 | | Re: U.S. Lego (Was Re: What is Samsonite Lego?)
|
|
Not when the Chi-Comm's give you millions of dollars in campaign contributions for the election and nuclear missile technology! Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color
|
|
< clipped Larry's and John's view on God > That's what makes America great, gentlemen. I don't agree with Larry's assessment, but I won't get gunned down for it either (At least, not yet, who knows in Clinton's America). You have your beliefs, I (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to decide what art is worth (was Re: Extropianism
|
|
(...) Sometimes I'm not so sure Lucas is motivated purely by money. He could make a mint right now if he released the first 3 movies on DVD, then PM next year, but he won't. He isn't going to release them till they're all done. Will he make a (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Extropianism
|
|
John Neal wrote in message <37BF0506.AE7F8075@u...st.net>... (...) The (...) like (...) I guess there is an art in getting rich, too. George Lucas seems to have it down pat. If the guy wants to make money (most people in Hollywood (or anywhere else) (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to decide what art is worth (was Re: Extropianism
|
|
(...) Agree with everything you say in that paragraph. But a film can still be low quality in my eyes even if there was a lot of time and money spent on it, and the technicians knew their craft. Consider "Waterworld". Conversely, a film can be high (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
