Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled
From: Peter Stickney (p-stickney_at_Mineshaft.local)
Date: 02/05/05
- Next message: OM: "Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled"
- Previous message: Henry Spencer: "Re: Discovery of Pluto Reaches 75th Anniversary"
- In reply to: Dale: "Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled"
- Next in thread: Pat Flannery: "Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled"
- Reply: Pat Flannery: "Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled"
- Reply: Dale: "Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:58:17 -0800
In article <k8q9019vr18dpmotr5tgevblks8t0mphkt@4ax.com>,
Dale <drc@oz.net> writes:
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:34:32 -0500, Terrell Miller <millerto@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>Pat Flannery wrote:
>>
>>> I liked Annie Hall, although Star Wars was better as a fun movie.
>>> The one that steamed me (bad pun) was "Titanic"; that movie is a piece
>>> of crap.
>>
>>it helps to watch Titanic if you are one of two totally separate
>>demographics: 1) teenage girls or 2) nautical history buffs.
>>
>>I put up with the former (let's get real, any movie where Kate Winslet
>>takes her britches off cannot in all good conscience be said to be a
>>*bad* movie), and loved it for the latter. *Very* good historical
>>reenactment, fully on the level of Apollo13 or E2M. With the standard
>>caveats about Hollywoodization, need to combine several characters into
>>one, etc.
>
> PBS is currently airing a series hosted by George Kennedy called something
> like "The Complete History of America's Wars (not right, but sorta close). The
> episode I saw tonight went from the Spanish American War through WWI (but
> oddly ended with a mushroom cloud- I'm guessing it was bad sauerkraut).
>
> This is kinda OT, but they cited the sinking of the "Titanic's sister ship, the
> Lusitania" as a reason the US entered the war. Does anybody with any
> knowledge look over the stuff that airs on PBS anymore, or are they just
> satisfied to get anything on past the Flat-Earthers? Not to be nit-picky,
> but sheeesh...
As everybody else has pointed out, the gaffe regarding the familial
lines of the ships is glaring.
The analysis that the sinking of the Lusitania was a Proximate Cause
of the U.S. entering WW I is, shall we say, tenuous at best.
Lusitania was sunk 2 years before the U.S. Declaration of War against
Germany. In the meantime, the U.S. trades with both sides - consider,
if you will, the voyages of the Submarine Freighter Deutschland, which
made 2 trips (One of them a round trip) to the U.S. in 1916.
The immediate casues of the U.S. Declaration of War were the
resumption (several times) of unrestricted submarine commerce raiding
by hte Germans, and Germany's attempts to keep the U.S. out of the war
by getting whatever of our neighbors would listen to attack us.
(We kinda take that stuff personally).
-- Pete Stickney p-stickney@nospam.adelphia.net Without data, all you have are opinions
- Next message: OM: "Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled"
- Previous message: Henry Spencer: "Re: Discovery of Pluto Reaches 75th Anniversary"
- In reply to: Dale: "Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled"
- Next in thread: Pat Flannery: "Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled"
- Reply: Pat Flannery: "Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled"
- Reply: Dale: "Re: FWIW: ST Enterprise Cancelled"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|