Anyone seen "Flight 93" yet?

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

If anything, that makes me more doubtful that I'll go see it. I just
don't
know if I could take it; I'm upset enough about 9/11 as it is.

This country could use a swift, sharp, painful reminder of what we're
fight against, IMHO.

I don't need any reminder. I despise those filthy sons of bitches.


That helps, but they really don't care what you think of them. They despise
you, too. They despise all of us. It moves them not an iota.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

That helps, but they really don't care what you think of them.

Then we are "even" as I simply couldn't care less what they think of
me or anyone else in the US.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Flyingmonk wrote:
What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?

The Monk

I did see the film Saturday evening. The film does a very commendable
job showing the inner workings of ATC. Nothing "made up" their. The film
also illustrates quite graphical just how unprepared out military was
(and perhaps still is) for an attack right on our front door. I felt
that the producers were very sympathetic to the survivors of the
victims; little time was given over to establishing the ususal sort of
Hollywoodian romances and relationships. I was quite emotional drained
after seeing the film; it is, after all, showing the sequence of events
that led up to many deaths and the closure of American airspace. It also
portrays quite accurately just how effective the ATC and the FAA were at
bringing all aircraft to the ground in a very short period of time.

Flyingmonk wrote:
What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?

The Monk

I did see the film Saturday evening. The film does a very commendable
job showing the inner workings of ATC. Nothing "made up" their. The film
also illustrates quite graphical just how unprepared out military was
(and perhaps still is) for an attack right on our front door. I felt
that the producers were very sympathetic to the survivors of the
victims; little time was given over to establishing the ususal sort of
Hollywoodian romances and relationships. I was quite emotional drained
after seeing the film; it is, after all, showing the sequence of events
that led up to many deaths and the closure of American airspace. It also
portrays quite accurately just how effective the ATC and the FAA were at
bringing all aircraft to the ground in a very short period of time.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

That helps, but they really don't care what you think of them.

Then we are "even" as I simply couldn't care less what they think of
me or anyone else in the US.

Were that this was all there is to it.

That is what we call perversion, I believe--when human drives are put to
evil purposes.

Yanno, I bet they agree with that. They just don't agree which one is
Good and which one is Evil.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:56:21 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

That helps, but they really don't care what you think of them.

Do you care what they think about you?

(...) It moves them not an iota.

Can you be moved? Sure, 'they' have to stop terrorist attacks. What else?

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Cub Driver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...
On 28 Apr 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Flyingmonk"
wrote:

You mean unlike "Titanic"?

Oh gosh, I really liked Titanic!

I don't think it was ever intended to serve as a documentary.

Maybe not, but did it have to defame the pursor? Did it have to portray
historical characters doing things that they never would have done in
real life? Could we perhaps have done without the stereotypes of the
greedy, money grubbing technonerd researchers, or the greedy, money
grubbing insensitive tycoons?

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Cub Driver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...
On 28 Apr 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Flyingmonk"
wrote:

You mean unlike "Titanic"?

Oh gosh, I really liked Titanic!

I don't think it was ever intended to serve as a documentary.

And come to think of it, was it really necessary to have the water
inside the ship magically warmed so the characters can flounder around
in it for several hours without harm while everybody outside is dying
of hypothermia within minutes?

On 29 Apr 2006 05:39:04 -0700, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

To razz "Saving Private Ryan" because of a couple of minor nits, while
missing the depth and breadth of the effort, seems silly to me. I
found it moving and, in many ways, deeply disturbing to watch -- and it
truly made me appreciate my father's generation.

Would it be safe to guess that you never went through basic training?

Of course, I love "Top Gun", too -- so there's just no hope for me...

Not at all! Top Gun is a fantasy; it can be enjoyed on its own terms.
SPR pretended to be the real thing, and it wasn't; it was an imitation
of old war movies by someone unqualified to do the job.

There's nothing wrong with imitation! What else is Indiana Jones but a
glorious rip-off of the serials we (I) used to watch on Saturday
afternoon at the movies? But SPR wanted to be something elevated,
truth-telling, and it was just so far off that it couldn't be borne,
at least not by me.

(Not just a *few* nits, either. Suffused with 'em! It was all nit!)


- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work