers.  It was broadcast
during the 1984 Olympics and was pretty amazing.
--
                               Curt  Tsui
                            curt@Virgina.EDU                                  
    "I've got a peculiar weakness for criminals and artists -- neither
                takes life as it is." -- Stanley Kubrick
From: ss@wpi.WPI.EDU (Scott Streeter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: LawnMower Man
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:03:21
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<Sep30.015253.76474@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: kfason@lamar.ColoState.EDU's message of 30 Sep 92 01:52:53 GMT

>>>>> On 30 Sep 92 01:52:53 GMT, kfason@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Kevin Fason) said:

>The video release is COMPLETELY diffrent.  I would guess (and I'm
>sure someone will correct me :) ) that there is at least and extra 30
>min of footage.  There are also more scenes involving his wife, and I
>felt that the movie as a whole was much more coherent and belivable
>(ie they filled many plot holes)

kfason> Will this extra footage be in the laserdisc version?  I am
kfason> about to tell my parents to order it for me...  I might get
kfason> the VHS just for the extra footage if the Laser does not have
kfason> it...but I want the laser as that was a great movie...  thanx

In the last issue of Laser Flash, the LawnMower Man was being billed
as the "Directors Cut", with extra scenes. 

--
 Scott Streeter                             Keeper of the Star Wars Archive
 ss@wpi.wpi.edu                             wpi.wpi.edu        130.215.24.1
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:7740 rec.arts.movies:29561 alt.cult-movies:8753
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: Computers or physical? (was Re: Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!)
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:41:54 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Oct5.214400.8296@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, by dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892):
[discussion about how Roy Batty is not a robot]

> Within SF, android has traditionally been defined as a 'synthetic human'.

While I agree completely with the rest of your posting, I would like
to point out that traditionally, android simply means "artificial
human-shaped being", i.e., humanoid-shaped robots DO fit the
definition.  The androids in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep are
mechanical/electronic.  The androids in Alien/Aliens also fit this
category (personally, what annoyed me about Star Trek's Data was what
a cartoon android he is compared to Ash and Bishop).

(If your definition of "synthetic human" includes this, then I agree
with you anyway. :-)
-- 
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: ss@wpi.WPI.EDU (Scott Streeter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Halcyon ALIEN kits?
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:00:12
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: aberigan@nde.unl.edu's message of 5 Oct 92 17:47:00 GMT

>>>>> On 5 Oct 92 17:47:00 GMT, aberigan@nde.unl.edu (A. Berigan) said:

aberigan> MLINDROOS@finabo.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) writes:

>I was wondering how many Alien plastic kits there are? Halcyon
>manufacture them, they are very well made although a bit more
>expensive than ordinary kits.  So far, I've heard of these:

aberigan> I've seen some of these.  I've noticed at least 2 different
aberigan> models of the alien warrior.  One is by depiction in Alien,
aberigan> the other in Aliens.  Noted differences in number of thumbs
aberigan> per had and skull structure.

>All in all, there should be at least eleven kits on the market.
>According to TAMIYA NEWS, more model spacecraft, vehicles and Aliens
>will be released in the future.

aberigan> I think I saw a model of the APC as well.

Lets see if I can remeber since I have a few of 'em.
From Halcyon:

Drop Ship
APC
Alien Warrior with egg (plactic kit)
Alien Warrior (Vinyl kit)
Face hugger (life size vinyl)
Power Loader (with Ripley)
Narcissus (sp?) 
Nostramo (sp?) (Big bucks. $185)
Kit of the dead Alien Pilot from the first movie (forget the actual name)
Sulaco (I think)
And maybe the Alien Queen


--
 Scott Streeter                             Keeper of the Star Wars Archive
 ss@wpi.wpi.edu                             wpi.wpi.edu        130.215.24.1
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: des@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Desmond Irvine)
Subject: Re: Deckard is NOT a Replicant
Organization: Brock University, St. Catharines Ontario
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:40:27 GMT

jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia) writes:
: 
: In article <1992Sep24.211015.12811@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
: des@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Desmond Irvine) writes: 
: >I just wanted to raise a simple point as to why I think Deckard is not a 
: >replicant. The point is why would someone create a replicant that is supposed
: >to hunt other replicants down and terminate them (a "BladeRunner" replicant)
: >and make it weaker than them.
: 
: (Because BR is not Terminator movie. :-)
: 
: Why you think that it is not possible to make weaker replicant?
: How weak Rachel was? She wasn't like Pris or such.
: 
: 
It's not that it wouldn't be possible to make a weaker replicant, but rather
what sense would there be in making one weaker when its sole purpose is to
destroy other replicants.  You would want to make it stronger so that it
would always be capable of performing its task wouldn't you?
-- 

                  __o
                _ \<,_   "To know is nothing at all, to imagine is
               (_)/ (_)   everything."      Anatole France
From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: BLADERUNNER: How to extend the life of a Replicant
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:53:02 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

A key event in BR, the encounter at Tyrell's suit has tyrell going through
many options to "prove" that extending the life of an existing replicant is
not possible (and in Roy's case, academic anyway). It occured to me that if
a brand new replicant was seamlessly IMPLANTED with the memories of an older
one, the result would be indistinguishable from a longer lived replicant. The
technology was clearly available. (We could, of course, extend that to make
"immortal" humans too - but this is a whole new subject, sometimes treated in
other SF works).

While we are on the subject of memory implants, does Rachel considers herself
to be Tyrell's niece? (her faked memories were "borrowed" from that niece).
Surely some of her memories are concerning her (extended) family - in
particular that rich uncle (the one that gives her expensive replicant toys
whenever he vists :-) ).

- Anyway, what do you people think?

Dan Shoham
shoham@ll.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Computers or physical? (was Re: Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:26:07 GMT

In article <1aof4hINNc5m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>
>
>
>
>In a previous article, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) says:
>
>>In article <BvF43o.7IE@acsu.buffalo.edu> majcher@acsu.buffalo.edu (Salamander~) writes:
>>>fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>>
>>And how many human actions cannot or never will be explained by
>>an algorithm?  And what about Roy's seemingly-creative suggestions
>>of ways of extending his life that Tyrell's people had already
>>tried?  Sure, you could explain this with a "random idea generator",
>>but if he appears intelligent, he is.  Think Turing.
>>
>>I'm not sure you want to turn this into a debate on the "essence of
>>human intelligence".  It would go on for a long time, certainly.
>>
>>GMS
>>
>
>WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT????
>
>Roy *IS* human!
>
>Do you think he's a robot or something?
>
>He is a genetically engineered HUMAN slave.
>
>YOU'VE MISSED THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!

At least one of the points of the movie is the question of what makes
a human human, and the point of this discussion.  Roy is a replicant
and therefore artificial.  His brain was designed by Tyrell.  If
you don't want to pay attention, please at least read some posts
prior to being rude.  Thanks in advance.

>
>As Roy himself said:
>
>"We're not computers... we're physical."
>
>Now back to our regularly scheduled "is he or isn't he" argument.  :-)
>
>
>Sorry if I've come across as a prick, but I have *STRONG* feelings about

Yes.  I'm certain, however, that there are more significant issues
you could choose to be impassioned enough about.

>people (genetically engineered) being labeled as androids (which,
>according to the OED, they are), turned into slaves, and sold to people
>who think "android = robot."  Even if it IS just a movie...

You probably have a definition which agrees with mine, but it is
not the definition that everyone favors.  Some think android is robot.
But that begs the question of what makes a human human.  This "physical"
comment is irrelevant.  What it could be "interpreted" as is "biological".


GMS
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies