Timewaster's Guide Archive

Has anyone ever tried suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

I dont know. But I dont think they would win. AwDA only guarantees access, not enjoyment. I have written letters and such. But I guess they just dont see a big market for it. Close captioning on DVDs works pretty well. and an email campaign to get then to CC web videos has led to many of the networks using closed captioning on webcasts. Not all of them mind you, but many, especially newer episodes. I think, for movie markets, they dont think many deaf people would go. And they may be correct. the theater experience is not just about the big screen, but the surround sound and such.

See, I can hear, just very poorly. And when I go to a movie, I just cannot hear the dialogue. It is drowned out by the surround sound. All I hear is garbage. Even at home, when I turn the TV way up, I cannot always make out what is being said, especially if I cannot read the charachters lips. And especially in cartoons.

Lately, many FOX programs, the CC is screwed up and only appears on screen for a second, at best. I actually stopped watching Sarah Connor a couple weeks ago because of it. And on ABC, whenever they put any kind of banner on the screen (even the ABC logo) the closed captioning stops appearing because the TV does not recignize the show as the primary feed. Sometimes it will work in HD when straight channel does not work. But that doesnt help if i taped the show.

Sorry to drone on. I guess I needed to vent and didnt realize it

As far as Home on the Range goes, I heard that it was the supposed nail in the coffin for traditionally animated Disney features.  Of course, Disney then went on to produce at least one 3-D animated feature that also sucked.  As they are now working on traditional animation again, perhaps someone over there realized that story and character are much more important than medium.  I'll take a good 2-D animated flick over a crappy 3-D animated flick any day of the week.

I will say one thing for Home on the Range.  Casting Roseanne Barr as a cow was an appropriate choice.

Disney Animation went though a bad period. Once Disney got rid of Eisner as CEO, they were able to buy Pixar and merge Pixar with Disney animation studios. All the Pixar heads became the bosses at the newly reformed Disney Studios and revived 2D hand drawn animation. The previous heads had lacked vision, while the Pixar heads are full of vision, and talent. I for one am really looking forward to Bolt, coming out shortly.

As for Disney movies...  well, most of them are based on fairy tales from Medieval times, and are quite tragic. Walt Disney softened them up, but there is only so much softening you can do in classic Hans Christian Anderson-style tragedies like Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Little Mermaid and Snow White. Many of their other early movies were written in the same style, adopting stoylines from a hundred or more years before (like Sherlock holmes) - in a way, Disney movies intoruce young children to the classics in that manner.

Dont forget though, Disney/Pixar has put out awesome movies like the Incredibles and Cars, even the hilarious Chicken Little. monsters Inc...  I really dont know how anyone could NOT like the movie. it was classic bad guy/good guy animation with no deaths, or anything of that nature. I may have been a little scary for the really young ones, but thats about it.

Pirate of the Caribbean was classic Greek Tragedy. Although I did not care for the 2nd and 3rd ones all that much.

also one of my D&D buddies was so sick of hearing me talkabout the book and not knowing what i was talking about, he read it and loved it. (now i have to return the favor and try david eddings(SP?)).

If you are going to read Eddings, start with the Belgariad and Mallorean series, then the Prequels (Belgarath the Sorcerer; Polgara the Sorceress). 12 books total. The Will and the Word is the magic system in these books. Stick with them through the introductions (a few chapters) and you will be rewarded with a very dynamic cast and world.

mtlhddoc2:

Realize that Atheists, like all other religions (organized or unorganized) have been no angels, either:  Consider the Communist Party of China, the Khmer Rouge, etc.  Plenty of killing has been done in the name of godlessness, perhaps as much as in the name of any god.

I would never, and have never, stated that athiests were the perfect being. We are human too. And human beings, by nature are illogical, primal, and brutal creatures. Morality is something you either have, or you dont. It really cannot be taught, it must be learned, experienced, and applied. But it cannot be taught from one person to another. But you dont need religion to be a good person, or a bad person. And religion does not make someone good, or bad, automatically. People are as they are. Bad people exist everywhere, in every religion 9or lack thereof), every race, every gender.

I don't understand the desire to question other peoples faiths and I don't understand why people who claim no faith like atheist/agnostic people find it necessary to to even join the questioning. If someone has faith then let them because it is generally a good thing.

I did not question anyone's faith here, so, please, do not interpret it that way. What I questioned was people claiming moral high ground in that their religion is perfect because their church is pure. We all know that no organized religion is pure. It is simply against human nature for that to be the case. Church doctrine is shaped by internal politics. All churches, not just one or the other. I doubt anyone needs examples. Even though i could give at least one on every single religion.

What I will question though, is your claim that faith, of any kind is "generally a good thing". As a "non-believer" I have found that, in most cases, that is not the case. The faith is never just faith, it is the belief that your way is better than my way. and to that end, we see threads like this one. We see abortion clinic murders. We see anti-gay websites. We see planes flown into buildings. We see the 700 Club calling all Muslims out as violent hate mongers. And we see a Mormon presidential candidate shunned by his own party based on his religion. We see the Spanish inquisition. We see splinter groups molesting children. All in the name of faith. But athiests? We are the worst of the bunch, we get it from EVERYONE, even though I have the same morals as most people do, and sometimes even consider myself to be more "moral" than many religious people in some instances. I am against abortion and think divorce should be tougher. Most peo0ple i know are Catholic, pro-abortion and pro-divorce... go figure. Even my father..  he is a devout Catholic. Yet, his wife (my mother) had an abortion while they were married, and yes it was his child and he knew about it, and 20 years later, he divorced her.

People love to quote scripture. But it seems one of the more important ones is left by the wayside. "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". The act of judgement from people of faith, is rarely, if ever, from the hope of saving someone else. It is, as human nature dictates, an act of superiority. Even the act of "saving" someone, by converting them, is frequently applied vainly. (See Pope Ratzenberg (sp?) converting the Mulsim man in public). It really comes down to the old "You are wrong and I am right" argument, which is pride. Religion has the unique ability to satisfy 2 of the 7 deadly sins. and often, we can add a third in wrath, since a good many people, of all religions, get inordinately angry and hateful towards those of other persuasions, or those who do not comply with their moral code (such as homosexuals and genetic engineers).

to these ends, I do not judge any of you based on your faith(s). You have every right to pursue your faith in the manner you see fit. But do not judge me, or others, who do not share those beliefs. Judge yourself, first, and last, and only. You will not have to answer to your God based on my faith, only your own. we, as human beings, should only sit in judgement of each other based on human law, and only when appointed to do so by our duly elected government. (IE: jury duty) And even then, our judgement should be tempered by the laws we have enacted to protect each other, from each other...

oh crud, I started rambling...  i better cut this off or I will wind up writing a book. Maybe two. Seriously, I can go for days. Rats, I am doing it again....

Ok, to be fair, I didnt read this thread in it's entirety, I always get lost as soon as someone mentions religion and logic in the same sentence. Logic and religion really have nothing to do with each other, since using your full logical capacities, you cannot logically infer the existence of something noone has ever seen and there is no evidence of anyone ever seen. Belief, however, is another matter. Faith is something which defies logic. You have to have faith that what you believe actually exists. you simply cannot apply faith and logic to teh same argument.

It is my belief, though, that each person should read the scripture, doctrines and religious texts of each religion before coming to a conclusion that another religion is wrong. If indeed there is a "God" or gods, you could ALL be right, and/or wrong, at the same time. You are all certainly entitled to believe whatever you wish, but do not disparge something you know little or nothing about. Each of you, even those of the same religion, have different beliefs, but I do not believe that blindly following your diocese, chapter, or preacher/preist/imam/rabbi is one of them. Those people exist, but are not as common as many think.

For full disclosure: I am an athiest/agnostic/non-believer, whatever you want to call me. I do not believe in the existence of a higher power or beings greater than those which can be physically observed. And believe it or not, I am a Republican - and I have read the religious texts of nearly every major religion, including all versions and instances of the Judaic/Christian bible(s) and the Koran. I have also studied religon extensively and in partciular, the conclaves which determined what to preach in Christianity ad the "transcription" of the Koran and Bible.

I have read many long series (Chalker, Hubbard etc) and the WoT is the only one that I absolutely enjoyed every single book. With Hubbard, for example, I quit after book 5. It wasnt fun to read, it was draining. With Chalker, I only read the last book because I needed to find out what happened. The first 3 books were really good, and thne, just ok after that. But WoT had me salivating for more at the end of each book. And I was also one of the ones waiting until the next book was published from about book 5 or so.

Lord of the Rings used an unstained cast and the imagery and personailties they portrayed were strong and pure - and I think the same thing could come along here. 

Lord of the Rings had a quite veteran cast, actually. Liv Tyler, Ian McClellan, Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchart, Sean Astin, john Rhys-Davies, Hugo Weaving, Sean Bean...   not exactly a cast of unknowns, and thats just from the 1st movie.