Fry is so lucky.

Since he was frozen in 2000 and didn't have to experience 2001. Wasn't he frozen in NYC, though? Hmmmm...

<< Since he was frozen in 2000 and didn't have to experience 2001. Wasn't he frozen in NYC, though? Hmmmm... >>

They must have moved the capsules during such attacks. Makes you wonder who else is in them.

Alex Cain wrote:

Remember, EVERY building in NYC was destroyed by the first alien invasion, except for the one Fry was in and (possibly) a branch of Big Apple Bank.

"Because some of the episodes had to be sent back to Korea to remove pictures of the towers in the ruins of Old New York City, the season premiere has been delayed until sometime in 2003" >>

Is this true? I'd just assume that they were eventually rebuilt.

Actually, I've heard that they will be rebuilt, but not identical to the original ones. Whether that means they won't be as tall, they'll be a different shape (say, cylindrical), or even that there will be just one tower, remains to be determined - among other things, the nearby airports will want some say in how tall they are.

"Don Del Grande" wrote in message news:[email]...

I think Cylindrical would be cool. It's one shape the skyline of NY is kinda short on.

I don't see why. Lower Manhattan isn't in the approach path of any runway at LaGuardia, JFK, or Newark.

And some how I doubt they are reworking a scene in Futurama because of this. If they are they have no idea how much they suck.

<< Actually, I've heard that they will be rebuilt, but not identical to the original ones. Whether that means they won't be as tall, they'll be a different shape (say, cylindrical), or even that there will be just one tower, remains to be determined - among other things, the nearby airports will want some say in how tall they are. >>

Really? Interesting. I remember somebody saying that they were very unimaginative in design, and I have to agree [Not meaning to sound insensitive, we're talking about architecture here]. On the other hand, Empire State and the Chrysler Building are very interesting looking.

I am sorry I'll never get to see them. The tallest tower I've ever been in is our (Louisiana) State Capitol. Which, IIRC, is thirty something stories, making it the tallest Capitol building in the nation. The Legislature meets on the North wing of the first floor. Huey P. Long was killed in a back hallway, which is somewhat ironic as he was the Governor to have it built. There is a statue of him in the plaza outside. And the names of the (then) forty- eight states are engraved in the forty-eight marble steps in the front leading to the second story lobby. Alaska and Hawaii are at the top side by side. Really interesting building.

In the year 3000, you'd probably have to go underwater to see it, assuming the aliens didn't get to it. ;-)

"Robert J. Muldoon" wrote in message news:8Rfp7.18059$[email]...

the

I don't know. There's something to be said for the stark clean lines of a simple geometric shape. It certainly gave a more modern look to contrast to the much older Chrysler and Empire State.

And what will probably be these building's purpose: to house some already rich financial companies to make millions of dollars, as they did before (some, perversely, who could well, in all likelihood, had a hand in financing the terrorists, in some way or other in the past, when conveniently these terrorists were "freedom fighters" battling the USSR, some years ago). Certainly a fitting way to remember the brutal murder of 5,000, isn't it.

Why not make it a public memorial park, with a marble wall bearing the dead's names... or something like that. Something simple that the public can go to and use to remember the suffering of those who died, and their families. And if the financial institutions object due to it being prime real estate... then shame on them!

Graham

"Graham" wrote in message news:[email]...

The point of the World Trade Center is Money.... Your not a commie are you?

Because it's New York City. New York is all about moving foreword. Getting things done. Save your space wasting Memorial parks for Okalahoma and other overly sentimental heartland city's. There'll be plenty of lobby space in the New WTC for a memorial. But to waste that kind of prime land downtown would simply be idiotic.

<< Because it's New York City. New York is all about moving foreword. Getting things done. Save your space wasting Memorial parks for Okalahoma and other overly sentimental heartland city's. There'll be plenty of lobby space in the New WTC for a memorial. But to waste that kind of prime land downtown would simply be idiotic. >>

I agree. The lobby could have such names engraved. They could set one up in the plaza outside. They could even devote the top floor(s) to a non-denominational chapel. The replacing of the towers could say more than a field with a wall ever could.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 04:17:25 GMT, "Robert J. Muldoon" wrote:

I also agree. New Yorkers are not without their sentimentality, but they are very practical as well. They didn't build those towers to impress people. They were built to spec. We need X amount of office space and we have this much land. In the years since the towers were built, the need for office space has only increased.

If they build a nice memorial park, in five years few will really stop by to see it. On the other hand, a memorial in the lobby and/or the plaza will been seen by 150,000+ people a day.

The new building must be even sturdier so we will never have a repeat of the horror we just saw. With a state of the art escape system and other safety features.

If we don't rebuild, the terrorists have won. We cannot let them dictate our skyline.

--Larry

And even if I was... so?

Graham - Wondering if this is really a fight for "freedom and democracy".

"Graham" wrote in message news:[email]...

The point of the World Trade Center is Money.... Your not a commie are you?

And even if I was... so?

Graham - Wondering if this is really a fight for "freedom and democracy".

"Graham" wrote in message news:[email]...

*beep*BEEP* (Programming kicks in) Commies are evil and should be destroyed!!!

They always are.

If it weren't for these "rich financial companies" which you seem to despise, the WTC buildings wouldn't have been built in the first place. I think a more fitting monument to the dead would be a proud new skyscraper standing tall to show the terrorists you may knock us down, but we will get right back up again even stronger than before. To me some little park just seems rather lame.

Oh yes... I despise them, that's for sure. But, one thing that this doesn't negate is that on the grave of 5,000 people, massive profiteering will be made... as I said: a fitting memory for the dead.

Also, this idea that if the buildings aren't put up the terrorists would have won is laughable... are you seriously suggesting that gesture politics is warranted in *this* case... get a grip, 5,000 have died and you want a building put up!

Graham

"Graham" wrote in message news:[email]...

Why have you decided to suddenly become obnoxious and top post everything?

No their grave will be in grave yards. Were kinda going to take the bodies out before we build a new building. And if you didn't already realize. Profiteering is human nature. People always want more. Be it Food, land, money whatever It's an old survival instict. Live with it.

No we want a building replaced so we can return to buisness.

Funny how those with shaky arguments tend to change the subject, especially starting with the diversion. The problem with top posting only becomes a problem if my diatribe, as you'll probably see it, goes on for ages, but I've tended not to go on for too long, before showing what I'm replying to... so, not much scrolling to do. Also, I debate whether the post being at the top or at the bottom really matters that much, if at all... sometimes wading through something you've already read becomes tedious in itself - like your posts tend to, without much snipping either, might I add (a much worse crime).

And, one other thing - sorry Mike, but I'm obnoxious am I? I suggest you also realise that this is a board with differing opinions, and *yes*, some of these opinions will differ from your very own. Tell me when I have denigrated the dead, tell me where I haven't been unsympathetic to their plight, tell me why it seems that it's come to: you're either for us or against us? Or is it that, in Mike Zaite's world, freedom of opinions don't matter... except his very own.

Wherever the bodies of the dead will be finally rested the site of the World Trade Center will still be, in spirit, the place where they fell... so it could be technically called their grave. Little bit of an abstraction, but I'm sure that even you can understand that.

Many people may certainly live for greed, or a fair proportion do, but that still doesn't make it *right*. I suppose animals kill each other, and humanity has had its fair share of that; that's an understatement, as what we witnessed recently will testify. Laws tend to be made to govern society on the basis of power and dominance of one social group over another, but underneath all that is a certain noble belief that law is there to not just protect the ruling group's interests, but for what is seen as justice; an abstract belief. So, what are you going to suggest: that we descend down to animals and let murder and mayhem happen, because it can be justified as being an extreme part of human nature? This doesn't seem to be your angle on the WTC deaths, where you want severe action. So... it seems like one isn't following their own viewpoint to its logical conclusion!

Still laughable... do you really *need* a building to return to business, or is this just some excuse to simply gesticulate to the enemy? Seems that way to me. New Yorkers will get back to business, with or without the building, or is the human spirit that weak?

"Graham" wrote in message news:[email]...

In an argument it's much easier to scroll back to reference something then it is to have to jump to older posts. I'm also of the school that long posts don't become excessive until they are well over 50K. As for your top posting, only people very ignorant of the Usenet or people intentionally being difficult do it.

Your top posting is what is obnoxious and don't even pretend you didn't realize my intentions when you wrote this paragraph in an attempt to make me look bad. I believe in freedom of opinion. And also my freedom to express my opinion of your opinion.

Mike "Hey, I'm God of Usenet" Zaite wrote:

Whoa! I was about to end this... but no, I have to reply. Firstly, for your supposed benefit, I'll cease to top post. But, there is one thing I'll say: I'm not ignorant of Usenet, it's just that the top post rule is a bit, let's say, petty, when taken to the extremes that you seem to want it taken. What we need is some common sense about this, not some dogmatic answers.!

Oh no, you don't get away from this, with that bullshit. Look, the reason why this supposed mix-up occured, is nothing to do with disingenuity from myself, it's the use of the word "obnoxious" by yourself. Maybe if you used a more appropriate word I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that you were seeing my opinions as being obnoxious. But, it seems that you want to butcher the English language to bludgeon the adversary with whatever words you see fit to use, even if they are too strong and likely to cause a misunderstanding. Mike, this is your problem, not mine.

Graham

"Graham" wrote in message news:[email]...

This from the asshole who whined when I informed him two words and 7k of quotes weren't polite.

Sorry, but I hope you aren't referring to myself, as I don't remember doing that, and haven't whined about anything like that. If I'm mistaken, I'm sorry... it must be some other hypocritical pedant you're referring to.

Graham - Still not top posting, to keep the pedants happy

"Graham" wrote in message news:[email]...

That's affirmitive.

you're referring

I think you know the guy. He could've said oops, my bad...but I heard "go fuck yourself".

"Graham" wrote in message news:[email]...

Sadly I was Out of town this weekend so you get to hear it now.

As I recall ADAM H. KERMAN is the lord and high master of the Usenet. As you may or may not recall from his many spams of September 15th.

then

posts

It's a simple rule. No you weren't ignorant, you were being difficult weren't you?

Dogmatic answers Re: Netiquette are what the Usenet is all about.

make me

express my

Obnoxious: 3 : odiously or disgustingly objectionable : highly offensive (Webster)

Top posting is disgustingly objectionable to most people on the Usenet. Most people on the Usenet tend to be very petty, justifying the "disgustingly" part.

Now I'm left to wonder why you felt you needed to redirect the argument towards my supposed misuse of English when I called your ass on that little tirade of yours?

Mike "slippery fish" Zaite wrote:

OK... let it be known that Mike Zaite is being a complete arse... and to be honest, I'm not surprised. Firstly, let's get this straight: your use of the word "obnoxious" is misleading, and downright over-the-top, so it's no wonder that I misunderstood you (that's if I did misunderstand you, you could well be trying to make *me* look bad, by your realisation that being intolerant to other's opinions is a bit hypocritical by yourself; you being the sophist that you are, I wouldn't be surprised if you are twisting and turning this around to suit your ego). I can think of many a disgusting and offensive thing to do than to "top post"; get a grip, before your ego takes you to places where your butt has been. If that's disgusting... live with it!

Not really, being practical. I've seen posts by yourself and I find them more tedious than top posting could ever become. As has been said before by another poster, you tend to quote tons of lines of stuff, without snipping, in which anyone who has followed the conversation previously would have read anyway... but instead we have to trawl down to get to your two word response. Putting that two word response at the top means that people with memories longer than goldfish can ponder those wise words and then move on, without having to do an unnecessary task, such as scrolling. Sure, if you snip it down, or it's the first reply, then I can see the point of not top posting. But, if you have to quote tons of lines, and can't snip, and this has been a thread that's been in discussion for some time, then why not top post... it's certainly more logical. Hence your dogmaticism.

Oh, wait... who was it who wandered off the discussion to comment about top posting? Who had to place that diversion on the first line of their reply to myself? Hey, I know the answer, it was Mike Zaite... abuser of the English language, and now bullshitter in chief. One suggestion... if you are going to argue, do get your facts right, it does help. Also, what else helps is to use the right descriptive words, rather than try to label someone as being "obnoxious", on some perceived belief that their actions were against some supposed netiqette.

Another thing: explain where I was tirading? Do you know what the word means? Doubt it, considering your responses. My opinions may well have been different to your own, but they were measured, and not the emotionally led brutalism you were coming out with. I suggest you get a proper dictionary... or at least read the damn thing before using the words.

Graham

Ok I'm done with you Graham. Go find another person to try and act superior to.

Hmmm... seems one can't take the medicine. Well, grow up soon!

Graham

<< Hmmm... seems one can't take the medicine. Well, grow up soon! >>

Oh for God sakes, will you guys stop it?

Stop what? Oh that. That's finished... I hope.

Geez! We must have gone on for way too long if *you're* the one telling us to quit. :)

Graham

<< Geez! We must have gone on for way too long if *you're* the one telling us to quit. :) >>

Yeah, sorry. It WAS a little hypocritical. :-)

"Graham" wrote in message news:[email]...

If you don't need to quote it, don't. At all. Top posting blows. "Proper" being a relative term, it's a highly adopted usenet standard. One reason is if you're not concerned with trimming your quotes, you'll probably just stick your two cents at the top of possibly a shitload of worthless text, without even realizing that the resulting post could well be several k. It's a mark of cluelessness. Now, if you're ok with that, fine. You've pretty much shown that you're not an idiot, but you could be approaching Zaite's level of "I'm right, you're an asshole". It's about how you want to be percieved. No, you're not getting a grade for this, and Usenet isn't a formal setting. But you *are* submitting material into a public arena, and if you don't mind sounding uneducated or clueless that's up to you.

Oh yeah, when in Rome, yadee yadee.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:27:00 +0100, Graham wrote:

The buildings were built to spec. They had a certain amount of land and they needed so much office space. the Twin Towers and the other buildings of the WTC were the answer to those specs.

If that office space is not replaced, the companies that would be there will have to place their offices further away. Since office space is at a premium, some of them will be miles away. This will lead to an increase in pollution, traffic, gas consumption etc.

No we do not "need" to replace the WTC, however not replacing it will effect the economy and the lives of many people. Like most things that negatively effect the economy, the lower you are on the economic ladder, the most you are effected.

Giving the terrorists the finger is good, but not the primary reason to rebuild.

Personally, I think that the human spirit is strong enough to rebuild what has been lost.

--Larry

I heard a report on the news that there are plans to build four 50 story buildings to replace the destroyed twin towers, and there will also be some sort of memorial on the site.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:54:59 -0700, OmegaMan wrote:

I saw the same thing on CNN.

--Larry