From owner-freebsd-chat  Mon Sep  1 23:30:11 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA18998
          for chat-outgoing; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 23:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.96.120])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA18993
          for <chat@freebsd.org>; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 23:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (lot.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [203.20.121.21]) by genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA28863 for <chat@freebsd.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:59:59 +0930 (CST)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [127.0.0.1])
	by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA01409;
	Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:51:11 +0930 (CST)
Message-Id: <199709020621.PAA01409@word.smith.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: aw1@stade.co.uk
cc: mike@smith.net.au, chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: What's the daemon chasing? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Sep 1997 03:38:47 +0100."
             <199709020238.DAA25515@titus.stade.co.uk> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 15:51:10 +0930
From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> In article <199709020125.KAA00498@word.smith.net.au> you write:
> 
> <Sagan's Contact>
> 
> >original, or have it on their shelf?  There was a lot less religious 
> >bunkum, and (IIRC) *three* capsule travellers, not one.
> 
> My daughter hijacked my copy. From memory, there was more than one
> traveller (three sounds right), and the philosophy formed an
> important part of the ending.  I've not seen the film, but perhaps
> the director was trying for something more than just a hi-tech
> adventure story?

I'm certain they were, and that's not what I was griping about.  The 
philosophical issues involved in such a scenario are very complex, and 
in quite a few places they managed to hint at this, but when it came 
right down to the crunch, the question again and again was "do you 
believe in the White American Christian God"?, and to me that was more 
than slightly insulting.

Then we can contemplate the scene at the end after she's in the car and 
he's the one that has to say "yes" in order to validate her belief; 
what's wrong with her own faith?  She needs a "white male of the cloth" 
to believe in her before she can take/be taken seriously? Please.

I've gotten in trouble before getting cross about the insane desire 
that people have to seek "easier" versions of their questions, and 
"easy" answers to them; I can smell it happening again 8)

mike