blue

Go to the source if possible. Otherwise you're right: don't go to print. With some arcane topics, it's problematic to efficiently find primary material. Wiki sometimes facilitates that by linking to respectable publications or organizations which themselves cite books, databases or contacts for experts in that field. The strength of Wiki is quantity not quality. It's not peer-reviewed like Britannica, but it's a helluva lot broader (at least on pop culture and related topics). Think of Wiki as a tool not a source--as a phone book for information.

That's the point: Wiki is sometimes better at winnowing core source material than, say, Google. But at this point in its evolution nobody should cite Wiki itself as a source in academic or published works.

I share your concerns, but I wouldn

In early May Jackson's personal assistant reportedly told the Wellington Post that Jackson was not directing the project, but they didn't deny other involvement. According to recent reports, Jackson is co-producing but not directing. Or perhaps it's all a pack of celluloid lies.

That

Absolutely. What's more, I'd do it as often as possible, exponentially teleporting copies of myself into the brainpans of celebrities, mystics and four-legged strangers. Decades later, after communing with all living creatures, I'd complete my ascension by returning all copies to the portal of self-contemplation. malkovich malkovich?? malkovich malkovich malkovich, malkovich malkovich, malkovich malkovichmalkovich!!!!!!

Yes, as usual, you make a valid point. To paraphrase Steve Martin, sometimes I have a way with words, and sometimes I not have way.

flawed, perhaps, but these are good films: "Why We Fight" (2006 ed) "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada" "Little Miss Sunshine" brilliant: "Fight Club" well, the dog was good: "Lassie" First time I've seen "Fight Club." How the hell did I miss it?

An amusing assertation since they changed the ending of the movie version of V for Vendetta rather drastically from the ending of the comic book... " <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's because it wants to be 1984 -- only with ninjas, Portman and a tidy, comic book ending. Plus it's got Winston Smith starring as Big Brother. Gotta admire that clever bit of casting. I enjoyed "V." It ain't Orwell (or Radford or even Gilliam) but it's passably fun.

Ah. So Hilary's suggestion that they're in deep sh*t is a metafictional assessment. I didn't realize it was a film about mining crap; I thought it was just a crappy film. Recent viewing:

Your standards are too high. You've been spoiled by classics like The Core. Now that's fine writing. The last line in Kong, btw, is verbatim from the 1933 script. Not that this excuses Jack Black's cheesy delivery...

Lord of War Cons: predictable; formulaic; satirically flat; unconvincing character development Pros: Eamonn Walker; Ian Holm; opening title sequence; narrative consistency; Nic Cage's fully matured hair transplant; kickass soundtrack; morally instructive; statistically persuasive; and, most of all, Larry Waggoner

Gftd1: "King Kong . . . Waaaaaaaay to long." Chupacabra: "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long" Kelverin: "way too long" Gives me the chuckles when gamers complain about sitting still through tedious scenes. As if they lack practice. LadyCrimson: "30 minutes too long" I played the "Dungeon Siege" demo for 31 minutes. That's half an hour too long.

Fourth? Are you nuts? I should've put Stoppard on one of my lists. It's the first movie I remember after all the ones I've forgotten.

Top Ten Chinatown Jaws Ran King Kong (1933) The Life of Brian One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest The Graduate Solaris (1972) Midnight Cowboy Citizen Kane Runners Up Ikiru The Iron Giant The Killing Fields The Elephant Man Frankenstein (1931) The Day The Earth Stood Still Dr. Strangelove Taxi Driver The 400 Blows On The Waterfront Judge's Choice Pelle The Conquerer The Secret of Roan Inish Jean de Florette / Manon of the Spring Raise The Red Lantern Once Upon a Time in America (director's cut) Treasure of the Sierra Madre The Conversation Das Boot The Godfather(s) A Streetcar Named Desire Sentimental Favorites Edward Scissorhands The Hairdresser's Husband Delicatessen Babe Whale Rider Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? Big Fish The Station Agent The Heart is a Lonely Hunter Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Documentaries not included.

Ironically, blue

You're right: it's problematic. But doesn't this sort of relate to the historical objectives of the OED? From the introduction: Of course, there's no completely reliable measure or "Eureka!" moment for redefining proper use. But right or wrong language evolves--sometimes quickly--and I imagine that in days of yore linguistic conservatives bemoaned many of today

more to disirregard: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition 1989 irregardless, a. and adv. Chiefly N. Amer. In non-standard or humorous use: regardless. 1912 in WENTWORTH Amer. Dial. Dict. 1923 Lit. Digest 17 Feb. 76 Is there such a word as irregardless in the English language? 1934 in WEBSTER (labelled Erron. or Humorous, U.S.). 1938 I. KUHN Assigned to Adventure xxx. 310, I made a grand entrance and suffered immediate and complete obliteration, except on the pay-roll, which functioned automatically to present me with a three-figure cheque every week,

Fwiw: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series 1993 irony, n. Add: [2.] spec. in Theatr. (freq. as dramatic or tragic irony), the incongruity created when the (tragic) significance of a character's speech or actions is revealed to the audience but unknown to the character concerned; the literary device so used, orig. in Greek tragedy; also transf. (Later examples.) 1907 W. RALEIGH Shakespeare 229/2 (Index), Irony, dramatic. 1942 PARTRIDGE Usage & Abusage 167/2 Dramatic irony is that which consists in a situation not in words;..when the audience..perceives a crux..that the characters concerned do not. 1957 Encycl. Brit. XII. 683/2 In tragedy, what is called

Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. Btw, you've probably seen this, but apparently there's a short film in postproduction: http://www.haberfilm.org. I won't be surprised to see a major studio biopic in the next decade. Good luck. Celluloid villain: the shark from "Jaws." My older brother made me watch a tape of it the night before we went deep-sea fishing. Add him to my list of villains.

You've mentioned Haber before, and it's sparked my interest. Pardon me if I'm too bold, but did you ever finish your Haber biography? Or did you abandon the project in the wake of the Daniel Charles publication? My villain? Father.

If you haven't seen it, check out Election. Reese plays a neurotic overachiever. Good film, great character.

Nice commentary, Enoch. This is especially pithy: As for the poll: I wear my bias in my nick. But I love both. My favorite albums include Muddy Waters

Food fit for a king? I hope you avoided stale breads, unspiced beans and mystery porridges. Thanks for sharing. Congratulations.