[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Armageddon versus scientific accuracy
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Armageddon versus scientific accuracy
- From: FERNLEA4@aol.com
- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:30:28 EDT
- Old-X-Envelope-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-From: email@example.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"gNjN7.A.yoB._ehp1"@mu.pair.com>
- Resent-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
In a message dated 10/07/98 01:40:49 BST, you write:
<< Regarding the 2 recent doomsday movies, they weren't documentaries people.
I did not see "Deep Impact" but want to see "Armageddon"....purely for it's
entertainment value. Looks like a fun few hours! >>
My thoughts exactly.
Surely we don't take ourselves so seriously that we can't sit and enjoy a
movie just because it's full of scientific impossibilities. If it's a bad
movie, then that's different.
Am I the only one brave enough to admit that I occasionally watch Star Trek?
Phasers on stun, tri-quarters and warp factor 10 ...wonderful stuff, even at
my 37 years.
"Kirk to Enterprise.....very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes!"
List Archives are located at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html
For other help, FAQ's and subscription info and other resources,