Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Spoonful of Quickies 233

Darren wrote in to blatantly plug his 'Darren's Penguin Habitat' which aims to be a newbie Linux site. g8orade wrote in to say that Applix has Applix Anywhere which is apparently a Java compatible suite of mail, word processing, presentation, and spreadsheet software. jimw wrote in to tell us about Vintage Computer Festival if you're into that old stuff, and near Santa Clara. yack0 warned us that Elijah Wood will be Frodo Baggins in the upcoming Lord of the Rings Trilogy of movies. Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer is also rumored to have a part. rawlink sent us a URL with some Hi Res Fractals that prove Rob' First Law of Art: All art is better if you can use it as your background image. An anonymous reader wrote in to plug these Y2k Posters which actually look surprisingly sweet if you're into those classic movie type posters. I dig 'em. Abe Zuckerman sent us pictures of the new Rios (hint: Butt ugly) Randy Rathbun wrote in to note that several new pictures of the empeg have appeared on their website. Mikey LeBeau us pix of a metallic hand-crafted aluminum Palm case for those of us who are entertained by shiny objects. Scooter sent us a report on how offensive South Park the Movie is. Absolutely Hilarious. Finally, matthewg pointed us to After Y2K which pokes some fun at Hemos, Martha Stewert, and Me.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spoonful of Quickies

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Checkout the south park christian review, and then go down to the bottom left corner.. Gods Counter!!
    That has to be the funniest thing I have seen on the web for at least a week. The picture of microsoft in 1978 was funnier, but that wasnt on the web, it was emailed to me. (All bearded hippies except for one twat who looks 13... can you guess which one?)

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I find the extremely aggressive attitude of the /. crowd towards religion disturbing. Is it really necessary that we all have to slander and defame Christians? Whether you agree with Christianity (and most other religions, which would also agree with the religious sentiment towards SP) or not, you should all exhibit the maturity to try to understand other peoples' points of view. Biblically, the review is correct in their assessment of the movie. It is a horrible affront to those with Christian morals. I've heard people try to slander this reviewer by saying that it's ridiculous that he watched the movie enough times to gather statistics, but is that not how a *review* is done? This "CAP" is trying to provide a Christian perspective of cultural events. The most common thing I've heard so far is that these people are somehow guilty of "telling people what to think" but are we not doing the same thing by telling CAP what to think..that they should disregard what they think is fundamentally *right*? *Everyone* has opinions. CAP did not email each of you personally with this review. You went there yourselves. People so far, on this forum, have called for the site to be cracked and defamed, accused southern baptists of incest, and other such things. Friends, this is sad. This doesn't convey the image of /.ers as being "free thinkers" but instead, "adolescent thinker"
  • by Anonymous Coward
    CAP is very proud of their "objective" scoring system. Let's see...

    CAP review, Ride A Wild Pony (1976), final score: 87

    Basically CAP liked the movie, but took off points for "examples of impunity" such as:

    a minor child spending the night on the ground at the police impound to be with the pony

    These CAP folks are tough. I bet they'd take off twenty points just for cussing! Here's another review...

    CAP review, The Apostle (1998), final score: 89

    Review excerpts:

    "There was adultery (between the preacher's wife and a youth minister) and a baseball bat murder (by the preacher)..."

    "This is the kind of high [positive] influence movie we need! While little tykes will not likely be able to connect with the movie, late pre-teens and up should understand it well"

    Why is it a high positive influence movie, you ask? Not because of the murder of course, but because the preacher is a holy-ghost filled man! (but you knew that)

    Question: If pre-teens should (according to CAP) go to see a movie featuring adultery and murder, then why should they avoid South Park at all costs?

    Answer: If you can make fun of religion, then by golly, you just might start thinking for yourself!

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I am a pagan. If the worst I ever had to face because of my religious views was being made fun of in a movie and taking flack on slashdot, I'd be a pretty happy camper. Instead, I have to hide my religious beliefs or risk losing my job and being harrassed by Christians. Yes, Christians. I'm tired of this excuse of "Well, they're not real Christians." They call themselves Christians, they're part of organizations that call themselves Christians, they carry around Christian symbols, and they're the first thing I think of when somebody says the word "Christian" to me. As far as I'm concerned, they're Christians.

    Maybe most Christians do not engage in this sort of behavior, but I do not see many of them trying to put a stop to it.

    I agree that many people on slashdot are somewhat contemptuous of religion in general but when the religion they've probably had the most contact with is Christianity it really isn't that surprising. Look at the behavior of most people publicly calling themselves Christians. How could anyone not have contempt for that?

    If you consider yourself a Christian and yet you don't agree with the extreme intolerance and hate preached by others who call themselves Christian then I regret to inform you that the name of your religion and its symbols have been appropriated by these people, and you need to either fight to get them back or you need to pick another name for what you believe.

    I judge people by their actions, and no matter how much you say otherwise, to sit there and let people use the name of Christianity to persecute others tells me that you support such persecution. In other words, if you don't like what's being done in your religion's name then maybe you should get off your butt and do something about it instead of blaming the victims.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    What I am reading in the posts on /. are less than respectfull of my own beleifs. I am a member of a Church that has a history of TWO THOUSAND YEARS.

    I want to speak to that comment, and then hopefully I can leave this religion thread alone and get some work done. I am a member of a religion that has been on the brink of extinction for nearly TWO THOUSAND YEARS because your church burned our texts, banned our beliefs, and burned anyone at the stake who tried to revive them.

    We have lost so much. We don't even have an unbroken tradition; your church was very thorough at times. You have taken the crusades straight into the 20th century with missionary work that, while doing some good in part, is primarily directed at stamping out the indigineous beliefs of native people around the world. Part of my religion is that all gods of all people are real and worthy of respect. Your church, to this very day, continues to carry on in a manner that is more offensive to me than any potty-mouthed cartoon or slashdot post ever could be.

    Maybe your TWO THOUSAND YEAR old Church can't make Padraig un-burn the books of the Druids, but at the very least you owe us an apology (I hear that the Vatican is actually considering it--that would be a step in the right direction!), and you definitely owe the world a cease and desist of your "missionary" (i.e., convert and we won't just sit by and let you die) work.

    Anyhow, you'll have to forgive some of us (you should be good at that) if we're a little less respectful of your beliefs than you think we should be. Forgiveness and turning the other cheek are part of your religion, but they're not part of mine. Forgiveness is earned. I'm not asking you to discard your beliefs, but you can't ask me to ignore history. You can't ask me to ignore current events, either, and if you think the United States has religious freedom I invite you to walk a mile in the shoes of a non-Christian. I couldn't even get married in a court house without the JotP bringing up God.

    Oh, and TWO THOUSAND YEARS does not impress me. The Indo-European paganism that your Church displaced had a far longer and richer history, and even among the major world religions you're only older than Islam.
  • by Erich ( 151 )
    Angels aren't pretty nude women...

    Every time someone sees an angel in the Bible they have one reaction... they are scared out of their boots. Usually the first thing an angel says when they appear is ``be not afraid...''

    As to the movie, yes, it's offensive. This article is trying to point itself towards christian parents of 8-10 year olds who are begging to go see it. Not to the typical (16-25 year old male) slashdot reader. 8-10 year olds don't need to see this kind of movie; people who know right and wrong and understand satire and can handle the offensiveness of the movie are (usually) Ok.

    That being said, would your parents want to see this movie? Especially with you when you were between the ages of 8 and 10? I know mine wouldn't...

  • And nobody has a right to denegrate anybody's religion, or lack thereof. If people disagree with somebody's religious viewpoints - fine. Saying you're right and everybody else is wrong and will be eternally damned if you don't believe them is not.

    Sure it is... it's covered in that ``free speech part...'' I'm not saying it's a good thing to do, but it is within their rights.

    Anyway, you're right. You probably won't find God listening to CAP alerts. Scriptures can certainly help you, though. And it's not everyone else who deserves hell. It's everyone period.

    But who is this CAP alert designed for?

    It's designed for the typical christian parent who maybe doesn't watch too much TV (maybe no cable...) and who has little kids that want to go see this movie. The parent doesn't know much about the movie. Obviously this little kid shouldn't see the movie.

    This is NOT designed for the typical slashdot reader (16-25 year old male).

  • by Micah ( 278 )
    For what it's worth, the crusades are solidly in the distant past of the church. NO evangelical Christians today would suggest that the crusades were ever a good thing. Christianity (mainly Catholicism) has been a state religion for a long time, and most of their beliefs are just symbolism and ritual. I highly doubt anyone involved in the crusades really cared about being like Jesus.

    Following Jesus is not a set of rituals - it's a real relationship! What most people see as the Church (at least in history) has NOTHING to do with that!
  • In those days, the Church wasn't that bad.

    It was only during the Inquisition that Christianity and its variants started "going south".

    Once the Church had established itself enough to be able to pick up the mess left by the end of the Roman Empire, it became a political tool, and it was inevitable that it became perverted over the following centuries.

    History has a lot to offer.
  • I noticed something the Moral Majority left out of their analysis. The major plot point of the South Park movie was demonizing the Moral Majority. Normally they are quick to classify any criticism as evil in itself, whereas they dwelled on the overt language, sexual, and violent elements in the movie.

    I didn't agree with them on one point. They make many references to casting Jesus as the part of the female anatomy, but I never made that assumption. Is Jesus the only wise sage you can seek out in the world?
  • It's a Christian counter service targetted at Christian homepages. No different than all the other counter services out there on the web. This one's targetted. That's all.
  • I'm a Republican/Libertarian (I lean more to Libertarian) and I run a pr0n site. Anything wrong with that? I'm also a conservative Lutheran with quite a few pastors in my family.
  • Who cares? As I said when I submitted this article a few days ago (Gee, thanx Taco):

    They have a right to their opinion. Just as we have a right to laugh at their opinion :).
  • by Isaac-Lew ( 623 ) on Monday July 12, 1999 @06:37PM (#1806496)
    OK, let's read through our history books...

    Jesus preached love, peace, non-violence and helping your fellow man. So what have Christians done over the years?

    War on those that didn't agree with them (and even on some groups that did); genocide; slavery; spread intolerance; destroyed ancient texts (especially in the New World); kept countless groups in subjugation (mostly by preaching that suffering in this world is'll get your reward after you're dead); and forced conversions by swordpoint and gunpoint; etc. etc. etc....

    Oh, and one more thing...the movie also made fun of Jews, Muslims, Satanists *and* atheists. Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, you know.

    My view of the movie? Don't take your kids to see it. Don't see it yourself if South Park offends you. But as for me, I've seen it 3 times (once after reading the Christian page on it) and will probably see it one more time (need to get a few more quotes straight).

    "That movie has warped my fragile little mind" -- Eric T. Cartman (think he's in on the Eric rule? :))

  • by pb ( 1020 )
    Maybe that's the problem, I think Southpark has a point there. Maybe angels *should be* pretty nude women. All of the revolutions in religion have been to more personal religions, and this one sounds like a personal religion I would endorse... ;)

    Oh, and you'd better make that into *most* 8-10 year olds. (although I'm not convinced that's true either...) Basically, if you have already been exposed to everything in the movie, and have your own values, and find this humor funny, then you can see it. I'm sure some people in the Moral Majority should never see this movie by this standard, and that's fine. They completely missed the humor, which I would consider criminal. Me? Maybe not when I was 10, maybe more like 13. Does that mean it should be PG-13? No, but I don't agree with rating systems anyhow. :P Would my parents care? No, I saw R-rated movies when I was very young, and I think it helped more than anything.
  • I think that if your beliefs can't stand up to a bit of mocking, then they might not be as worthy as you think. Since nobody is making them go see the movie, I don't see how their beliefs are really being mocked anyway. Sure, behind their backs maybe, but then the people who wrote the review are not at all respectful of other people's beliefs either. They are as convinced as anyone that their way is the One True Way. Everyone else is damned to hell.

  • It's designed for the typical christian parent who maybe doesn't watch too much TV (maybe no cable...) and who has little kids that want to go see this movie. The parent doesn't know much about the movie. Obviously this little kid shouldn't see the movie.

    What about parents of older children who could benefit from this movie? The review makes it sound like buying a ticket to this movie is the same as buying a ticket to hell. They don't even consider any of the good things in the film. The CAP rating is completely negative. Of course, groups like this probably wouldn't agree with many of the things I consider to be good in this movie. They don't seem to want to hear anything that doesn't profess that gays are bad, parents are always right, the media is to blame for the country's problems, etc. I guess when you look at it that way, their ratings make sense.

  • I think it's rather ironic how people are tolerant to most everything - except intolerance.

    The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I don't have a problem tolerating someone else's religion, but if that person refuses to tolerate mine and harrasses or threatens me because of it, then I don't see any way that that can be tolerated.

    Why should someone else care that I don't believe the same thing as him? It sounds like a big case of insecurity to me. They want everyone to believe the same as they do so that we're all in the same boat. If it turns out that they're wrong, they don't want anyone else to be right. Misery loves company.

    Again, for a society that tries really hard to be non-judgmental, being hostile to those who _are_ judgmental is still wrong.

    Wrong? Maybe. Unavoidable? Probably. You simply can't be non-judgemental about a group that passes judgement on you and tries to make you do things their way. The christian groups around the country constantly lobby for things that will make people do things their way by preventing us from doing things that they don't like. You can't force religion or morality on someone. Maybe someday they'll understand that.

    I mean, what's the use of believing in a religion if you're not going to take it seriously? How useless is that?

    You can take your religion seriously while still retaining an open mind. Just because you're a Christian, doesn't mean you have to shut out everything that doesn't agree 100% with you. No religion has been proven to be true. That's the reason it's called faith. Is your faith so week that it can't stand up to a challenge? Is it so shaky that it can be toppled by a movie? Many of the things we do on faith don't make sense to us. We do it because a book says we should and we happen to believe that that book is the word of our god. It can be funny to step back and look at our faith and the things that we do because of it. It doesn't mean our faith is wrong, but it can sometimes point out things that we may want to look into to make sure we are truly doing the right thing. We don't always have a perfect understanding of things and unfortunately this can be exploited by those who would use our faith to further their own agendas. There are a lot of personal decisions involved that can't be made for you by your church.

    Assuming that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, finding God through the Bible doesn't really seem to me like inappropriate conclusion.

    If you make that assumption, then I guess it's ok. I don't know exactly why you would make that assumption though. I don't think I'll ever understand why the Bible exists if it is truly God's word. If God wanted us to know his word, then we wouldn't have to deal with bad translations or selective translations. We wouldn't have to deal with a book at all. He could simply have included the true word in our minds in a way we could understand. That would have solved a lot of problems I think. Maybe prevented a bunch of wars and countless senseless deaths. I guess we just have to keep taking for granted that we can't possibly understand God's reasons.

  • and that angels are likely more respectable and wholesome since they are representatives appointed by the Holy Father."

    You mean like how the ultimate embodiment of evil, Satan, was appointed by God? Sure, he got tossed out, but that only tells us that God has his limits. If an angel can be that evil, why couldn't some others be less than 100% purely respectable? Michael was far from evil. He just had a bit of a hygiene problem and was a tad eccentric in some ways.

  • "I challenge you to keep matters of unholiness out of the next one, which I hope you will make. See if you can make a CAP score of 100 in the Offense to God Investigation Area."

    Yeah. I'm sure Lucas is terribly worried about the CAP score his movies get. :)

  • You must look at his accomplishments prior to WWII. He was one of the greatest leaders ever.

    Being a leader is not something that I would consider a good point for Hitler. Anyone can lead by telling the people the lies they want to hear and get them to follow. A real leader wouldn't have to lie to get people to follow.

    He managed to bring the country out of the worst inflationary depressions ever seen in the world, and picked up the shambles of his country to build a successful, thriving country prior to his atempt at world domination.

    Of course he did. You can't kill millions of people without some cash to build weapons and gather supplies. Again, while he did accomplish something, I don't think it was a good thing that he accomplished. He built a thriving country and made it the focal point for the hate of the world. Building weapons is not a good way for a healthy economy to come into being. It means that there must be a war to support it. Since that was what Hitler intended, I don't think that he really did anything good for the country. If he'd been able to build up an economy that could stand on its own in peacetime, that would be an accomplishment.

  • If there were children in the theater, they should not have been there without their parents. That is a separate problem, and one that was recently addressed when the theater owners stated that they would begin enforcing the ratings rules more strictly. I have seen evidence of this. They were carding people at a theater I went to last weekend.

    It does seem to be a very unfair and dishonest review though. It does not mention any of the good messages that were in the movie. Perhaps this is because the reviewer doesn't agree with those messages. Tolerance and accountability are not high on the christian extremists' list of Good Things.

  • Well, I see that you have left out alot of good accomplished by Christian men and women over the years

    Just like the reviewer neglected to mention any of the good points of the movie.

    but listed a few things done in the name of Catholicism in the Middle Ages pretty well, and assigned blame for atrocities in the New World to Christians in general

    Just because things were done in the Middle Ages doesn't make them any less wrong. The Catholic Church, by far the largest group of Christians in the world, committed many atrocities in that time. While they wouldn't get away with nearly as much today, I still don't think they are to be trusted. They still seem to think everyone should see things their way or there must be bad. They still engender fear and intolerance. Christians still bash gays and other groups that they consider to be against God's will. Either God is one intolerant individual, or the Christian extremists and hardcore conservatives are violating his will in a major way.

    This movie doesn't really make fun of Christianity as much as it makes fun of ignorance and self-righteousness.

  • Actually, it made fun of Hinduism too. Remember, Ghandi was one of the faces in Hell.

    Actually, I think that might have been a poke at Christianity. Note that despite whatever good Ghandi had done in his life, he wasn't a Christian, so he's in hell. The point being that God/Christians won't tolerate those who are not Christian, even if they are good people.

    As I said in an earlier post though, I don't think they are really making fun of Christianity or any other religion. They are making fun of ignorance, self-righteousness, and intolerance.

  • The only thing the movie really makes fun of is intolerence.

    This is mostly true. I think it also makes fun of the ignorance that causes bigotry and intolerance too. You can almost feel sorry for Cartman's ignorance. It's a reflection of his upbringing though. There were plenty of other ignorant people who were made fun of in the movie. I've only seen it once, but I plan to go see it again. I'm sure I missed some stuff.

  • Neither. I wasn't generalizing. I'm not saying all Christians are ignorant or self-righteous. Neither am I saying that all non-Christians are not those things, or vice versa. Quit looking for insults and read what I wrote.

    The movie makes fun of individuals who display the traits of ignorance and self-righteousness. Those characters sometimes reflect people in real life. I don't have a problem with most Christians, but certain people who claim to be Christians are giving the religion a bad name. Jerry Falwell is the most readily apparent example I can think of, but there are many others. This man claims to be a Christian, yet he exhibits little, if any, of the behavior that most moderate Christians would expect of someone who claims to be devoted to Christ. He is intolerant, bigotted, and ignorant. He provokes these traits in other people who are not capable of seeing him for what he really is. People like Mr. Falwell are the obvious targets of this movie.

  • Well, I too think Palms a bit too overpriced. Howerver I got an IBM c3 (Palm V) for $320 at, so it might be worthwhile to watch places like that...
    (I really wanted IIIx, but couldn't resist to bid on the V when I saw it)
  • Well you know what? South Park did its job if it pisses off folks not unlike yourself. :) Seriously though, if you don't see the humor of the show (or know the show even) of course this is going to trip your trigger. But let me reassure you that this is very funny stuff. Trust me. Jesus is very funny in the show even though he should have kicked Santa Clause's ass in an actual episode.
  • Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see why I should go into the "REAL WORLD" and dedicate my life to helping people poorer than me.

    Maybe I'm just an evil satanist, but I really don't give a damn about the people who are suffering.

    Oh well, I guess I'm just selfish. At least I don't demand everyone else is selfish with me.
  • The most foul of the foul words was clearly spoken *by the children* at least 131 times

    They say "Microsoft" 131 times? No wonder they claim the movie is "straight from the smoking pits of Hell."

  • What on earth are they thinking?
    They'll massacre it, I mean christ, they were trying to get Sean Connery for Gandalf!
  • These people think that "101 Dalmations" should be R-rated. Do you really expect us to take them seriously?

    Regards, Ralph.
  • Well, I read most of the reviews on that page and they are very serious.. and I think they really would shutdown southpark if they could..

    ~ziffie of the schott-key seventh path.
  • I read most of the reviews on the site, and every single movie (except for "The Apostles" and Mary Poppins) got poor ratings from him on a variety of nitpicky topics. I agree, southpark is not a childrens movie .. but a lot of the other movies he blasted (even ones with important social messages) didn't involve violence to children.

    i find that disgusting.
  • I agree that you can judge southpark harshly .. and that it isn't a children's movie.
    Standing up for what you believe in is good .. But did you read any of his other reviews?
    He criticized a lot of socially important movies for their portrayal of violence. On a movie about Vietnam, he basically said that they should have cut out all of the foul language .. just because soldiers may utter profanities in times of stress, that doesn't mean our children should know about it.. Simply, don't take your 8 year old to see a movie targetted at adults - and on the same token, don't try to shelter your children completely, there are things that they are inevitably going to see, and perhaps it is better if you are with them and are able to answer their questions about it instead of having them discover the evils of the world on their own.

    Some movies (despite the violence and profanity) are important to see .. and to help remind us of the evils of war, and the holocaust, and ..(fill in social cause of your choice here..).

    To judge on such a puritanical and syntactical scale is undefendable.

    ~ziffie of the schott-key seventh path.
  • a) What did you like about the Lord of the Rings series?

    Since this is /., a better question might be why didn't you like it? What I dislike is all the flowery descriptions, like Galadriel with the harp, playing her sad and sweet tunes (blah blah blah). I guess I don't like most of the songs either; I tend to skip em. But other than that, the books are the best adventure stories written.

    Come to think of it, David Brin should love them too, since they show the triumph of the commoner (common for a hobbit that is).

  • ...he may be a talented actor and all but I'm disapointed they couldn't spend a little more time and find a real midget (or whatever they prefer to be called these days), like was done for Willow, because it looks more realistic and I'm sure there are some talented, diminutive actors out there who could use the role (and would better suit it).

    This makes me cautious about the movie. If Jackson messes this up, then it will be the greatest movie disapointment for me of all time.
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
  • There were rumors that Warwick Davis would make a cameo, but whether there's any truth to that or not I don't know.

    But I have heard what you said about using "normal-sized" actors for all the hobbits (and presumably the dwarves) and I must say what a disgraceful idea. I mean, how often is there a mainstream movie in which midgets can play a major part, now here is the perfect movie for them to be in one and instead full-size actors are going to be used and "shrunk" down to hobbit-size. That's just ridiculous! Jackson could better spend that money on the Nazgul, Orcs, Balrog, etc. And I doubt lack of talent is an issue, I mean you'd need what, 4 leads (Frodo, Sam, Merri, Pippin) and a bunch of extras (and of course, an old Bilbo).

    I'm not usually one to agree with the contraversies which always come up (for instance, Jar Jar being racist, etc), but I think this will cause somewhat of a contraversy and I think it's perfectly justified. There are going to be a lot of fans of the books who are already nervous about seeing the movie as it is (esp. after the animated ones) and it doesn't need any other contraversy to keep them away.

    I've been waiting for a live action LOTR for a long time and whatever decisions are made, it better be good. It may still be good, I think this just adds unecessary complications to the movie.

    That Jackson better just watch it!
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
  • I'm sorry, but let me clear up some points dealt with in that article you linked to.

    First of all, Middle Earth *should* seem familiar to's supposed to be prehistoric Europe!

    Second, anyone who challenges Tolkien's ability to write is a boob. Tolkien was an accomplished linguist, a student of the English language and mythology (he is the interpreter of Sir Gawain and the Green Night from Old English, many of the Rorrihim names in LOTR are in Old English). Of course his language uses archaic forms!

    And the way Tolkien downplays many of the more "fantastic" aspects of the story is a great style, IMO. It allows the world to blend together comfortably, like the Ted Nasmith paintings depicting it. Any AD&D book can give you vivid discriptions of the wonderful golden dragon; Tolkien makes you think that it's real. And as for being down to earth, Tolkien is nothing of the sort; his writing is fantastical in its best-- if you want extensive descriptions of the mundane, read Raymond Feist (whom I also enjoy). I admit that LOTR is not all that fast-moving, but one's displeasement with this is more a testament to their attention span than the author's skill. Tolkien was writing an epic, not a serial, and so he had the time and space to stretch his arms out and build an entire world.

    About the only good point the article made was that Tolkien and Le Guin have different styles of writing. I read the Wizard of Earthsea and liked it, but for different reasons. Anyone who demands conformance to one style is limiting themselves.

    Of course, if Tolkien's writing style is not one you enjoy then feel free not to read it; but to imply that he is not talented? Well ask yourself where your writings will be 100 years later and where will Tolkien's be?
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
  • Y'know, the one with Hemos. Love It!
  • I think that you may have missed the point. If your only contact with the South Park movie was the CAP site, then I feel pretty sure of this; they also seem to have missed the point.

    South Park was designed, in part, to point out that while a movie may have a corrupting influence on some people, it's far better to work to create an environment in which people can resist this corruption than to attempt to eliminate anything that may corrupt.

    In the movie, the reactions of the kids who see it sparks a war with Canada, because it's felt to be better to go to war than to raise one's children.

    In a genius stroke of execution, the South Park movie itself seems to have been intended to act as the movie within the movie, to either impart that moral to us, or perhaps engender a war with Canada. I'm a bit partial to the war myself (those lousy Quebecois...) but I'm digressing.

    South Park makes fun of religions for two reasons, really. The first is legitimate comedic effect. After all there are some very bizzare things done in the name of religions everywhere. Unless you're actually involved in a particular religion, these sorts of things are probably pretty evident. However, there is not a lot of this in the South Park movie. A better example would be from the TV show. There, Jesus has a public access cable call-in show. This is funny, I think, because if Jesus actually were to do this, he would get a lot of stupid questions on the one hand, and be denounced as not really being Jesus on the other (although this doesn't happen, AFAIK; everyone knows he really is Jesus). In one episode, during a football game, one character prays to Jesus for the home team to win. Jesus, sitting nearby in the bleachers, says 'Stop bothering me.'

    The second reason is again related to deliberately offending people to drive the point home. Christianity is made fun of a bit, but organized religion is a better target. After all, few people have any problem with *Jesus*, they have a problem with people who claim to be acting in Jesus' name. The CAP people fill this role quite well. Judaism is mostly made fun of from the standpoint of a bigot, which really serves to make fun of the bigot.

    Cartman: Kyle, you know when I called you a dirty Jew? I'm sorry, I didn't mean it - you're not a Jew.

    Kyle: What? Yes, I am a Jew!
  • No, an atheist takes it on faith that there are no gods. An agnostic is undecided, generally due to the lack of evidence. And I wonder how many agnostics are familiar with Pascal's wager?

    Don't take this as a knock against religions or the lack therof. I bounce all over that landscape like a pinball.
  • "MetaTrust security enabled"?

    Doesn't sound promising, although the RIAA twits went off on an odd tangent trying to make Rio-like devices writeonly storage. There are already consumer products that can store the same amount of MP3s, that cost a fraction as much, are as easily transportable, fit in a shirt pocket and have very low battery requirements -- they're called "removable media." Sheesh.

    (how does one moderate a quickies forum?)
  • On the whole I agree with you, except for one thing: what was so tasteless about the Simpsons?

    (Note that I said *was* as I'm not going to attempt to defend the poor excuses for episodes created in the last two years)

    I think it was initially promoted as having a style of comedy more akin to Southpark and Bevis and Butthead - popping in swear words at every opportunity, etc. However, this didn't continue for very long... even by the second season the show had evolved to using some of the highest-level comedy I've ever seen. It makes fun of life in general, and I can't see how that can be considered "tasteless".
  • You make an intelligent, lucid point. But c'mon, you have to draw the line at "Hitler probably had some good qualities." I feel almost hypocritical for shouting at you for this, in light of the subject of the original post, but let's face it: Hitler was an absolute monster. I have never seen evidence to the contrary, and yes this is despite searching outside of the proverbial box (and not forming my opinions based solely on Discovery & A&E biographies about the guy). He was writing anti-semitic texts in his teens. Every once in awhile - a hundred years, a thousand, who knows? - you get someone who is the embodiment of pure evil. IMO Hitler was it this time around.
  • by craw ( 6958 )
    Yeah, I kind of agree with you, especially since I am contemplating whether I should buy one. Cyberian Outpost has the Palm V for $380 and the Palm IIIx for $300 (no tax, free shipping); not bad prices compared to other places. Still, I wish that they were about a $100 cheaper.

    I really like the Palm V primarily because of the battery, styling, screen, size and weight. Size, weight, and Mac compatibility is really important to me. I'm not a suit (hell, I wear shorts to work during the summer and I work for the man!), and don't carry a backpack or an attache case; if it has to fit in my pocket.

    And damn if I will run wince.

    I welcome all recommendations and advice concerning the Palm V, IIIx, or other PDA's.

  • "I find the extremely aggressive attitude of the /. crowd towards religion disturbing. Is it really necessary that we all have to slander and defame Christians?"

    Absolutely, bub. Anyone who not only dedicates his life to a fairy tale but who tries to establish the law of the land in such a way that his fairy tale is the guiding principle deserves a bullet to the brain. Since we're not allowed to do that, brutal mockery is the best we can do.

  • You know, this is the country of Freedom of Religion. That means anybody in this country can practice any religion, parody any religion, or choose not to have any religion at all. And nobody has a right to denegrate anybody's religion, or lack thereof. If people disagree with somebody's religious viewpoints - fine. Saying you're right and everybody else is wrong and will be eternally damned if you don't believe them is not. I happen to take great pleasure in any group that takes itself just alittle too seriously - and this CAP warning definately fits the bill nicely.

    Combining pseudo-science and mock-seriousness just about had me floored in fits of laughter. What's even better is the idea that merely watching a movie will earn you eternal damnation. Most religious groups that take themselves this seriously wind up on 60 minutes, or the evening news along with the latest FBI embarassement.

    But since I know nothing less than a philosophical debate will satisfy things to certain people, I offer this brief insight into the world of theology - it is my opinion that finding God is a personal experience, and not one you can find simply reading scripture. CAP alerts, speeches about eternal damnation, and the latest Rush Limbaugh episode will not find you God. Only you can find Him, and only if you want to.

  • The Actual pronunciation is Lee-nucks, but Linus has said he really doesn't give a crap on how you pronounce it.

    I prefer "Lye-Nucks"

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Applix Anyware, the all-Java port of Applix's butt-ugly Unix office suite, has been around for some 3 years now. I remember trying the demo back in '96.

    It was pretty nifty and quite usable, if predictably sluggish and butt-ugly. Now, what with the much faster JVMs and much faster CPUs we have nowadays, I'd imagine it's pretty snappy and makes an interesting solution for shops that want to deploy thin clients. But I'll bet it's also still butt-ugly.
  • It's no New Beetle or anything, but the new Rio looks pleasant enough. The clear ones look a lot like a Gameboy Pocket, IMHO not a bad industrial design to crib from as far as such things go.
  • She knows what she's doing, I'm there everyday. Good quality stuff. I wonder if she talks to any of the people she spoofs. :)
  • South Park 2: From The Smoking Pits of Hell

    Don't you just love it when the ultra conservatives give you a helping hand with marketing?
  • >It isn't a kid's show! Does animation==kid's show still prevail?

    'Fraid so.

    >Do you think the Christian folks reading this stuff would let their kids see the TV episodes of South Park?

    "Avert your eyes, children! He may assume other forms!" Personally, I can't wait to go see it this weekend. Woo-hoo!

  • ...or vulgar for that matter. This guy must not go to doctors much.
  • Grow up.

    "Lake Placid" looks like a better movie to me.
  • " much as it makes fun of ignorance and self-righteousness."

    And those would be the Christians or the non-Christians?
  • Bill Clinton is a liberal.
    Bill Clinton bombed, sent troops to Kosovo.
    Bill Clinton is a warmonger.
  • Damn, they deserve it too... I hate Christians like that, think they can change the world with their morality lessons. I mean, no offense to Christians or Christianity in a whole, but being pushy gets you nowhere.

    In this case, this person OBVIOUSLY has wayyy too much time on their hands to have 1. watched that movie so many times that he actually COUNTED how many times they swore in it, 2. took notes, and 3. wrote an entire review up on it saying that it is "*South Park* is an *incredibly dangerous* movie for those who do not understand or are developing an understanding of the Gospel ....... INCREDIBLY dangerous." as if he were saying "Satan will take you if you watch this movie!"

    BTW, for the record, my favorite part of the review is the "A child was graphically incinerated by igniting his anal wind..." ANAL WIND?!?! Can't this guy even say fart? I mean, hell the word has been around what, a few hundred years? You'd think it'd be ok to call it a fart according to the religious rules by now.

  • Actually, it's a lot worse than that.

    He appears to believe Mary Poppins should be the only legal movie.


  • You're probably right - the promotion turned me off so much I didn't think it was necessary to watch the series to get a sense for what it was about.

    I don't think that undermines my basic point, though.

    I wonder how my message got scored as a troll? I think it's one of the better ones I've written. Ah well.


  • First, the suffering that's out there has nothing whatsoever with the merits, or lack of same, of South Park.

    I personally don't care for South Park, because tasteless humour is a big turn-off for me. I didn't like the Simpsons, I didn't like Beavis and friend, etc, etc.

    And you are right, the nice fellow who writes these reviews has a perfect right to do so, and I must say I found his mode of analysis fascinating.

    But - and here comes the hard part - if you read his site with the care it deserves, you will notice the occasional mention of concepts that I feel should be pretty alarming. It would appear that the writer of the site believes that movies that do not make 100 points on his scale should not be made. I would not be surprised if he believes it should in fact be illegal to make such movies.

    The only movie that made 100 on his scale was Mary Poppins. Even other G-rated movies contain what he considers to be "inappropriate" scenes of sex, violence, bad language and worse. He mentions all over the site that these scenes really should not be seen by children. In at least one place, he slips up and says that adults should not be allowed to view material unsuitable for children, because it might corrupt them beyond salvation.

    Can you imagine a world in which you could not view any movie but Mary Poppins, over and over and over and over again? Titanic consists of scenes of wanton violence and destruction - the sinking of the ship. So, clearly, we should never, under any circumstances, have movies that show sinking ships. Saving Private Ryan, while a powerful masterpiece, contains disgusting images of wanton violence; clearly, we can't have that. Clearly, then, we cannot have war movies, even if the anti-violence lesson might be important.

    Yes, Mary Poppins. Over and over and over and over again. This is the world of Thomas A. Carder. A world without sex, without profanity, a world without ships sinking or buildings exploding. It's not that I like war or ships sinking, but they are part and parcel of human life.

    Now, in a sense, I like this guy. I think he's done a nice job on his site. And he's certainly been far, far more patient than I would have been in meticulously taking down the details of "sinful" things in these movies. But, much as I appreciate his efforts, I don't want to live in his world. And need I say that he's lobbying to have his world the law of the land?

    He's not going to make it, of course, because the general public hates G-rated movies. (Why do you think there are so few? Nobody wants to watch the darn things!) But he's going to try, and try hard. And that, surely, makes him well worthy of opposition.


  • I am a Christian, one with a Bible & Religion minor, at that. From this perspective, I feel safe in saying that the CAP website is flawed from both a spiritual and theological perspective.

    First off, this guy is on his spiritual high horse, acting in a pharisaical manner. From a Christian perspective, the old law is dead, because to live by the law is to live in sin. This guy is a prime example of this. By making a livelihood of 'exposing the immoralities' of today's culture, he is searching out, perhaps misinterpreting every little instance of anything that could be considered 'immoral'. But in doing so, he is both immersing himself in it, as well as spending so much time nitpicking that he's forgetting the true meaning of the word. That's exactly what Jesus meant when he talked of the pharisees straining flies and letting through camels.

    You've stated that "his "CAP" is trying to provide a Christian perspective of cultural events." This is false. For a prime example, read his review of You've Got Mail [] and/or 101 Dalmations [] . In the former, he warns about a man sitting on a woman's bed with her in it (both unmarried)"; in the latter, he states that "we cannot permit elevatation of the dog to human status". Regardless of one's belief in the morality/immorality of either action, it becomes quite obvious that his obsession with finding faults has surpassed his interest in finding and sharing the truth; he is not coming from a Christian perspective.

    Furthermore, a perusal of this guy's reviews shows he is speaking from a truly dualist perspective, which is theologically incorrect. The battle of 'good vs. evil', in a cosmological sense, is unbiblical. From a Christian perspective, Evil is not a 'substance' that exists where Good is not, rather it is a virus, a scavenger that exists upon Good. It is a perversion of good; it can't exist on its own.

    This said, everything I've read at CAP leads me to believe that this guy is under the impression that if something is not outright Christian, then it is evil. Thus, CAP is theologically incorrect in that perspective. In addition, this assumption that everything non-Christian is evil, puts it at odds with the realisation that everything is ultimately God's creation.

    In the end, the CAP Reports are spiritually and theologically flawed. While the guy might have good intentions, to sit and seek out the faults only results in a failure to ultimately understand what Christianity is -- while at the same time, gives the world a false impression of the same thing.
  • I'm excited about the Lord of the Rings movie. I just finished reading (and almost understanding) The Silmarillion (Kind of the Episode 1 for LOTR) And I'm hungering for more Middle Earth entertainment.

    Oh my God, I AM a nerd...

  • by Gramie ( 13916 ) on Monday July 12, 1999 @05:41PM (#1806550) Homepage
    While I understand that people could be worried about the intolerance shown on the web site (I personally thought his objection to men wearing pink underwear was the most amusing part), I think it's all to easy for us to be intolerant in return.

    I should point out that I haven't seen the movie -- I haven't even seen the TV show, and it is unlikely to ever make it to Japan.

    But why can't people at least acknowledge the validity of some of his points, instead of issuing blanket condemnations. You don't have to agree, but you should admit when some points are valid.

    He was shocked by images of children suffering and dying. Can any of you say that that is a negative thing?

    It seems to be popular to find someone, declare him intolerant, and beat him with a metaphorical stick. I'd say that many of the views expressed here are just as intolerant.

    You may think the guy is a goof, a moron, and dangerous, but sticking labels on him and dismissing everything he says is no better.

    Very, very few things in this world are absolutely evil, or absolutely good. Hitler probably had some good qualities, although they were completely overshadowed by the evil he did. Likewise with Hussein, Qadaffi, or the current flavour of the enemy-of-the-month. Anyone can be right sometimes, no matter how much you dislike them.

    I just don't like the practice of dogmatically opposing people because you decide that they are fill in the blank. If you can't acknowledge when your opponent is right (as in our current political situation), everyone suffers as a result.
  • Kenny Baker wasn't the guy who played willow, That was Warrick Davis, (who was in the pod race scene) though Kenny Baker Did play ARTOO

  • a comic strip where certain frames are animated GIFs is an interesting idea. Even if there's nothing else to say about the strip, it's technically creative.

    It's nice when web pages manage to make enough of their medium that they artistically become something more than just a digital approximation of something that ought to be printed on a sheet of paper.
  • I don't hate religion, but bigots who fight as hard as they can to avoid thinking about *gasp* the flip side of the coin really drive me nuts.

    These CAP movie reviews are a perfect example. I know plenty of good, nice people that are active in christian churches, but I can have conversations with them about things that Catholic doctrine isn't 100% behind. In fact, this whole movie review thing seems like a generally good idea to me - a bunch of people with similiar values have a site they can go to for info on what movies they would probably like to see, and which to avoid.

    But I'm sorry, the implementation of this concept is just plain awful. The reviewer's method apparently involves going to the movie with a form to fill out. It probably has "W I S D O M" written across the top (an acronym representing the different types of offenses used on charts in the reviews, in case you didn't follow the link). And he attempts to write down and categorize each un-christian image/utterance/implication in the movie, and keep careful count of which words are uttered how many times, and by whom, as evidenced byt the south park review. Even after the number hit 3 digits he kept counting. This is very funny to me. Reminds me of a great many pointless assignments I have had in high school.

    And all this counting is the meat of the reviews! They have this graph rating system which basically rests on the number and variety of offenses in the movie, and each movie is given a number. The text part of the reviews is mostly "this was said ___ times and this was done __ times".

    It's like the guy senses on some level that his beliefs and convictions that he holds dear are being examined, and if they aren't lovingly stroked by the movie he feels threatened. Truthfully, though, I don't think that any kind of messages, warning flags of satire, or any information at all not put front and center in the movies made it past the reviewer's thick skull.
  • I read several reviews, and these had the funniest, most beautiful irony:

    Matilda - didn't even watch the whole thing he was so upset over the challenges to christian values. It's a kid's movie! He sat through many R rated movies! This one, aparently, subtely corrupts kids.

    Michael - He's most upset about inaccuracies in what angels can and can't do - "be prepared to quickly explain that angels do not have the power to resurrect anything let alone dogs, that angels are neither born nor do they die, and that angels are likely more respectable and wholesome since they are representatives appointed by the Holy Father."

    Pleasantville - "a slam against the wholesomeness and cleanness of the TV series of yesteryear in favor of hedonistic selfness." That one made me laugh for almost a full minute.

    Tarzan - Apparently it preaches evolution.

    And, saving the absolute best for last:

    Star wars (episode I but really the whole series) - Serious concerns in the offense to god arena. He's concerned about Anakin's immaculate conception and especially anything relating to the Force. Blasphemy!!!! But there's more. THis one takes the cake:
    "I challenge you to keep matters of unholiness out of the next one, which I hope you will make. See if you can make a CAP score of 100 in the Offense to God Investigation Area."

    Right. Keep up the good work but episodes 2 and 3, just take out that one little bit about the Force.
  • by grappler ( 14976 ) on Monday July 12, 1999 @08:24PM (#1806555) Homepage
    I am a teen that, without his parents really having absolutely any idea at all, has been all around the web. Yeah, that includes all those places kids shouldn't see. When we first got unlimited access, I just went around, clicking absolutely anything that piqued my curiosity, disregarding those stupid "adults only" warnings the way that south park kid did. The porn sites, the anarchist's cookbook and related mailing lists and sites, the warez kiddies, the hate sites, everything. I think I turned out ok.

    You know what? I ended up here (meaning Slashdot). My "fragile little mind" just sort of lost interest in those places quickly because they weren't restricted and really didn't have anything interesting to say. I think I'm better off now, as a matter of fact. Having seen hate sites, I now have a pretty good idea of how bigots think, and in any situation I can "try on" their point of view (and debunk it of course). Funny how people think we need to be "protected". I would rather shape my own point of view - I think it came out pretty balanced.
  • consider what rating the Bible would get when run through his scale...
    Why just consider, when you can look up their review of Prince of Egypt []?
    The most severe loss of points was due to violence: slavery, beatings, murder, infanticide, and babies used as food for crocodiles (in a mural). Though these things are not just based on a true story, but ARE a true story, they are still violence and can have an impact or influence on your children. Next in severity of loss of points were matters of unholy reality such as the demonic doers, calling on power from unholy gods, and belittling remarks about the power of prayer and God's sincerity.
  • ...and by the way, the review also contains this gem:
    That some points in the movie might not have been 100% accurate is not really that significant. That no one knows whether, e.g., crocodiles actually attacked the three month old baby Moses while adrift in the basket is not important; that the movie presented Yoshabel, the mother of Moses, setting her baby adrift on the river to save him from death at the hands of Seti, the Pharaoh at the time, IS important.
    The Bible never explicitly names who was Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus. Since the author of the review doesn't flag the name "Seti" as one of the possibly-not-accurate points, it appears that he didn't read the Book of Exodus very closely. But he sits through R-rated movies multiple times to count the dirty words. Great moral leadership we have here....
  • I just read the CAP review of South Park - quite entertaining in some ways! Of course, I am not exactly sure what they are trying to do ...

    "A child cannot escape being influenced by this useless ..."

    Huh? It isn't a kid's show! Does animation==kid's show still prevail? Do you think the Christian folks reading this stuff would let their kids see the TV episodes of South Park?

    BTW, I sat through a seminar recently where a psych researcher showed data revealing that there is a higher percentage of violence in kid's shows than in prime-time shows ... maybe these CAP folks should be targeting something their kids actually might see?

  • Well, apparently since God has to sacrifice himself to himself to "save" us, ummm..., we need to be, uh..., you see, salvation from the devil, er..., who could be zapped out of existance at any time but isn't 'cause God apparently 'loves us'..., umm...

    Aw, hell, this is why I ditched all that nonsense long ago... 8^)

  • But he's going to use normal-sized actors for everything and shrink them down, so they'll at least look "together". If he uses minnie-me, that'll be one of the few actual small people he uses.

    How could Peter Jackson screw this up? He created Meet the Feebles!!! Same deal.
  • So unless you call standing up for one's beliefs a "vice" or "folly", I have trouble calling the S.P. movie a satire.

    Standing up for your beliefs is a good characteristic within a human, but that doesn't validate the beliefs. And that is the key to the movie. People stood up for their belief that slavery was right, that Jews were the cause of the problems, etc etc. I certainly don't think those are valid beliefs.

    The movie brutally asks "Is this worth believing in?" (if you've got the brains to see it, children don't). It isn't subtle, it slaps you in the face with topics that are quietly ignored to make life easier. So no, it isn't a sublte satire, rather it is satiric (and uses rather large tools to be so).

    You may notice that I have never said it was a "bad" movie. I merely state (and restate and restate) that I don't condone vulgarity, obscenity, and bigotry by paying money to those who continue to serve it up in the media. And that I'm uncomfortable when people bash other people with beliefs different from their own.

    I honestly applaud you for standing up for your beliefs, the world needs people willing to do so. Just make sure that those you congradulate are worthy of the congradulations. The CAP review seemed to contain its own bigotry with its emphasis on homosexuality (why oh why is S for Sex/Homosexuality and not just Sex?) As well as this line from (I) a general theme of anarchy, rebellion, and autonomy . A) The USA (where this movie's emphasis lies) was founded in rebellion and B) what's wrong with autonomy?

    The merits (or lack thereof) of the USA is not an issue here, but this reviewer and the organization are obviously within the US (Texas) and enjoying the right of Freedom of Speech. So they must at least agree with some of the ideals of the US.

    I can respect people for standing up for their beliefs, but I have a much harder time of doing so when those beliefs are themselves suspect.

    One final note, I wanna know why this is in (I):

  • On the VCF page they mention their plans to cluster 64 C64s. I don't suppose we can call this a beowulf since I doubt they can use Linux/PVM/MPI, but still, this has to get the award for most out of control cluster ever. So lets see, 64 C64s will have the blazing speed of a 12 Mhz 286, if your app is extra-parallel. These people are TRUE geeks.
  • I really hate movie reviews that spoil the plot.
    Now that I know Satan is a sensitive dude, and the kids say f**k 131 times, whats left to see?

    At least they didn't say if any of the main characters died...
  • Before y'all get out your flamethrowers on this one, remember: /. is a forum where we can agree to disagree, okay?

    IMHO, any movie that makes fun of any religion and is as full of crap as described in the Christian site's South Park review [] is worthy of nothing but contempt. Frankly, I would be ashamed to be even related to anyone who had anything to do with the production of the movie. Some of my co-workers thought the movie to be hilarious -- and have lost quite a bit of my respect because of it.

    CmdrTaco found the site to be hilarious, and numerous other posters have taken their free pot-shots at Christianity (which seems to be the target of choice on /. whenever religion is mentioned, doesn't it?) Hence my statement that religious bigotry is alive and well -- because as yet I haven't seen a single post standing up for what I would say are mostly decent people and what they believe.

    On second thought, go ahead and get out your flamethrowers.I'm standing up for them now.

  • P.S. (to my previous post) While I was typing, several other posters entered comments which weren't anti-Christian, and to those folks I offer my gratitude and thanks.

    P.P.S. Just in case you are wondering I would be just as ashamed of the movie if S.P had made the same kind of fun of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, or any other religions or peoples.
  • So what have Christians done over the years?

    Well, I see that you have left out alot of good accomplished by Christian men and women over the years, but listed a few things done in the name of Catholicism in the Middle Ages pretty well, and assigned blame for atrocities in the New World to Christians in general. Which is convenient, but false. Most if not all of the atrocities you mention were caused by greedy, evil men who used (and corrupted) what most people call Christianity into tools of repression and intolerance. These men are as out of place in Christianity as Milosovic in Bosnia or Kosovo.

    Oh, and one more thing...the movie also made fun of Jews, Muslims, Satanists *and* atheists.

    Thanks for bringing that up -- I wasn't aware of those four additional reasons to skip the movie. And I still say bigotry is bigotry and needs to be fought against.

  • I agree 100% -- for example, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's list, etc.

    I don't agree with everything on the CAP site either (unfairly critical in many reviews, I'd say.)

    I'm just getting tired of the Christian bashing, because most of the I know of that call themselves Christians are pretty darn good folks.

  • Huh? I don't understand what this part of your comment is referring to. Please explain.
  • Whoever marked it as a troll -- catch a clue!! On /. we have the right to disagree, and his writing was well done. His message got downgraded as a "troll", but it was well written and deserves better treatment.
  • Which is why I don't intend to return to the CAP site for my movie reviews, because the person who writes their reviews is way too intolerant, in my book.

    A documentary about the Holocaust shows where race or religious bigotry and intolerance can lead, if not checked by (as Abraham Lincoln put it) "the better angels of our nature".

  • You may be surprised to know that I agree with nearly everything in your post, considering how I started this thread. Let me focus on one thing you said for a moment:

    Well, I don't see many moderate Christians going out of their way to stand up for non-Christians who have to endure the religious Reich's abuse.

    Count me as a Christian moderate that stands with you in your right to practice your religion as I practice mine, without being an object of bigotry yourself.

    I am not offended by a Pentagram, or any other display of religious symbols, (although I'm sorry to say that I don't know what a triskele is.) In fact, if we were to meet in person I would commend you for standing up to be heard with your perception the "Religious Reich" in this post.

    One more thought....and I don't believe the fanatics would have gotten as far as they have without tacit support, or at least a willingness to look the other way, from the majority of the Christian population.

    This seems to me to be the root of the problem here...I don't think the majority is on the side of the fanatics, I think we're against them, and the fanatics know it, which is why they scream so loud. (even via the CAP web site). They also verbally attack anyone not as fanatical as them as apathetic and weak.

    As far as I'm concerned, in this they are not much removed from the Pharisees in the first century a.d. that used the Romans to kill their opposition -- a wandering preacher from Galilee named Jesus Christ.

  • Yes. And my Jewish friends, and the African Americans, the people from Latin America, and a few others. No, I didn't stand up for the evils perpetrated by the Crusaders, because as far as I can tell, the whole political/religious framework back then was an inextricably combined, corrupt mess that had little to do with Christ's message and everything to do with worldly power and totalitarian control.
  • I beg to disagree, on these grounds:
    1. Great satire does not rely nearly exclusively on obscenity and vulgarity for comedic effect.
    2. Great satire has an obvious and focused target-- around which the story is focused. From what I've read, the writers of South Park simply chose to be equal opportunity offenders.
    3. Great satire
      holds up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn. AFAICT, South park merely parades the vices, and ridicules and scorns anything opposed to those same vices.
    4. Great satire (2nd webster's definition) involves using trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.
    So unless you call standing up for one's beliefs a "vice" or "folly", I have trouble calling the S.P. movie a satire.

    A couple of last things: why should I pay even one red cent to the maker's of an offensive movie, when they could have spent the same amount of money making something without the obscenity, vulgarity, etc.? As to my friends, yes, I explained why I wouldn't go, because there isn't much I would consider hilarious. Funny thing is, I didn't blow my credibility -- something about not having to stand in the s--- to smell it and move away, if you catch my drift.

    You asked How do you know, without having seen the movie, that it is as bad as the review said it is? You may notice that I have never said it was a "bad" movie. I merely state (and restate and restate) that I don't condone vulgarity, obscenity, and bigotry by paying money to those who continue to serve it up in the media. And that I'm uncomfortable when people bash other people with beliefs different from their own.

    Finally, I don't thing that the majority of /. readers or writers are bigots. But if I had stayed silent, I would have been tacitly agreeing with the few that are.

  • I go to movies in order to challenge my beliefs and to push the envelope of what I'm willing to consider worthy. After noting that the CAP site completely missed the point with South Park, I browsed some of their other reviews. I suggest others do to. They walked out of the Birdcage because it contained homosexuality? The Matrix is evil because it offers an implementation of the "brains in vats" theory? Mary Poppins IS the best example of American Pop Culture?

    Excuse me for being immoral, but movies about fringe topics change minds and offer a check against conservative bigots in control. This is not an attack on religion/Christianity. Finding and keeping individual faith is what life is all about. But any and all zealots that want to stop the flow of ideas through my head will have to fight to do so - with these Christians I'll fight back.

    Nobody at CAP even considered the plot of South Park and certainly nobody there realized they were its targets. No, it wasn't that great of a movie. But it was about an unacceptable movie, its influence, and relative unimportance with respect to how censors react.

    "The concept is very simple. Convince the flock to procreate. More babies. More Catholics. More money!"
  • The Roman Empire went straight down the toilet when it became Christain!
  • I assume that counter is counting all the gods
    from all the religions in the world? =)

    Oh I forgot... it's a christian site, where there
    is only one true god/religion.


    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
  • Personally I believe in the Christian faith (note I didn't call myself a christian because that would make me as much as a hypocrite as the rest of em). But I hate groups like CAP who give a bad name to normal moderate christians, who can often have an open mind and see things for what they truly are. This movie had a message, on that slashdot has been commited (ok.. maby half-assed) to spreading ever since the columbine shootings, and before. That you simply can't go around blaming other people, especially the media for societies problems. Though sites like this would love us to believe that violent movies are to blame. What I find interesting though, is that while violence in movies are at almost an all time high, youth violence is the lowest for the decade. Don't believe me, check out DJJ's statistics yourself.. For a Chart []
    or for a slighly easier to read table []
  • Well I didn't delimit skew of obfuscate those charts in any way. They are if you note, on the DOJ web site. I only put them there because I happed to ran across them the other day and while I was writting the above comment I remembered them and thought others might find them insteresting.
  • fornicating, left-wing, drug-loving, peace-freak pagan
    where's the insult?
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • While looking for particularly bad reviews in the 'CAP' thing, I came acrost this one, of a holocost documentary []:

    "The Last Days" -- truly! This is NOT a movie for entertainment. It is a documentary about the final days of millions of Jews: the Holocaust! Spielberg of Dreamworks(tm) has amassed miles of film file footage about the Holocaust -- but why? Is there some need for my children or yours to watch nude brutalized and skeletonized humans stumbling about? Why was this movie released to the general public as PG-13 through entertainment movie houses if it was not intended to be seen by children?

    um... yes there is
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • I love every comment made to this... they all say "Christians are...", "Christians do...", etc.

    I'd just like to point out that their are MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF CHRISTIANS! "Christian" is a very diverse term that can mean Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalean (sp?), or any of a number of groups. All with different philosphies and interpretations of "Christianity."

    Basically the only things that make a person a "Christian" is (1) They believe in the same God that Moses did. (2) They believe that Jesus is the living son of said God. (3) They believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind, so that whoever believes (1) and (2) will be forgiven their transgressions.

    Beyond that, "Christians" have many different beliefs. So, you people who generalize Christians as being "super-right-wing extremists who hate everybody but their own kind" is about the equivalent of saying "every black man is a gun-toting, gang-banging murderer." Prejudice. Generalizing the entire group into the category of the most visible members.

    I, for one, am sick of it. I AM a Christian. But, I don't fall into very many (if any) of you people's generalizations. I have a lot of friends just like me. We don't hate people. I don't hate people who do what I percieve as wrong. I don't like what they do... but I'm not the one to tell them what to do now, am I? "Love thy neigbor." That is a key verse in the Bible. It can basically be "Love the sinner, not the sin."

    All I ask is that you people quit generalizing that EVERY Christian is a "right-wing extremist, hateful, bigoted, Bible-thumping freak." There are those who are, but there a many of us who aren't. I don't go around calling you a "fornicating, left-wing, drug-loving, peace-freak pagan" because you don't believe as I do. Quit doing that to me.

  • by antizeus ( 47491 ) on Monday July 12, 1999 @07:12PM (#1806644)
    The South Park movie is designed to offend people. To push buttons. To slaughter sacred cows. As such, we can use the movie to see what our sacred cows are, where our buttons are, and how we might be offended. With this knowledge, we are less likely to be distracted by unproductive emotions which may follow from offense. A condemnation of this movie is in some sense a vote for emotional weakness.
  • It's a funny one this. I almost never swear, I'm put off by swearing (in real life), I'm a Christian. I'm frequently bored by stand up comics who think they can get a laugh by adding a few obscenities to an otherwise dull routine, and depressed to find that often they can.

    South Park was the funniest movie I have ever seen.

    I guess the issue might be that South Park pokes fun at the Moral Majority. If you're not part of it, and don't take yourself too seriously, then its funny.

    Here's another odd thing: Sabrina, Buffy and Daria all feature attractive heroines who feel rejected by the fashionable set. Are they pandering to geek fantasies, or the inadaquacy/rejection thing is far more widespread, with personal significance to the majority of the population? I suspect the latter.
  • I wasn't going to reply to this, because I really don't know enough literary theory to say whether 'Lord of the Rings' is good writing or not. It is certainly popular, but that is something different: Citizen Cane is great cinema, but not popular. 'The Sun' is the UK's most popular newspaper, but no-one claims it is good (not even many of the writers). It is enjoyable, but if it were not it would not be popular.

    But what I can do is compare it with other books. Now I admit that if you compare LotR with a lot of other fantasy, it comes off quite well.

    It is more difficult to compare across genres, but I think you can compare universal elements such as prose style and characterisation. And when I compare the style with some mainstream novels, it seems somehow lacking:

    • For an example of deep and moving characterisation, try 'Portrait of a Lady' by Henry James.
    • For an example of beautiful prose, try '100 years of Solitude' by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
    • Iain Banks 'The Bridge' and 'Walking on Glass' paint vivid worlds. The latter has a gripping plot or three.
    I don't think the literary style in LotR can seriously be compared with any of these.

    I wouldn't recommend the first two as fun books to read, the first is depressing and the second is very slow, but at the same time, both are unforgetable. The two Banks novels I mention because the first is science fiction(ish), and the second has fantasy elements.

    What is the point I am trying to make? I'm not really sure. But it is something like this:

    There are books you read and remember for the rest of your life. And there are books you grab to read on a plane because it is fun and passes the time, but once you throw them away they're forgotten.

    Going back to LotR after 15 years and a lot of reading, it feels as though it should be in the second group. But it isn't. The only reason I can give is that it was my first fantasy, just as 'Islands in the Sky' was my first SF, and both have a special place, not for any particular technical merit, but because they were first.

    But then again, I don't know anything about writing. All I can say is that I've read a bit of everything.

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.