Dear LEGO : 1133


Dear LEGO / 1133

Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Richard Marchetti

(...) I am in your hands Larry. I use the web interface. What should I have done? Thanks in advance, it happens that I just don't know what to do -- if not for lego I wouldn't use newsgroups at all, -- Richard (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —James Brown

(...) Well, I'm not Larry(1), but I use the web interface, so I can answer this. When you post a message, there are 4 fields you can enter data in. From the top right: Newsgroups: Followup-To (optional): Subject: (and 1 untitled box, which is the (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)

Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —John Neal

(...) *My* guess for the footnote before I read it was "Thank God, then there would be two of him" YMMV{;^D BTW I have redirected the FU to .fun in hopes of more frivolity at Lar's expense;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —James Brown

(...) Doesn't that approach sacralige for a devout Larritarian like you? I mean, I can understand a heathen like me being irreverant, but you? You're like, the second disciple or something, aren't you? James (URL) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —John Neal

(...) You must be wanting to speak to my good twin;-) Of course I'm a Larritarian, and of course I'm a disciple. It's kinda like ethnic comedians, such as blacks or Jews [1]. Only *they*, it seems, are allowed to poke fun at their respective (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) c /sacralige/sacriledge/ and c/irreverant/irreverent/ If you're gonna diss me, ya gotta get the details right. (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —James Brown

(...) I (...) the (...) Oops. Sorry 'bout that - must have been a misteak. Mere heathens like me do that on occaision. Speaking of misteaks, should I point out that I was picking on your misguided followers, not you. If I were making fun of you, (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That last word was deliberate, right? (...) Misguided?? <earth rumbles...> You pick on my followers, you're picking on me. Remember what God did to those who opposed the Israelites... however the Israelites had to suffer a bit first. (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —James Brown

(...) Yes, I always think these things out ahead of time. (...) See? I'm just doing my part to heap scorn and suffering upon your followers. You should be thanking me, really. Or failing that, proving your godhood - either turn me into a pillar of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —John Neal

(...) I wonder....would an immortal end a sentence with a preposition? -John (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Quite. That, quoting Churchill, is something "up with which I will not put"... (...) Saw Bicentennial Man today, it made me cry. A lot. Here's a question for you: Would you give up practical immortality in order to be officially recognised as (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —John Neal

(...) Por moi? I will reserve judgment on Bi-man until I see it tomorrow or Thurs, but my initial reaction from trailers is that this whole topic was dealt with quite elegantly in ST:TNG with the character of Data. The author of Ecclesiastes was (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Tom McDonald

(...) James Brown for Precedent! Al Gore for Vice-Precedent (cuz after all he invented the internet)! (...) put"... Hee, I'd forgotten about that gem! :D (...) That, indeed, would be a precedent. (...) you: (...) recognised as (...) For all incense (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —James Brown

(...) Ugh. No thanks, I'd rather be behind the throne. Setting precedent and all that... (...) I have no idea. Having 'recognized as human' being a given my entire life, I am a poor judge of it's value. (and I have no intention, regardless of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Don't answer so fast! you may change your mind later. And if you choose one way, you CAN change your mind, if you choose the other, you can't. I think most of us would be delighted to live a bit longer than we currently think is what's (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —James Brown

(...) Actually, the whole immortality thing is something I have thought about a fair bit. I hadn't considered the 'recognized as human' angle before, but it's IMHO irrelevant to the main thrust - I wouldn't want to be immortal. I'd love to be able (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You say that as a mortal. :-) I don't want to .debate this, but I do want to highlight (and I guess I may be spoiling some of the plot here) that this character already WAS immortal, practically. He was faced with the choice of trading it away (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Our times (Was: Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)) —Johannes Keukelaar

"LP" == Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes: LP> Wired, I think it was this month, rag that it is, had an LP> interesting plot of predicted life expectancy. Being born next LP> year doubles it from being 40, like I am, according to them. LP> (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Shiri Dori

(...) Not to insult or something, but being immortal is much more than 200 years. It's for eternity. If you can't grasp eternity, think 1 million years. (which is nothing compared to eternity.) Think of this - everybody you know dies. You meet new (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not to insult or something but I didn't say that immortality was the same thing as living for 200 years, I merely said that I could easily see wanting to go 200 years and that I would like to have a choice about how long to live rather than a (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Shiri Dori

(...) currently (...) years. (...) (which (...) That makes your point clearer. In that case, I agree. (...) Yes, I am E2L (or ESL), and thanks for the tip. -Shiri (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) You create a bit of universe, make a planet, seed it with nearly intelligent simians, and toy with them for a few million years... You watch them shoot nuclear explosion amounts of fireworks in the sky one millennium.. Jasper (total fireworks (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) NORAD almost freaked at the triple Scud launch near Midnight, Moscow time, that was taken as a nuke launch at first--turns out they were just sending some Happy New Year missiles to Chechnya. :( Stupid gits. (Not Russians in general, just (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) What about the childrens' balloons from one of those "whose gets the farthest when the ticket is returned" which were detected as incoming nukes by the Russian aged and failing early-warning system a few months/years back? (...) Yup. Our $100 (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I forgot about those! Imagine being the third-grader who started WWIII... (...) In Michigan, if it flies or explodes, it's illegal. Feh. (...) Counting national assets is pretty anachronistic. Most Dutch investment is highly transnational--I (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) And they started singing: Whoa-hoa, this here Anakin guy, maybe....<scratch> <muffle> <mike feedback> Oops. I-uh.. wrong song. Let's try this again, shall we.. One two, three four! Hast du etwas Zeit für mich Dann singe ich ein Lied für dich (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) "My fellow Americans, I have just signed legislation that outlaws Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." Thanks for typing those words--I've always been able to remember little swatches of the German version, but I can't think in (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) <Snip Nena><I thought they only did that to males? -- Shut up, Pinky.> (...) To tell you the truth, I copied them off a random web page this time. I didn't have the .mp3 handy, or I'd have typed it in. (...) Nah, my second language is English, (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jeff Stembel

(...) Ya know, they don't play that enough any more. Funny thing is, the German version seems to be more popular than the English version. On the radio stations I listen to, at least. I like listening to songs in some foreign languages. You can pay (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) <neunundneunzig luftballons> (...) That's because the translation is, if you'll pardon the expression, a load of donkey's faeces. It loses the story, and the emotional loading completely. If you understand german, you know that ;) (...) Yup. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jeff Stembel

(...) That explains why the two versions are so similar. Same thing happens with Japanese songs redone in English. (...) Well, I don't understand german, although I do know a few words. Actually, I know slightly more Japanese, and I'm learning more (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) They sound very similar - but the english loses a few big parts of the story, and somehow it manages to convey pretty much no emoption at all. I suspect the translation was done more on "scanning" well and sounding similar than on content. (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jeff Thompson

[discussing "99 Luftballoons"] (...) I was curious and found a link that shows a side by side comparision of the English version and a translation of the original German lyrics. (URL) "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily" (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) spirit well". I mean, sure, there are obviously German-english translations of other things that suck worse, but I don't think this can possibly fit into "translated well". I mailed them a few corrections for the middle translation, BTW ;) I (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Ha! We've caught you--proofreaders don't have souls. (At least, I didn't when I was a proofer.) best, Lindsay (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) No response so far.. (...) Hmmmm. I suppose you're right. That must be why I disagree with Larry. You know what's really sad? I think I'd be better proofreading english than Dutch. Jasper (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Your job options would certainly be better--Lord knows there's a lot more call for proofreaders for English than proofreaders for Dutch, because a *much* larger percentage of the relatively small number of Dutch-speakers are truly fluent in (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Yah. Though if you want people who can write Dutch, go to the Flemings. The Great National Dictation Contest has been won, out of 10 years it's been running yearly, 8 or 9 times by a Belgian. (...) Jumbled seems to have a bit of a different (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —John Neal

(...) And Bill Clinton did the intern-ette... (...) Or setting on the throne. <Sorry. I know that stunk. Either sue me or light a match> (...) theatre? Puleeze McBritawannabe. (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Tom McDonald

(...) Now there's a precedent for vice! (...) light a (...) I'd rather give you a swirly. (...) left (...) Actually, I find it easier to type 'theatre' than 'theater'. But I draw the line at 'meter' vs 'metre'. That just looks too French. And I (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I think it's incumbent upon us to recognize this. (...) I'm bowled over by the mere thought. T'anks, I'm flush with horror now! (...) My understanding from most "genuine" Scots of my acquaintance is that they don't mind being British, but (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) As well as in a little story called bicentennial man which happens to predate STTNG by quite a while. Jasper "what do you mean, posting while drunk on too much bubbly is bad?" Janssen (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Dave Schuler

(...) Not to mention the execrable Buck Rogers TV series. At least STTNG took the bull by the horns in Season One by identifying the positronic brain as Asimov's vision. It's not as though they were trying to fool anyone. Dave! (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) The "rule" about prepositions ending sentences is an archaic Victorianism, an effort to "Latinize" English. Since English is a Germanic language, and German has prepositions at the end of sentences all of the time (separable prefixes and all (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) "the Positronic Man" is credited in the opening credits as the basis. (...) Very few gimmicky laughs. One that *I* laughed at was the display of the 3 laws (quoted word for word from Asimov) in the very beginning. As for sentimentality, I (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Wouldn't that mean that it's more on the "corporate" side? I wouldn't exactly call typical pointy-haired corporate weenies "heavy". (...) I think the name is probably right. I believe the term most often used to refer to her is "cast-iron (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —John Neal

(...) It basically boils down to this: if you give in on prepositions, then before you know it, we will be saying "ain't", "chilrun", and "me and her went". It's about preserving the language from the illiterates, who are legion. Don't get me (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Dave Schuler

(...) What part of speech would it be then, exactly? (...) That's not really a strong argument, because why should the "literate" minority hold sway over the masses? Seems kind of elitist to me. Further, that slippery-slope reasoning is inherently (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) "We" (who?) already are saying those things, statistically. We just shouldn't write them. What do you mean, "giving in?" This isn't even an issue of grammatical correctness--it's an issue of style. There is no rule in English that prohibits (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Duane Hess

(...) put"... (...) an (...) German has (...) and all (...) about "no (...) to (...) infinitive (...) before you know (...) started on (...) write them. (...) correctness--it's (...) and it's (...) that created (...) "split (...) have you (...) two (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) LOL! :) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) "Aaaah! Suffice to say, 'tis the one word the Knights cannot stand to hear!" -LFB (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Dave Schuler

(...) You know, Wild Bill's statement gets a lot of press, and rightly so, given its idiocy. However, a considerable amount of time and effort has been spent in the field of Philosophy to resolve exactly this question, so we can't simply act as (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Craig Hamilton

(...) at least it's not sacraigledge... where do larriterians stand on sacraigledge, anyway? explain in lehman's terms please. heading toward offtopic.pun... later ~ craig~ (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Couldn't say. In fact I can't even say where LarritArians stand on it(1). Although standing on -ledges of whatever kind sounds dangerous. (2) 1 - I'm the deity, not a follower 2 - Unless you never make misteaks. (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —James Brown

(...) Nah, ledges are generally fine for standing on. It's platforms and soapboxes that get unstable... ;) James (URL) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Or even "sacrilege." :) LFB (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) While that is technically the generally accepted spelling, if I had suggested that correction, would Craigo have been able to riff on it, enabling my cliff-hanger of a riposte?? I think NOT. You mortals just don't think far enough ahead. :-) (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Ray Sanders

(...) /ray looks at /lar... I don't think I ever want to play Lego Chess with you ;) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —James Brown

(...) I haven't seen the movie (yet), so I hadn't been taking it into consideration. I'd consider it a bad trade, too - but then it wasn't me making the choice. To him, it may have been worth it (and I'll shut up now - at least until I see it). (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (don't bother) —Dave Schuler

(...) Just a side note: don't see the movie--it's awful. Well, not awful, exactly, but pretty darned uneven with not a single moment giving us any sense of what Robin Williams' character really has at stake. The short story is a much better (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (don't bother) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) c /Azimov/Asimov/ (getting the master's name right takes you up a notch on my "credence-o-meter" when discussing his work :-) ) I confess to a bit of shock at your perception. What a radically different perception than mine! As I said, I found (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy) —Dave Schuler

(...) Aagh! I've been revealed as a fraud! Actually, I was trying to maximize the Scrabble value of his name, and Z is worth more than S! Anyway, "the master?" Hmm... I can't quite get behind you on that one, I'm afraid, but I do enjoy his stuff. (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy) —John DiRienzo

Because of your description of this movie, I have made plans to go see it. Your "scathing" review has interested me in something I would have skipped, so thanks Dave!. It sounds typical of movies, to leave much of the story out, so should I read it (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy) —Dave Schuler

(...) The short story is among my favorites in any genre, so I recommend it whether you plan to see the film or not. I confess that I don't see how characterization that isn't in a film can affect the film, except by its absence, regardless of its (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy) —Tom Stangl

<FnIv3w.JtC@lugnet.com> <FnIvDJ.Kvp@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Of course, the short story *I* remember was called the "Sesquicentennial Man" (150 years). (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy) —Dave Schuler

(...) Was that its original title? I only came across it about 7 years ago, but I'm almost certain it was "Bicentennial Man" even then. Dave! (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy) —Tom Stangl

<386A85C4.716D28B3@n...scape.com> <FnJ57G.8vs@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I don't know what decade I read it, but I do remember that the Asimov story I read was titled (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy) —Dave Schuler

(...) Interesting. I wonder if Asimov changed it because "bicentennial" became part of the U.S. popular consciousness in 1976. It would seem an easy thing to research... Dave! (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy) —Larry Pieniazek

<FnInFv.CHL@lugnet.com> <FnItEp.D5q@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Asimov is "the master" not because he's the best of all SF writers, (he's not) but because he was writing stuff that others (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy) —Dave Schuler

(...) Another extremely cool thing about him is that he was better educated than just about any SciFi writer out there, then or now, and as such was able to impart greater technical insight to his writing without sounding like he was trying to (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy) —Frank Filz

<386B7C15.40D460AE@voyager.net> <FnKBD7.Ao9@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I've played with one, but never used one for anything serious. I did use a slide rule a few times in High (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Yes, I am all for that! :) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) That's _not_ what immortal means. By definition, immortal means _not_ able to die or be killed. Not by a .25 bullet, not by an A10 2 kg depleted uranium round, not by a tac-nuke, not by a full-blown 20 megaton H-bomb, not by hurling yourself (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Larry Pieniazek

Point taken. You're absolutely right. Savor the moment, it comes so RARELY in discourse with me... To be actually immortal means to not be able to choose not to be immortal. However, I think for this discussion we are using Immortality (incorrectly, (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Ah.... *bask* (...) I relaised latyer that we were talking about Asimov's robot, which movie now apparently has made it into release. I wonder if it'll go staright-to-video here or not get here at all. (...) Well, I hadn't been reading the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —John Neal

You seem to know a lot about that which is unknowable;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...) —James Brown

(...) He's also assuming that an omnipotent being is restricted by logic. Self-contradictory, neh? :) James (URL)Jasper Janssen wrote: (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)