|
Post by james on Jan 2, 2007 2:44:40 GMT -4
I've never seen much of anything about this "Barnyard" film. Was this bulls-with-udders thing an honest mistake by the art department or on purpose for some reason?
EDIT: Never mind, found my answer.
"The udders on the "male cows" aren't meant to be gender characteristics: they are just props for generating laughs. Steve Oedekerk, the creator of "Barnyard," has said that he simply finds udders to be funny.
"Do Californians have no concept of biology? Oedekerk has said in published interviews that he is quite aware that bulls don't have udders, but udders are funny and so that's the way he wanted to draw them.""
Udders are funny? Oooook then....
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 2, 2007 7:10:48 GMT -4
Udders are funny? Oooook then.... Call me an easily-amused doofus, but the udder-centric cow fight scene in Kung Pow? Sheer comic genius. ;D
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 2, 2007 19:10:54 GMT -4
Udders are funny? Oooook then.... Call me an easily-amused doofus, but the udder-centric cow fight scene in Kung Pow? Sheer comic genius. ;D Hmmm that's true. Although more funny do to the ridiculousness of the scene than the udder itself, in my opinion. Good movie though. They're making a second one called "Kung Pow 2: Tongue of Fury". Oh... I just noticed that it's Steve Oedekerk that's directs and stars in kung pow. This guy really likes using cows eh?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jan 12, 2007 10:08:03 GMT -4
Let's see some one using a sh*te cover version of a cover version of a cool song is whinging about lack of originality? Can you anti everything folk just once maybe construct an arguement that in some microscopic measurement relates to something concise and relevant? Sorry Dwight, I missed your nasty little post. Originally I was thinking of the 1960's and how the culture of the time was changed with a little bit of a revolution stemming from art mainly. I just wish honestly that we were witnessing something similar now but we ain't, people now are blinkered by the all powerful mainstream media. The name of this thread is appropriate as this is where we are headed IMO, to bomb Iran. Recent events have only increased my suspicions that what we are seeing is not a war against Terror, It's a battle of ideals, the far right west posing as Christians versus the far right East posing as Muslims, both sides with alarming similarities to fascists. www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/world/10cnd-prexy.html?hp&ex=1168491600&en=27c0101b6f21fdb4&ei=5094&partner=homepage
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 12, 2007 10:25:54 GMT -4
people now are blinkered by the all powerful mainstream media.
People are abandoning the mainstream media in droves. News papers and magazines have cut back on size and content due to dwindling circulation and lower add rates. Network TV news programs are continually paring back budgets and putting on warm and fuzzy feature stories because they draw audiences. At the same time the access to a broad variety of news and information sources has never been better and young people are far more likely to get their news from self selected source over the internet than from broadcast sources.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jan 12, 2007 20:37:16 GMT -4
people now are blinkered by the all powerful mainstream media.People are abandoning the mainstream media in droves. News papers and magazines have cut back on size and content due to dwindling circulation and lower add rates. Network TV news programs are continually paring back budgets and putting on warm and fuzzy feature stories because they draw audiences. At the same time the access to a broad variety of news and information sources has never been better and young people are far more likely to get their news from self selected source over the internet than from broadcast sources. Yes! oh but wait, Fox online, CNN online, BBC online. Not only that but most Americans seem to view the Internet through an MSN, Internet light porthole of some kind and would never venture to a conspiracy sight like this. ;D Internet penetration in population is about 70% in the USA, the same as Australia. Two hundred and seven million to fourteen million. Where the heck are they? All on the Fox news sight?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 12, 2007 23:12:42 GMT -4
"Site."
Maybe if people were properly educated, they wouldn't fall for stupid conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jan 13, 2007 0:34:29 GMT -4
"Site." Maybe if people were properly educated, they wouldn't fall for stupid conspiracy theories. That's funny, I need to adjust my sites. Resident spell/grammar checker scores. Do you mean educated or indoctrinated? Not everyone wants to be an academic and a lot of people don't like being told what to think.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 13, 2007 0:56:18 GMT -4
Educated, thank you. As in, "I have the basic reasoning skills to know how foolish the conspiracy ideas are."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 14, 2007 2:30:33 GMT -4
a lot of people don't like being told what to think.
The trouble is that the universe likes to tell us what to think whether we like it or not. For instance it tells us that all things desire to have the least energy they can manage and that it requires work to imput energy into them to increase that energy level. It doesn't matter if we want to believe it or not, or whether it's what we want or not, it's a law of the universe so we have to accept and think it. This is where education comes in. If you don't study these things then you don't know them and thus you come up with ideas that sound great, but that the universe simply doesn't allow to happen.
Now the really great thing about these things is that it doesn't matter who is in the White House, Number 10 Downing Street, or the Beehive, they remain true. A book that was written about Thermodynamics in 1957 is as valid today as it was then, 50 years ago. Newton's laws of motion have remained unchanged for hundreds of years (though they have been expanded with Relativity) and are tested by hundreds of thousands of students worldwide every year. That's the beauty of education of science, you simply can't bull you way through it. If what you claim doesn't match up with the experimental results that are done to test the theory no-one is going to believe it, the two things have to match up.
Now fair enough, history and more art based sujects tend to be subjective and so do often depend on who you talk too to what they feel is the better story, though a good researcher can weed through the memories of those involved and find original sources on which to base things on. The problem there is that many people these days don't bother to do that. They pull up a few webpages and believe they have the full story. As a challenge, if you want to know about Apollo, why not read the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals where all the surface transmissions are transcribed and added to information from the post flight debriefings and extra tellings done in the early 1990's. Surely if there was something fishy about Apollo, that's the place to find it, and reading it would at least give the researcher an indepth knowledge of the programme as a base to defend their claims, but I'd almost stake my entire bank account that not one HB that is here, or has been here has done more than give it a cursory glance once or twice, and certainly haven't read it indepth, that is if they have even been there at all.
This is the thing about Conspriacies. They are believed by those that are firstly ignorant about the real facts and secondly willing to unquestionally accept a source simply because it's not the official one which results in them beleiving things that if it wasn't for their ignorance of the actual fact they simply wouldn't have accepted.
Again, lets take an Apollo example. There was no crater under the lander. Now this is time and time and time again repeated, not because there should have been one, but because some HP saw an ARTIST'S impresion and decided that there should be. The fact that the testing that NASA has already showed quite plainly that the Surveyors all landed without creating a crater, and that 6 even lifted back off without creating one and knew that if there was a crater at all it'd be a small one and that both of the 11 crew commented on the lack of cratering but how the dust had been swept clear to reveal the harder regolith all are ignored by the HP's and so when HB's read their works and don't bother doing real research, they just accept what they read/see in/on Jack White or Bart Sibrel's sites/videos/books
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jan 14, 2007 7:10:12 GMT -4
This is the thing about Conspriacies. They are believed by those that are firstly ignorant about the real facts and secondly willing to unquestionally accept a source simply because it's not the official one which results in them beleiving things that if it wasn't for their ignorance of the actual fact they simply wouldn't have accepted.Imagine if the reverse was true, Imagine believing everything at the first glance because it was official, or from a trusted media source. Take the test. Just watch the vid don't read the comments please. ;D www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaVV-NgnB7c&eurl=
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 14, 2007 9:21:24 GMT -4
Why do you people insist on believing that we only believe things because "official sources" say they're true? Have any of us ever said that's why we believe things? Have people not shown, repeatedly, how much of their own work goes into research around here?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 14, 2007 10:08:39 GMT -4
Imagine if the reverse was true, Imagine believing everything at the first glance because it was official, or from a trusted media source.
That is exactly the opposite of being educated. The mark of good education is the ability to discern between what matches with reality and what is made up. Both reality and fiction are important but the differences between them are crucial. We understand Apollo is real because what we have learned from multiple sources matches with what we know about the world from learning that is entirely unrelated to NASA, such as physics classes in school.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 14, 2007 18:15:32 GMT -4
Imagine if the reverse was true, Imagine believing everything at the first glance because it was official, or from a trusted media source.
Believing anything without checking it out first is silly. That's where having education makes the difference, it gives you the knowledge and skills you need to test out what you are told.
So far I haven't found a CT that doesn't fail that testing, usually at step one, actual knowledge of what the Offical story is rather that what the theorist wishes it was.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jan 19, 2007 2:47:53 GMT -4
That is exactly the opposite of being educated. The mark of good education is the ability to discern between what matches with reality and what is made up. Both reality and fiction are important but the differences between them are crucial. We understand Apollo is real because what we have learned from multiple sources matches with what we know about the world from learning that is entirely unrelated to NASA, such as physics classes in school.
What happens when conspiracy theories are ignored because of conditioning? What if the term conspiracy theory is used as a weapon to control dissent by governments and the media? When events are leading to a conclusion that has been openly pointed out by dissenting people who are subsequently dismissed as conspiracy nuts, who are the conspirators then?
Saddam used his only weapon on mass destruction, trading oil in euros instead of greenbacks from November 2000. Guess which country is planning to open it's own oil exchange trading in euros only of course.
|
|