Sci-Fi et al sue NASA

[trancejeremy]

Point.

Part of my ire is frustration. There's so much classic stuff that they could be showing, and we get "Shark Attack 2". I mean, at least show Jaws! If they have a strategy, and it's working, then I really have no idea how it is.

Well, bear in mind, other channels show Jaws (at one time, one of the classic movie channels showed it about 10 times in a month, and I think TNT shows it from time to time). No one shows things like "Shark Attack 2".

That's actually what irks me about the Sci-Fi channel. There are tons and tons of classic horror and sci-fi movies, but they instead aren't shown, in favor of the latest Antonio Zepata Jr. direct to video classic.

Or why can't they show a new(ish) Kaiju movie once in a while? There were Godzilla movies made in the 80s, 90s, and now, but aren't shown on US TV (Though at one time, one of the classic movie channels had a Godzilla marathon, including some of the 80s ones, which brought the fact they existed to my attention). Plus stuff like Gamera, Mothra, etc.

 

[Null Boundry]

Well, bear in mind, other channels show Jaws (at one time, one of the classic movie channels showed it about 10 times in a month, and I think TNT shows it from time to time). No one shows things like "Shark Attack 2".

Probably with good reason. Showing rubbish because no one else is really isn't a great way to do things.

 

[Umbran]

That's actually what irks me about the Sci-Fi channel. There are tons and tons of classic horror and sci-fi movies, but they instead aren't shown, in favor of the latest Antonio Zepata Jr. direct to video classic.

Yes, well there's two things there. First is the fact that the latest Zepata flick probably goes for a song. If your programming is dirt cheap, you don't need as many viewers to make it popular. If there's enough people who like shlock, showing it can be profitable. You may think it's a bad way to do things, but it does fill a niche.

Second, it is possible that for many of the classics, Scifi can't show them, because someone else has the rights. Frequently, movies and series aren't done on a per-showing basis. The rights to show them are sold in blocks of years. If, for example, TCM has the rights to Jaws, Scifi has to wait until that contract is up, and then bid on the rights. SciFi couldn't show the Buffy series if it wanted to, because FX currently holds the exclusive cable broadcast rights.

Hey, if I thought they were motivated by the cover-up angle, that'd be one thing. What I'm referring to is suing someone just to get some advertising. I don't care if it's the gov't, or a private entity.

Ah, I see. And the fact that someone stands to make a profit out of it means it is impossible that anyone there actually is motivated by the cover-up angle?

You think someone's going to pursue multiple major lawsuits against the federal government pro bono? You think some rich person will come along and toss away millions of dollars in legal fees out of the goodness of his or her heart? If so, I suggest that you yourself stand as proof of alien visitation, 'cause you sure aren't from this planet

If a profit motive invalidates anything good about the case, then pretty much all cases in the US have no moral or ethical value, because the lawyers pursuing them stand to make a profit. This isn't Greyhawk, with Paladins running around doing the LG thing. In this country, Law is big and expensive business. Money will invariable get tangled up in it. Occasionally, we have to look beyond that to see if there's value.

 

[Mercule]

Ah, I see. And the fact that someone stands to make a profit out of it means it is impossible that anyone there actually is motivated by the cover-up angle?

Why don't you try responding to what I'm actually writing than some interpretation that you've cooked up to rant about. I'm the last person that will knock a profit motive. I'll leave it there, just to avoid politics (capitalism vs. socialism, etc.).

There are limits, though. When we've got an already overloaded legal system, using it as a PR tool is definitely unethical. You don't pee in the drinking fountain, and you (hopefully) don't drink from the urinal. If the primary motive behind a lawsuit is PR and not the resolution of the legal matter, then it's the wrong way of doing things.

I shouldn't have to repeat myself, but since you apparently didn't read the post you responded to, I will. If this is motivated by a genuine desire for the truth (whether they want to profit from the truth or not), that's fine. I don't, however, think that it is. I think they want to air another special filled with inconclusive psychobabble that doesn't resolve a bloody thing and the lawsuit is just a way to advertise/hype the show.

As I said, though, the fact that I don't believe ETs have ever visited us, and don't believe the gov't would/could (mostly could) hide the fact if they had, probably raises the bar for what I consider "inconclusive psychobabble".

 

[Desdichado]

This is crazy! CRAAZZEEE!!!

I mean, we've got LightPhoenix here, thinking that his personal tastes are the gauge of what a cable network should be showing, Ranger REG who tells us confidently that there are no UFOs, because we don't meet his definition of an advanced species, so therefore no one would want to visit us, and then Mercule who insists that a lawsuit to force a government agency to obey the law is frivolous, because he has no interest in UFOs.

CRAZZEEE!!! I haven't had my opinion spelled out to me by someone else so much in one thread in a long time!

 

[Mercule]

and then Mercule who insists that a lawsuit to force a government agency to obey the law is frivolous, because he has no interest in UFOs.

Well, when you put it that way....

You've completely missed what I've been saying. It's like I've been saying "I hate sitting in wet paint." and all the responses are hitting me up for being opposed to painting park benches.

My objection has nothing to do with making the NASA obey the law. My problem is that I don't think SFC really gives a rip and are just using it as publicity. And, as I keep saying, that's probably because I don't think there are any hidden documents talking about alien visitors. I find it difficult to empathize with people who do, so I'm admitting my bias.

I think what's throwing people is that my first post on it was filled with deliberate hyperbole. I thought it'd be obvious, since we really couldn't track down all the news articles that mentioned the suit and, even if we could, the cost of that alone (let alone the other) would bankrupt SFC. I have no interest in that happening because then I'd never see the new Battlestar Galactica miniseries.

So, to recap, my point was: Man, it frustrates me when people use the already overloaded legal system for publicity stunts.

If you think they aren't, that's your perogative. I hope you're right. I just happen to think they don't actually care about the legal results as much as the press they're getting from the thing.

Please stop telling me that I don't want to use the courts to uphold the law. I've already stated twice, explicitly, that is not what I said and not what I meant to imply. Beyond this point, I have to assume that anyone who keeps repeating it is deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

 

[Umbran]

I shouldn't have to repeat myself, but since you apparently didn't read the post you responded to, I will. If this is motivated by a genuine desire for the truth (whether they want to profit from the truth or not), that's fine. I don't, however, think that it is.

I read your previous post. I simply made the error of assuming that what you wrote was designed to fully support your position.

That a profit motive is likely to exist, I'll grant you. There's ample evidence for it. However, as yet you've provided no evidence of there being no truth-motive. I assumed you'd not be silly enough to accuse everybody involved without any support other than your personal opinion.

Since you leaned so heavily on the profit motive, I assumed that you were taking the tack that wanting money precluded wanting justice as well. It's a common enough thought, however erroneous. Turns out it was a bad assumption for me to make. My apologies.

However, if you don't have any evidence as to what's going on inside the heads of the people involved, perhaps you shouldn't bash them. Saying, "I think I know what you think, even without any evidence, so you are bad!" isn't exactly a strong position.

 

[Desdichado]

I want to see whatever crashed, even if it was just a huge bag of horse$#!+ lobbed by a bunch of rednecks with a homemade catapult. There are documents about the findings of the investigation, although I'd agree that it's not likely to be something really exotic.

But the moral superiority because of the supposed motives of the Sci-fi channel? It's just a bit weak.

 

[Desdichado]

Please stop telling me that I don't want to use the courts to uphold the law. I've already stated twice, explicitly, that is not what I said and not what I meant to imply. Beyond this point, I have to assume that anyone who keeps repeating it is deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

Actually, that's not what I told you that you were saying. I said you called the lawsuit frivolous, which you did. I said you said you had no interest in UFOs, which you did. I said the lawsuit is to force various government agencies to obey the law, which it is.

What exactly is your contention with anything I said again?

 

[Mercule]

Actually, that's not what I told you that you were saying.

That's how I read this:

Mercule who insists that a lawsuit to force a government agency to obey the law is frivolous

Which is why I quoted it. It doesn't sound like it is you who is saying it, it sounds like it is me who is saying it (since I'm the one "insisting").