CNBC: Colts’ player says Ben Bernanke “Looks Like a Crook”
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
* but calling a game where the use of the foot v ball is an exception rather than a rule is a bit silly, especially when there is already a game of the same name that does use the foot! is this a example of the qualty of thinking of the US people?
I have a theory... I think it's called "football" because the thing they carry around looks more like a foot than a ball... It even has shoelaces! Honestly though, if "football" wants to become a REAL sport, they should invest a little money into buying a ball that's actually round.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
* but calling a game where the use of the foot v ball is an exception rather than a rule is a bit silly, especially when there is already a game of the same name that does use the foot! is this a example of the qualty of thinking of the US people?
I have a theory... I think it's called "football" because the thing they carry around looks more like a foot than a ball... It even has shoelaces! Honestly though, if "football" wants to become a REAL sport, they should invest a little money into buying a ball that's actually round.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
If your foot looks like that I would recommend a visit to the chiropodist either that or stop buying fashion shoes. the ball shape I have no problem with, its the idea thats it football. Also there is already a game with that shaped ball that does the same role as "US Football he he he" its called Rugby, only thing is that dont have all the amour plate and commity meetings (iam still waiting for the first match that has a powerpoint presentation - it cant be far off)
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
-
LOL (My turn for a laugh) I hope you understand the power of common sense. After the many posts on here about the case against the Federal Reserve, I think you should know my position and my couple years of research. But your comment serves as conclusive evidence that you haven't seen my debates with Ian. You may want to go search for that. I'm not about to just answer this with one paragraph. (BTW... just because ONE university does a study doesn't make it conclusive that the Fed doesn't do shady deals. Not saying that it's crime per-se, but I'd say that any deals behind closed doors with "government entities" should be considered a problem.)
Alex hogarth wrote:
but calling a game where the use of the foot v ball is an exception rather than a rule is a bit silly, especially when there is already a game of the same name that does use the foot! is this a example of the qualty of thinking of the US people?
I have NO idea what you're getting at here. All I was saying is that anyone with half a mind to think for themselves can see that this Bernanke guy is a clown, at the very least. Yes, don't judge a book by its cover, true. So go ahead and do some research on your own. That's what I've done, and came to the same conclusion as those guys that play a game with their feet.
No I have seen the discussions, but I was refering to the fact that you seem to think a sportman and a contact sportsman at that is a valid contributor to said discussion. If you used a nobel prize winning ecomanist I would have said OK fine, but a sportsman? get real. you seem to want a life based on something 150 years ago that didnt work, a policy that allowed buiness to control money far more than it can today, a system that not only allowed abuse but actively incorages it. As this is your system and your oppinion then thats ok by me, but to use such a referece in its defence comes across as petty and tends to show a weakness of argument. as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence - as what he has done is not ilegal as far as I know, and even if not he is not making two bit programms that sounds like rants of a disgruntaled ex employee
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
-
I think it's awesome that football players can understand what a crook looks like, while the people that know everything on this site just rail on you about it. That's what media does. They trample on your instincts and brainwash you until the day you die. Good find, CSS.
josda1000 wrote:
I think it's awesome that football players can understand what a crook looks like
You know, I didn't think much of this until reading this. Looking at the criminal records of some of the players perhaps they would be good at picking out criminals. But odds are this just ties back to the all but instinctive distrust of bankers that has been part of many parts of America pretty much the entire time it has existed. Which is funny, because it doesn't stop them from using them, and certainly doesn't stop them from electing idiots who give the bankers more ability to screw people.
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
* but calling a game where the use of the foot v ball is an exception rather than a rule is a bit silly, especially when there is already a game of the same name that does use the foot! is this a example of the qualty of thinking of the US people?
I have a theory... I think it's called "football" because the thing they carry around looks more like a foot than a ball... It even has shoelaces! Honestly though, if "football" wants to become a REAL sport, they should invest a little money into buying a ball that's actually round.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
The actual reason they call it football is much simpler. Back in the olden days there were two kinds of sports. What the aristocracy did, usually on their horses because they liked looking down at the peasants, and what the peasants played. Aristocracy played polo and other such games. Peasants played games on foot. Any game where they used a ball while running around on foot was called football. American football, football(soccer) and rugby all have a ie to these peasant games and have the right to be called football. Now cricket, well, that has no bearing whatsoever to an insect.
-
The actual reason they call it football is much simpler. Back in the olden days there were two kinds of sports. What the aristocracy did, usually on their horses because they liked looking down at the peasants, and what the peasants played. Aristocracy played polo and other such games. Peasants played games on foot. Any game where they used a ball while running around on foot was called football. American football, football(soccer) and rugby all have a ie to these peasant games and have the right to be called football. Now cricket, well, that has no bearing whatsoever to an insect.
Wow... Ya know, that actually makes sense... Damnit, rag... You're ruining my joke with logic! :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
The actual reason they call it football is much simpler. Back in the olden days there were two kinds of sports. What the aristocracy did, usually on their horses because they liked looking down at the peasants, and what the peasants played. Aristocracy played polo and other such games. Peasants played games on foot. Any game where they used a ball while running around on foot was called football. American football, football(soccer) and rugby all have a ie to these peasant games and have the right to be called football. Now cricket, well, that has no bearing whatsoever to an insect.
Rugby and football(soccer to you) started in the playing fields of the Rugby school - not the place you would find an average peasent, in fact rugby is still known as a game for thugs played by gentlemen ps i will agree that horse racing was the preserve of the rich. polo on the otherhand was a variation of a game played by the common mongol (only swopping a ball for someones head)
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
-
Wow... Ya know, that actually makes sense... Damnit, rag... You're ruining my joke with logic! :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
sorry. I had a minor in history and focused on medieval and ancient warfare and culture. Interesting stuff. We went over kids games and he explain how football just means and game where the people ran around. They were all considered "uncouth" by the aristocracy and so the closest thing you see to a them playing like that is golf. And they used horses to get around sometimes. I can go on about the stuff for hours..
-
sorry. I had a minor in history and focused on medieval and ancient warfare and culture. Interesting stuff. We went over kids games and he explain how football just means and game where the people ran around. They were all considered "uncouth" by the aristocracy and so the closest thing you see to a them playing like that is golf. And they used horses to get around sometimes. I can go on about the stuff for hours..
Not sure I can agree here either (suprise suprise :-O ) but wasnt golf invested by the lower class of Scot? wacking a ball along the beach with a stick? most upperclass of that era were pretty uncouth, most got there by killing and then nicking the dead guys stuff. ps who said this was the source of the games?
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
-
sorry. I had a minor in history and focused on medieval and ancient warfare and culture. Interesting stuff. We went over kids games and he explain how football just means and game where the people ran around. They were all considered "uncouth" by the aristocracy and so the closest thing you see to a them playing like that is golf. And they used horses to get around sometimes. I can go on about the stuff for hours..
I subscribe to the George Carlin school of sports analysis... For example... http://home.earthlink.net/~sscutchen/baseball/Quotes/baseball_vs_football.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
No I have seen the discussions, but I was refering to the fact that you seem to think a sportman and a contact sportsman at that is a valid contributor to said discussion. If you used a nobel prize winning ecomanist I would have said OK fine, but a sportsman? get real. you seem to want a life based on something 150 years ago that didnt work, a policy that allowed buiness to control money far more than it can today, a system that not only allowed abuse but actively incorages it. As this is your system and your oppinion then thats ok by me, but to use such a referece in its defence comes across as petty and tends to show a weakness of argument. as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence - as what he has done is not ilegal as far as I know, and even if not he is not making two bit programms that sounds like rants of a disgruntaled ex employee
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
I hope you realize what you've just said here. You're basically saying that he's the smartest man in the world; which only furthers my conclusion.
Alex hogarth wrote:
as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence
Since he's the head of the most secretive bank in the world, the financial organizer of the world, the head of the only bank to not have full audits (Ian, notice the term FULL audits), he is without a doubt the most successful man in the world, IMO. So I'd agree with you here. However, you're giving blind assumption as well, saying he's more intelligent than anyone. Just by saying that he's the head of that bank does not mean he's more intelligent than I am. So therefore, by saying this very statement, I'd have to say you're not as smart as you think you are. I might as well say that I'm smarter than you are. Nevermind the fact that you can't spell Bernanke, and can't capitalize the first word of a paragraph.
Alex hogarth wrote:
what he has done is not ilegal as far as I know, and even if not he is not making two bit programms that sounds like rants of a disgruntaled ex employee
If this is supposed to be a bash against me, it's really not working. A) you can't spell, B), I work for a government contractor. Thanks, try again.
Alex hogarth wrote:
I was refering to the fact that you seem to think a sportman and a contact sportsman at that is a valid contributor to said discussion.
All contributions, from anyone, are valid. Remember, this is a republic (even better than a democracy, as most people claim we have!) Everyone has a right to speak, whether you like it or not. All opinions count. And as I said, even though they didn't know who Bernanke was, they were just pointing out that he looked like a crook. They didn't say that he was. But if they knew what he did, I'm sure they would be able to see and figure out that he's a schemer. The Fed has been holding back information that the public deserves to know, that's all it's about. But I bet that if we did know, then they would become "valid contributor[s] to said discussion."
Alex hogarth wrote:
If you used a nobel prize winning ecomanist I would have said OK fine, but a sportsman? get real.
It's "Nobel Prize".
-
josda1000 wrote:
I think it's awesome that football players can understand what a crook looks like
You know, I didn't think much of this until reading this. Looking at the criminal records of some of the players perhaps they would be good at picking out criminals. But odds are this just ties back to the all but instinctive distrust of bankers that has been part of many parts of America pretty much the entire time it has existed. Which is funny, because it doesn't stop them from using them, and certainly doesn't stop them from electing idiots who give the bankers more ability to screw people.
-
Rugby and football(soccer to you) started in the playing fields of the Rugby school - not the place you would find an average peasent, in fact rugby is still known as a game for thugs played by gentlemen ps i will agree that horse racing was the preserve of the rich. polo on the otherhand was a variation of a game played by the common mongol (only swopping a ball for someones head)
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
They started as organized games at those places. The roots of those games were much older. I suppose my history prof could be wrong, he was only one of the leading authorities on the medieval period and could read and speak 4 different ancient languages and had studied the information in the native language. Polo was started by mongols, but it was still imported and used by the rich. Just because someone else used it first doesn't mean that other people wouldn't adapt it and enjoy it. rugby is kinda a weird duck, it got popular in the aristocracy. Probably because it is as violent as it is and every young male with too much testosterone likes indicating how virile they are to the young women watching the game.
-
I hope you realize what you've just said here. You're basically saying that he's the smartest man in the world; which only furthers my conclusion.
Alex hogarth wrote:
as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence
Since he's the head of the most secretive bank in the world, the financial organizer of the world, the head of the only bank to not have full audits (Ian, notice the term FULL audits), he is without a doubt the most successful man in the world, IMO. So I'd agree with you here. However, you're giving blind assumption as well, saying he's more intelligent than anyone. Just by saying that he's the head of that bank does not mean he's more intelligent than I am. So therefore, by saying this very statement, I'd have to say you're not as smart as you think you are. I might as well say that I'm smarter than you are. Nevermind the fact that you can't spell Bernanke, and can't capitalize the first word of a paragraph.
Alex hogarth wrote:
what he has done is not ilegal as far as I know, and even if not he is not making two bit programms that sounds like rants of a disgruntaled ex employee
If this is supposed to be a bash against me, it's really not working. A) you can't spell, B), I work for a government contractor. Thanks, try again.
Alex hogarth wrote:
I was refering to the fact that you seem to think a sportman and a contact sportsman at that is a valid contributor to said discussion.
All contributions, from anyone, are valid. Remember, this is a republic (even better than a democracy, as most people claim we have!) Everyone has a right to speak, whether you like it or not. All opinions count. And as I said, even though they didn't know who Bernanke was, they were just pointing out that he looked like a crook. They didn't say that he was. But if they knew what he did, I'm sure they would be able to see and figure out that he's a schemer. The Fed has been holding back information that the public deserves to know, that's all it's about. But I bet that if we did know, then they would become "valid contributor[s] to said discussion."
Alex hogarth wrote:
If you used a nobel prize winning ecomanist I would have said OK fine, but a sportsman? get real.
It's "Nobel Prize".
josda1000 wrote:
All contributions, from anyone, are valid. Remember, this is a republic (even better than a democracy, as most people claim we have!) Everyone has a right to speak, whether you like it or not. All opinions count.
Valid, sure. EQUALLY valid? No. Would you respect the opinion of an ignorant child as much as that of an informed adult? Same thing here, but not quite to that degree. Everyone has the right to speak, sure, and we also have the right to ignore or disagree as we see fit.
josda1000 wrote:
They didn't say that he was. But if they knew what he did, I'm sure they would be able to see and figure out that he's a schemer.
Now you're putting words in their mouth. I'm not going to get into the Fed argument again, as we both know there isn't going to be much agreement there... But honestly, using a football player as "evidence" is pretty weak. I'm sure some of them are very intelligent, but most of them do have a reputation for being the opposite. And not only are you basing an economic/political argument on the view of an athlete, but on the idea that Bernanke "looks like" a crook... Come on... Have we really sunk that low?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I subscribe to the George Carlin school of sports analysis... For example... http://home.earthlink.net/~sscutchen/baseball/Quotes/baseball_vs_football.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
at least 27 times when you were perfectly capable of taking another human life... heh We almost had that last night.
-
at least 27 times when you were perfectly capable of taking another human life... heh We almost had that last night.
I missed the superbowl... I was too busy watching Tin Man[^] on Netflix. I only knew there was a game yesterday, because in between episodes (It's a mini-series), I looked out my window... I have a nice view of a bunch of other tall apartment buildings... I counted six TVs that I could see through the windows (Well, six that were on)... Four of them were on the same channel, and though I obviously couldn't make out details, half the time they were showing something green. Now either a lot of people are suddenly hooked on the gardening channel (Is there a gardening channel?), or there was a football game. Noticing that, I took a break from Tin Man and glanced over at one of the chat rooms I hang out in... I saw people talking about the Colts and... uh... whatever the other team was. I asked if there was a game today, and people expressed utter shock that I had no idea it was Superbowl Sunday. So I went back to Tin Man... Which was a LOT better than anything I would have seen on ESPN :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Not sure I can agree here either (suprise suprise :-O ) but wasnt golf invested by the lower class of Scot? wacking a ball along the beach with a stick? most upperclass of that era were pretty uncouth, most got there by killing and then nicking the dead guys stuff. ps who said this was the source of the games?
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
Alex hogarth wrote:
Not sure I can agree here either (suprise suprise ) but wasnt golf invested by the lower class of Scot? wacking a ball along the beach with a stick?
shepards knocking rocks into rabbit holes... ;) And it was quickly adopted by people with a ton of land to use and that they could maintain. You have the shepards being able to play, and the people in charge, and the folks in villages and cities generally didn't even know about the game. So it has a small disconnect where both the rich and the poor played it, it is a strange one. The upperclass were pretty thugish, yes, but they didn't tend to kill lower class and take their stuff. They had them in a feudal system, why kill them when you can make em work for you and pay a tithe? The aristocracy would spen a large amount of the summer running about beating one another up while wearing armor. You knocked a guy down, made him surrender and then had his family pay ransom. This was the accepted system and a fine way to spend the growing season. Once the crops were planted, off you went. When it was harvest season, everyone stopped fighting and went home. You spent winter indoors and once the spring hit you started the whole thing over.
-
josda1000 wrote:
All contributions, from anyone, are valid. Remember, this is a republic (even better than a democracy, as most people claim we have!) Everyone has a right to speak, whether you like it or not. All opinions count.
Valid, sure. EQUALLY valid? No. Would you respect the opinion of an ignorant child as much as that of an informed adult? Same thing here, but not quite to that degree. Everyone has the right to speak, sure, and we also have the right to ignore or disagree as we see fit.
josda1000 wrote:
They didn't say that he was. But if they knew what he did, I'm sure they would be able to see and figure out that he's a schemer.
Now you're putting words in their mouth. I'm not going to get into the Fed argument again, as we both know there isn't going to be much agreement there... But honestly, using a football player as "evidence" is pretty weak. I'm sure some of them are very intelligent, but most of them do have a reputation for being the opposite. And not only are you basing an economic/political argument on the view of an athlete, but on the idea that Bernanke "looks like" a crook... Come on... Have we really sunk that low?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Valid, sure. EQUALLY valid?
Understood. But you shouldn't just write someone off. Granted, again, they didn't know the whole story, so you could write the comment off. But my argument is that the comment is being written off because he's a football player, not because he doesn't know the whole story and doesn't know who he is. All I'm talking about is the fact that the player has instinct. And THAT was valid. If he did know the whole story, it WOULD be equally valid.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would you respect the opinion of an ignorant child as much as that of an informed adult?
Again, because he wasn't informed, you can write it off. If he was informed, you couldn't.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everyone has the right to speak, sure, and we also have the right to ignore or disagree as we see fit.
Agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're putting words in their mouth.
Agreed, I take it back.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But honestly, using a football player as "evidence" is pretty weak.
Again, not true. In this particular case, that's true, because again, he doesn't know the full story. But if he DID know the story, it would be completely valid. Let's put it this way: I was a baseball player. Would I have no say? Would it be invalid, whatever my thoughts, if I knew the full story here?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm sure some of them are very intelligent, but most of them do have a reputation for being the opposite.
Which means that you're prejudice.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And not only are you basing an economic/political argument on the view of an athlete, but on the idea that Bernanke "looks like" a crook.
I understand that. But think of it. Natural instinct has been repealed from our society, however, you're doing the SAME EXACT THING! You're saying that most football players have no say in what a crook looks like. Put another way: the football players are saying what a crook looks like, while you're saying that football players are dumb, and shouldn't have a say in politics. But that's precisely what politics is: it's about instinct and getting a vote based on, not facts, but charis
-
I hope you realize what you've just said here. You're basically saying that he's the smartest man in the world; which only furthers my conclusion.
Alex hogarth wrote:
as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence
Since he's the head of the most secretive bank in the world, the financial organizer of the world, the head of the only bank to not have full audits (Ian, notice the term FULL audits), he is without a doubt the most successful man in the world, IMO. So I'd agree with you here. However, you're giving blind assumption as well, saying he's more intelligent than anyone. Just by saying that he's the head of that bank does not mean he's more intelligent than I am. So therefore, by saying this very statement, I'd have to say you're not as smart as you think you are. I might as well say that I'm smarter than you are. Nevermind the fact that you can't spell Bernanke, and can't capitalize the first word of a paragraph.
Alex hogarth wrote:
what he has done is not ilegal as far as I know, and even if not he is not making two bit programms that sounds like rants of a disgruntaled ex employee
If this is supposed to be a bash against me, it's really not working. A) you can't spell, B), I work for a government contractor. Thanks, try again.
Alex hogarth wrote:
I was refering to the fact that you seem to think a sportman and a contact sportsman at that is a valid contributor to said discussion.
All contributions, from anyone, are valid. Remember, this is a republic (even better than a democracy, as most people claim we have!) Everyone has a right to speak, whether you like it or not. All opinions count. And as I said, even though they didn't know who Bernanke was, they were just pointing out that he looked like a crook. They didn't say that he was. But if they knew what he did, I'm sure they would be able to see and figure out that he's a schemer. The Fed has been holding back information that the public deserves to know, that's all it's about. But I bet that if we did know, then they would become "valid contributor[s] to said discussion."
Alex hogarth wrote:
If you used a nobel prize winning ecomanist I would have said OK fine, but a sportsman? get real.
It's "Nobel Prize".
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>I hope you realize what you've just said here. You're basically saying that he's the smartest man in the world; which only furthers my conclusion.</blockquote> No I said he was a lot more successful than you but you choose to inflate this to a make it look silly this seems to show that you are not as smart as you like to think So he’s in charge of a bank - many people are but you are not yet he’s the clown? <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Alex hogarth wrote: as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence Since he's the head of the most secretive bank in the world, the financial organizer of the world, the head of the only bank to not have full audits (Ian, notice the term FULL audits), he is without a doubt the most successful man in the world, IMO. So I'd agree with you here. However, you're giving blind assumption as well, saying he's more intelligent than anyone. Just by saying that he's the head of that bank does not mean he's more intelligent than I am. So therefore, by saying this very statement, I'd have to say you're not as smart as you think you are. I might as well say that I'm smarter than you are. Nevermind the fact that you can't spell Bernanke, and can't capitalize the first word of a paragraph.</blockquote> No it was you that said he, was see first quote, unless you are claiming to be the second most intelligent man in the world? now from what he has achieved and what you have a achieved I can reasonably assume that he is smarter than you, but you disagree fine that is your right, maybe I am not as smart as you who knows! but that does not mean that mine is an invalid assumption. oh and I dont care that I posted with errors, in fact I have usually found that when it comes to picking the odd error then the responder is clutching at straws <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Alex hogarth wrote: what he has done is not ilegal as far as I know, and even if not he is not making two bit programms that sounds like rants of a disgruntaled ex employee If this is supposed to be a bash against me, it's really not working. A) you can't spell, B), I work for a government contractor. Thanks, try again.</blockquote> a, Correct I can't. b, so what? You still come across as one disgruntled ex employee <blockquote
-
I missed the superbowl... I was too busy watching Tin Man[^] on Netflix. I only knew there was a game yesterday, because in between episodes (It's a mini-series), I looked out my window... I have a nice view of a bunch of other tall apartment buildings... I counted six TVs that I could see through the windows (Well, six that were on)... Four of them were on the same channel, and though I obviously couldn't make out details, half the time they were showing something green. Now either a lot of people are suddenly hooked on the gardening channel (Is there a gardening channel?), or there was a football game. Noticing that, I took a break from Tin Man and glanced over at one of the chat rooms I hang out in... I saw people talking about the Colts and... uh... whatever the other team was. I asked if there was a game today, and people expressed utter shock that I had no idea it was Superbowl Sunday. So I went back to Tin Man... Which was a LOT better than anything I would have seen on ESPN :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
We watched it on the Sci Fi channel when it originally aired. Well, afterward, on the Tivo. :) Interesting twist on the entire thing. I liked it. Side note: Zooey Deschanel has amazing eyes. The wife asked me to pause it so she could stare at her eyes and then had a happy sigh.