We're gonna get nuked

Well, civilization had a good run.

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida

One way to go out while awaiting Armageddon might be to watch a heart-warming*, family-oriented film.

This one was produced for ABC and aired--famously commercial-free--on Sunday night, November 20, 1983. Though it tracks several fictive families and features numerous romantic relationships, it sure ain't the sort of made-for-TV movie they run on The Hallmark Channel.

STYBLE/Florida
________________________________________________
* Warming of hearts--and everything else, that is.

====================https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyy9n8r16hs
====================

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 2:41:33 PM UTC-8, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
> One way to go out while awaiting Armageddon might be to watch a heart-warming*, family-oriented film.
>
> This one was produced for ABC and aired--famously commercial-free--on Sunday night, November 20, 1983. Though it tracks several fictive families and features numerous romantic relationships, it sure ain't the sort of made-for-TV movie they run on The Hallmark Channel.
>
> STYBLE/Florida
> ________________________________________________
> * Warming of hearts--and everything else, that is.
>
>
> =====================
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyy9n8r16hs
> ====================
I was 10 years when I saw it. It completely altered my mindset especially when I realized it was absolutely possible and this was the world I actually lived in.

In article <539e50d8-d147-4fb7-ada8-68c39117e8bfn@googlegroups.com>,
<"radioacti...@gmail.com"> wrote:

> One way to go out while awaiting Armageddon might be to watch a
> heart-warming*, family-oriented film.
>
> This one was produced for ABC and aired--famously commercial-free--on Sunday
> night, November 20, 1983. Though it tracks several fictive families and
> features numerous romantic relationships, it sure ain't the sort of
> made-for-TV movie they run on The Hallmark Channel.
>
> STYBLE/Florida
> ________________________________________________
> * Warming of hearts--and everything else, that is.
>
>
> =====================
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyy9n8r16hs
> =====================

IIRC only the second half of the film's original run was
commercial-free, and that was mostly because ABC couldn't sell the time
to anyone.

I saw it when it first ran, and I thought it was an overhyped pile of
crap, but of course YMMV.

On 3/5/2022 5:28 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <539e50d8-d147-4fb7-ada8-68c39117e8bfn@googlegroups.com>,
> <"radioacti...@gmail.com"> wrote:
>
>> One way to go out while awaiting Armageddon might be to watch a
>> heart-warming*, family-oriented film.
>>
>> This one was produced for ABC and aired--famously commercial-free--on Sunday
>> night, November 20, 1983. Though it tracks several fictive families and
>> features numerous romantic relationships, it sure ain't the sort of
>> made-for-TV movie they run on The Hallmark Channel.
>>
>> STYBLE/Florida
>> ________________________________________________
>> * Warming of hearts--and everything else, that is.
>>
>>
>> =====================
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyy9n8r16hs
>> =====================
>
>
> IIRC only the second half of the film's original run was
> commercial-free, and that was mostly because ABC couldn't sell the time
> to anyone.
>
> I saw it when it first ran, and I thought it was an overhyped pile of
> crap, but of course YMMV.
>

I have it on DVD as it happens.

Topic Cop <Beaver_Fever@live.com> wrote:
> We're gonna get nuked

I'm not feeling that it's yet time for

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

In article <t01eu9$kh0$1@dont-email.me>, Aje RavenStar
<whinebucket@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 3/5/2022 5:28 PM, A Friend wrote:
> > In article <539e50d8-d147-4fb7-ada8-68c39117e8bfn@googlegroups.com>,
> > <"radioacti...@gmail.com"> wrote:
> >
> >> One way to go out while awaiting Armageddon might be to watch a
> >> heart-warming*, family-oriented film.
> >>
> >> This one was produced for ABC and aired--famously commercial-free--on
> >> Sunday
> >> night, November 20, 1983. Though it tracks several fictive families and
> >> features numerous romantic relationships, it sure ain't the sort of
> >> made-for-TV movie they run on The Hallmark Channel.
> >>
> >> STYBLE/Florida
> >> ________________________________________________
> >> * Warming of hearts--and everything else, that is.
> >>
> >>
> >> =====================
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyy9n8r16hs
> >> =====================
> >
> >
> > IIRC only the second half of the film's original run was
> > commercial-free, and that was mostly because ABC couldn't sell the time
> > to anyone.
> >
> > I saw it when it first ran, and I thought it was an overhyped pile of
> > crap, but of course YMMV.
> >
>
> I have it on DVD as it happens.

I have a copy, too. It's still not good work. I remember Mr. Rogers
telling people not to let their kids watch it alone, and other assorted
nonsense.

There was one contrivance that pissed me off outright. The farmer
locks the family dog out of the shelter in their basement because there
might not be enough food to go around. They find their dead dog in the
kitchen when they emerge. No word on whether there'd been enough food
after all, but no one seemed to be starving or even hungry. This is
the same farmer who calls out to his kid during the attack, causing the
kid to turn around and get a nuclear blast right in the eyes, causing
apparently permanent blindness.

Damn, that movie was stupid. I hated it.

On 3/5/2022 1:55 PM, Topic Cop wrote:
> We're gonna get nuked
>

Point of order. Once the rockets start falling, is it acceptable for
those of us in the pool to assume each of us gains a score of 40 out of 40?

Blinken says NATO countries have "the green light" to send fighter jets
to Ukraine

Washington — Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Sunday that NATO
members have the go-ahead to send fighter jets to Ukraine as the U.S.
and allies continue their efforts to help Ukraine defend itself against
Russia's invasion.

"That gets a green-light," Blinken said in an interview with "Face the
Nation" when asked whether the Polish government, a member of NATO,
could send fighter planes to Ukraine. "In fact, we're talking with our
Polish friends right now about what we might be able to do to backfill
their needs if in fact they choose to provide these fighter jets to the
Ukrainians. What can we do? How can we help to make sure that they get
something to backfill the planes that they are handing over to the
Ukrainians?"

Transcript: Secretary of State Antony Blinken on "Face the Nation"
A White House spokesperson told CBS News the Biden administration is
evaluating the capabilities it could provide to provide jets to Poland
if it decided to transfer planes to Ukraine but noted there are several
questions that arise from a decision to do so, including how the jets
could be transferred from Poland to Ukraine.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-russia-war-fighter-jets-antony-blinken-face-the-nation/

In <619c37be-807b-41df-aead-d786e7e433c6n@googlegroups.com> "radioacti...@gmail.com" <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> writes:

>Meanwhile, some blonde, a fluent-in--English member of the Ukrainian parliament, said something to this effect this morning on one of the nets' big Sunday interview shows:

>[paraphrasing of her English]

>"A lot of people in the West are concerned about starting World War III.
>Well, I have news for you--it's already started."

Eyup.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

In the previous article, A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
> I saw it when it first ran, and I thought it was an overhyped pile
> of crap, but of course YMMV.

Big ABC-TV "events" were uniformly overhyped piles of crap. Does
anyone else remember "Amerika"?

Both were great premises, well funded, with great potential. Both
were undermined by a combination of cowardice and lack of imagination.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, in addition to that Ukrainian parliament lady yesterday, we've also now got Wall Street guru Bill Ackman saying that we're ALREADY in World War III. You might say, big deal, just more speculation--but this guy was WAY AHEAD of the Kung Flu curve, downright prescient in fact!

And remember, during the Summer of 1914, it was MANY WEEKS before the shooting began in earnest (following Gavrilo Princip's two initial gunshots that last Sunday afternoon in June). Indeed, events didn't REALLY add up to The Great War (much less the War to End All Wars!) until late Autumn 1914.

Of course, things could simmer down over the next few weeks (and G-d knows I hope they do), but at this point a LOT--though no snow-like radioactive fallout yet--is still up in the air, no?

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
_______________________
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/07/russia-ukraine-bill-ackman-says-world-war-iii-likely-already-started.html

ADDENDUM re the question of whether WWIII is already under way:

Y'all herein who are historically hip might ALSO remember that during the first part of 1940, Europe was engaged in what many American journalists started deriding as "The Phony War" after the fall of Poland to The Wehrmacht's blitzkrieg.

That kinda-sorta interregnum--more a lull, really--lasted some 30 weeks before Hitler's assault on The U.K. began and France began to fall. And to my knowledge NOBODY was yet by that point using the phrase World War II (and thusly rebranding The Great War as World War I).

SO: I think it's flatly impossible to declare here in early March 2022 that what will ultimately (and presumably) be regarded as WWIII has already begun.

STYBLE/Florida

In article <1f38b561-3680-4a67-9af2-ba1fea86b000n@googlegroups.com>,
<"radioacti...@gmail.com"> wrote:

> That kinda-sorta interregnum--more a lull, really--lasted some 30 weeks
> before Hitler's assault on The U.K. began and France began to fall. And to
> my knowledge NOBODY was yet by that point using the phrase World War II (and
> thusly rebranding The Great War as World War I).

Time magazine called it World War II in its first story about the
German invasion of Poland in 1939. Time has been bragging about that
ever since.

Nice catch, there, Sir/Madam Friend !; I was totally unaware of Time's early call.

But I repeat: WWI is nowadays universally traced to Sunday, June 28, 1914, whereas The Great War didn't really get under way until August (hence the famous title "The Guns of August"), whereas WWII got rolling at before dawn on Friday, September 1, 1939, even though that sequel arguably wasn't truly global until early December 1941.

STYBLE/Florida

In article <57e9295b-c28f-4999-8a7d-de6927d7b26bn@googlegroups.com>,
<"radioacti...@gmail.com"> wrote:

> Nice catch, there, Sir/Madam Friend !; I was totally unaware of Time's early
> call.
>
> But I repeat: WWI is nowadays universally traced to Sunday, June 28, 1914,
> whereas The Great War didn't really get under way until August (hence the
> famous title "The Guns of August"), whereas WWII got rolling at before dawn
> on Friday, September 1, 1939, even though that sequel arguably wasn't truly
> global until early December 1941.
>
> STYBLE/Florida

The Sep 1 1939 date is correct for Europe, of course, but China and
Japan had been at war since at least 1937. Some even date the start of
the war to Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931.

Yes, and some historians even toss Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in there too. But I'm sticking with Friday, September 1, 1939...if only because it so neatly bookends with the ceremony on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on Sunday, September 2, 1945.

MEANWHILE:

How about Fort Sumpter's bombardment on Friday, April 12, 1861*? That's nowadays widely if not universally considered the beginning of The Civil War--even though no one was killed, and the first real battle wasn't until the Rebs' rout of The Union at Bull Run on Sunday, July 21st.

STYBLE/Florida
________________________________
* Quite interestingly--at least to calendrical buffs like me--precisely a century to the day of Wednesday, April 12, 1961, when Yuri Gagarin's sole orbit thrust him into the history books.

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, and some historians even toss Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in there too. But I'm sticking with Friday, September 1, 1939...if only because it so neatly bookends with the ceremony on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on Sunday, September 2, 1945.
>
> MEANWHILE:
>
> How about Fort Sumpter's bombardment on Friday, April 12, 1861*? That's nowadays widely if not universally considered the beginning of The Civil War--even though no one was killed, and the first real battle wasn't until the Rebs' rout of The Union at Bull Run on Sunday, July 21st.
>
> STYBLE/Florida
> ________________________________
> * Quite interestingly--at least to calendrical buffs like me--precisely a
> century to the day of Wednesday, April 12, 1961, when Yuri Gagarin's sole
> orbit thrust him into the history books.

Let us not forget the Shuttle Columbia launch on April 12,1981.

But if things do escalate,people in the future may be pointing
to the invasion of Ukraine and saying "that was when World War III
started,but they didn't realize it yet."
(And perhaps quoting you as a case in point).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:09:56 PM UTC-5, A Friend wrote:

> Time magazine called it World War II in its first story about the
> German invasion of Poland in 1939. Time has been bragging about that
> ever since.

I'm curious - can you name the last two times that Time bragged about that?

In article <bc74ea77-98fa-450c-aba5-8a3aa261d0d8n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:09:56 PM UTC-5, A Friend wrote:
>
> > Time magazine called it World War II in its first story about the
> > German invasion of Poland in 1939. Time has been bragging about that
> > ever since.
>
>
> I'm curious - can you name the last two times that Time bragged about that?

Yes.

On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 8:04:26 AM UTC-5, A Friend wrote:
>
> Lenona wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:09:56 PM UTC-5, A Friend wrote:
> >
> > > Time magazine called it World War II in its first story about the
> > > German invasion of Poland in 1939. Time has been bragging about that
> > > ever since.
> >
> >
> > I'm curious - can you name the last two times that Time bragged about that?
> Yes.

So when exactly were they, please?

Okay, so the President weighs in on the WWIII question--rather ambiguously (or senility-driven), I would argue.

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
____________________________________________
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/03/11/president_biden_dont_kid_yourself_thats_called_world_war_three.html

In article <199cf7a1-16a3-4eb6-81fe-d507c9e22dfcn@googlegroups.com>,
<"radioacti...@gmail.com"> wrote:

> Okay, so the President weighs in on the WWIII question--rather ambiguously
> (or senility-driven), I would argue.
>
> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida

How could you argue that? (Let's leave aside the cheap shot about
senility.) Biden is simply not going to confront the Russians
militarily over Ukraine. I think he's right. Ukraine is "theirs" the
same way Germany is "ours." If you do not agree, then provide a
counter-argument. Pointing a finger at Biden and cackling "Senile!" is
not an argument.

In article <110320221818398871%nope@noway.com>, A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
>In article <199cf7a1-16a3-4eb6-81fe-d507c9e22dfcn@googlegroups.com>,
><"radioacti...@gmail.com"> wrote:
>
>> Okay, so the President weighs in on the WWIII question--rather ambiguously
>> (or senility-driven), I would argue.
>>
>> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
>
>
>How could you argue that? (Let's leave aside the cheap shot about
>senility.) Biden is simply not going to confront the Russians
>militarily over Ukraine. I think he's right. Ukraine is "theirs" the
>same way Germany is "ours." If you do not agree, then provide a
>counter-argument. Pointing a finger at Biden and cackling "Senile!" is
>not an argument.

Haven't you worked it out yet that whacky brian is just another Trumpist
troll (despite all the flowery language, and pretend erudition)?

No sense even bothering trying to "reason" with one of them.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/GodDelusion