text:
"...For What I Have Done"
Magneto officially returns, and Colossus joins his Acolytes.
Writer: Scott Lobdell
Pencilers: John Romita Jr., Jae Lee, Chris Sprouse, Brandon Peterson, Paul Smith
Inks: Dan Green, Dan Panosian, Terry Austin, Tom Palmer, Keith Williams
Letterer: Chris Eliopoulos
Colorist: Mike Thomas
Exodus visits the Acolytes, revealing to them how Cortez betrayed and murdered Magneto, before turning his power on Cortez. Meanwhile, Xavier prepares for Illyana's funeral, while Magneto thinks back on his past before declaring that mutants need to be awoken from Xavier's dream before more innocents die. At the X-Mansion, Kitty & Storm are shocked to see a stone-faced Colossus burning his paintings, and in the wake of Illyana's funeral, he angrily lays into Xavier for failing him. Just then, Magneto and his Acolytes arrive. Magnetically holding the X-Men in check, he executes Senyaka for acting without his explicit permission, then offers everyone assembled sanctuary aboard Avalon, declaring that from this point forward, anyone who isn't with him will be considered an enemy. He then calls Avalon down from orbit, and the Acolytes board it. Just then, Bishop, who had been absorbing Magneto's energy, is able to break free and blast him, loosening his control. Rogue tries to take Magneto out, and when she fails, Bishop, charged up by his fellow teammates, attacks again. But Colossus strikes Bishop from behind, and agrees to join Magneto aboard Avalon. Devastated, Xavier telepathically takes control of Magneto's power, and though he can't bring himself to kill Magneto, he does hurl him and Avalon back into space, knowing full well it's only a matter of time before Magneto will return and threaten the world once again.
Though much of the latter half of 1993 is devoted to an overall, linewide celebration of the X-Men's 30th anniversary (including two separate anniversary inspired crossovers, assorted limited series, and one-shots), this is the "official" 30th aniversary issue, and it features a cover date exactly thirty years after the cover date on X-Men #1 (this issue was notoriously late, so I don't believe it was actually on stands exactly thirty years after the first issue, and of course, the series doesn't have exactly thirty years-worth of published issues, due to variances in shipping schedules through the years, and that chunk of time in the late 60s and early 70s when it wasn't being published).
The centerpiece of the celebration is Magneto, who officially returns in this issue (despite already quietly appearing in X-Force #25 and, thanks to scheduling issues, X-Men Unlimited #2). Whereas in his X-Force appearance he received only a third-page panel, here, he gets a pull double page sideways splash reveal.
This is also the issue where Colossus leaves the X-Men and joins Magneto's Acolytes, the culmination of "shit all over Colossus" plotline that saw the character lose his brother, his parents, and his sister, as well as the ability to transform back into human form. His anger at Xavier in this issue is somewhat unfounded (in that Xavier wasn't directly responsible for all that happening, even if he did take Colossus off his family farm way back when), and it's hard to reconcile him throwing in with a group of mass murderers in the Acolytes, but his "screw this noise, I'm out of here" attitude and desire to do something different is certainly understandable. Though he'll continue to appear semi-regularly as one of the Acolytes, and eventually leave them to join Excalibur in a regular capacity, this marks the beginning of his longest absence yet from this series; he'll not return as a member of the X-Men until issue #360.
It's established that Magneto survived his apparent death in X-Men #3 thanks to the Acolyte Chrome, who encased him in a protective metal coating.
The Acolytes finally learn about Cortez's complicity in Magento's death, as Exodus arrives to tell them and bring them to the revived Magneto, effectively ending Cortez's tenure as the leader of the group.
Exodus then turns his power on Cortez, and though the art makes it look pretty harmful, Exodus notes that Magneto wants Cortez left alive, the victim of someone else's legacy. The word "legacy" seems to imply that Cortez is or will shortly be infected with the Legacy Virus, but that never comes about. He'll next pop up as the architect of the X-Men/Avengers crossover "Bloodties", which is more or less the last hurrah for the character.
Banshee, making his first appearance since X-Men #7 (though chronologically, he appears in X-Men #24 prior to this issue) is on hand for the funeral, and Bishop refers to him as the custodian of the next generation of mutants, one of the earliest bits of track laid for his upcoming role in Generation X.
Illyana's funeral is held this issue, with the vast majority of the various X-characters depicted at the grave site or elsewhere in the issue, with a few exceptions: in terms of characters who actually appear in the issue, Psylocke & Warpath appear on the cover but not in the issue (and Revanche is nowhere to be found), and only Shadowcat & Nightcrawler are there from Excalibur. All of X-Factor is present, save, curiously, Wolfsbane (Polaris is wearing gold "risque" costume), and along with Warpath, neither Cable nor Siryn appear in the issue. There's also an African-American woman in the crowd who goes unnamed, presumably either Stevie Hunter or Charlotte Jones (I'd assume the former).
Professor X refers to Magneto as "Erik" for the first time in this issue, suggesting he's always known Magneto's real name despite never using it before (Lobdell will attempt to address this odd name usage in issue #309). And while anyone reading this after reading X-Men Unlimited #2 would know this to be Magneto's name, this issue was meant to come out (and be read) before that one, which probably would have been somewhat confusing.
Senyaka, the Acolyte member of Cortez's personal guard, is seemingly killed this issue by Magneto, as a demonstration to the other Acolytes to not act without his permission (which is kind of a dick move given they didn't know he was alive). But Senyaka will return shortly, alive and well, over in Cable.
The issue ends with Xavier co-opting Magneto's power to hurl Avalon into outer space. It's not clear if he hurled it far, or just back into orbit, but it and Magneto will be back in the next chapter of the crossover, so presumably he didn't throw it far.
The "Fatal Attractions" hologram on this issue's cover features Magneto.
The credits for this issue get their own page, gussied up for the anniversary in the same font/design as used for the various X-Men/Avengers 30th anniversary house ads.
Stan Lee also pens a note in the letter column, reflecting on the X-Men's thirty year history (it is fairly bland and non-specific in its praise).
As the issue opens, the Acolytes are still using the remains of the Leningrad sub as their base, as seen in X-Factor #92.
While preparing for Illyana's funeral, Xavier reviews the Magneto Protocols (previously mentioned in X-Factor). We also see he has a Kirbytech desk in his bedroom.
During a flashback, it's mentioned that Magneto's mutant power first manifested itself when his daughter was killed, which is a slight retcon. It's also said that a childhood bought of hepatitis suppressed the manifestation of his powers, presumably as a way to explain why he didn't magnet himself out of the concentration camp.
Storm and Kitty have a heart-to-heart in the skies above the mansion, possibly a nod to their similar discussion in issue #180.
They are interrupted by the smoke from Colossus burning all his paintings, his most emo move yet.
Dialogue in this issue suggests that X-Force hasn't told anyone they encountered Magneto and that Magneto grieviously wounded Cable.
In the Magneto-power-usage department, he is able to prevent all the gathered mutants from using their powers (save those, like Bishop, whose power works unconsciously), and more or less freezes them in place via the iron in their blood.
Cyclops also makes a point of telling Wolverine to stay out of the fight, more foreshadowing for their encounter in X-Men #25.
Magneto says his near-death in the Earth's EM field has left him more powerful than ever.
It is confirmed here that it was Magneto who rescued Xavier in X-Men Unlimited #1.
Professor X notes that Avalon is tricked out with Shi'ar technology and weaponry that Magneto could only have acquired while serving as headmaster of the school.
Human/Mutant Relations
In one of the more poignant (and effective) arguments made by Magneto to Xavier in this issue, he reminds Xavier that Magneto tried Xavier's approach to human/mutant co-existence, and it didn't work. So perhaps now Xavier should return the gesture and try Magneto's way.
Magneto cites the Legacy Virus as another human attack on mutants, and Cyclops rightly points out that Stryfe was a mutant, and Magneto can't very well hold his disease against humanity.
Lilandra drops by via hologram to offer her condolences on Illyana's death.
One of the first ad's for A Nightmare Before Christmas appears in this issue.
There's also a double page, Joe Madureira-drawn ad for Pizza Hut, presumably a precursor to the later animated series promotional tie-in.
This issue has something of a bum rap among fans, and that reputation is not entirely unfounded. On the surface, it works fairly well as a celebration of the X-Men's 30th anniversary: members of the franchise's now-sprawling cast put in an appearance, the franchise's biggest villain makes a big, flashy return (despite making a few quieter returns already), making this the culmination of months of build-up, which allows the X-Men to square off with their central antagonist, their first foe lo those thirty years ago. But the presentation is sloppy; plagued by lateness, the multitude of artists on the double-sized issue come across feeling less like a celebratory jam than the result of the Dreaded Deadline Doom, with pages seemingly assigned at random in places while the artists involved hardly feel "celebratory": a case could be made for Paul Smith, and Jae Lee's style is appropriate for the section he draws, but Chris Sprouse is an artist with no significant past connection to the series or characters.
Even the actual fight with the Magneto, meant to be the centerpiece of the issue, is unexciting. His philosophical argument with Xavier is fine, but the conventions of the genre (and, really, the time) pepper those with lots of shots of character posing at each other while energy crackles around them. Backgrounds are sparse or non-existence, with figures usually arrayed across a color backdrop, and it's hard to place the figures in space relative to each other and their surroundings (and, to be fair, some of these failings could also be caused by the deadline issues).
But where this issue really falters, and what it routinely gets dinged for, is its presentation of Magneto, a Magneto far more akin to his earlier Silver Age appearances than in his last appearance, where he was essentially a bitter isolationist or, even, to the depictions of the character elsewhere in "Fatal Attractions": the Magneto of both X-Force #25 and X-Men #25 is much closer in spirit to Claremont's final take on the character than the near-ranting loon presented here. The general idea behind Magneto's overall plan in this crossover is a decent one: offering mutants sanctuary on Avalon, taking their fate out of the realms of human interference, is both a logical extension of his previous isolationist stance and entirely reasonable yet still at odds with Xavier's approach. But while the desire for a big X-Men/Magneto fight for the 30th anniversary is understandable, and that requires a less-measured Magneto willing to pick a fight with the X-Men, the way its triggered here seems both widely out of character for Magneto, and disconnected from his overall goal of creating an isolated mutant sanctuary. And it would have been very easy to present a Magneto more consistent with his past (and future) characterization without completely re-writing this issue.
For example, when Magneto first arrives at Illyana's funeral, a former student of his (and with whom he had a closer bond than some of the other New Mutants, as they shared a mutual struggle with their dark sides), he's rightly called on the impropriety of the act. He responds with some boilerplate ranting about how he's more concerned about the potential deaths of mutants in the future. Why not have the character simply say he's there to genuinely pay his respects to Illyana, and let the situation devolve from there (with some of the X-Men not believing him and/or starting the fight)? Later, he kills Senyaka, saying he approved of the genetic cleansing Senyaka led but not that he acted without explicit instructions from Magneto. Why not have Magneto kill Senyaka because of the cleansing, saying he went too far by targeting helpless humans instead of more direct enemies of mutantkind (or something)? We'd still see that this returned Magneto is EXTREME!, but he'd be more in keeping with the character's past presentations. Finally, the big threat Magneto poses in this issue is from Avalon, which he draws into Earth's atmosphere, bristling with Shi'ar weaponry. Why even bother with this? Just have Magneto make his offer of sanctuary to the X-Men, have them assume the worst and fight back, escalating the situation with the Acolytes and leading to the big brawl the editors and/or marketing so desperately wanted? The Avalon bit reeks of Silver Age "destroy the world" lunacy, and it serves no greater thematic purpose to the story.
I have a lot of nostalgic affection for this issue; reading it when it was first published, it was a big deal and it felt like one, the X-Men's #1 villain finally, for real, returning (he'd barely been gone two years, but at the time, it felt like forver) and engaging in a big, loud, noisy battle with the X-Men while arguing with Xavier. It was the first time I'd experienced that sort of thing in real time, and it only marked the halfway point of the crossover! I was so sucked in by the hype that Magneto's over-the-top villainy didn't really even stick out to me; I think I just sort of glossed over it, using the more measured characterization that precedes and follows this story to sand down the rough edges here. It's hard not to see that roughness now, even for as well as I remember the excitement this issue generated in me as a kid. Whether due to deadline pressure, or editorial interference, or a simple misunderstanding of how the character works best, Lobdell just doesn't write a good Magneto here. And with that failing, the rest of the issue's inability to rise above it's triple role as a marketing-driven 90s comic, an anniversary issue, and a chapter in an ongoing crossover, becomes more pronounced and harder to ignore.
Tomorrow, Wolfsbane goes to Muir Island in X-Factor #94. Friday, Wolverine fights Sentinels in Wolverine #73. Next week, Rogue & Gambit go on a date in X-Men #24.
Labels: "Fatal Attractions", Comic Book reviews, comics, Lobdell/Romita Jr., Uncanny X-Men, X-aminations, X-Men
Supposedly, the major problem with this issue was that Harras had Lobdell rewrite it a couple of times to make Magneto more evil- which made Colossus's joining him as he's about to kill thousands of people look ridiculous. Hence, the "he's brain damaged" copout in Excalibur.
Austin Gorton October 23, 2017 at 6:52 PM
I can buy editorial interference as the culprit. Certainly, the pseudo-Magneto of issue #309 is better written, but that's really the only other time we see a Lobdell-written Magneto who's not Joseph.
Jeff October 23, 2017 at 11:12 PM
Are we sure this is all on editorial? Magneto is a lot more nuanced in the Nicieza issues. Although the worldwide EMP in X-Men #25 presumably would kill a ton of people.
cyke68 October 24, 2017 at 1:21 PM
I wondered that too, but I would imagine that brutally ripping out Wolverine's skeleton and killing thousands (millions?) of people makes Magneto sufficiently evil. Check those boxes, and editorial can't really fuss about what Nicieza has Magneto saying or thinking. If anything, trying to walk him back within the script after going to those lengths looks absolutely ludicrous (but we'll get there.)
Teemu October 23, 2017 at 6:23 AM
I'm sorry, but the historic precedents make it impossible for me to accept that the extended X-Men would wear the business suites to a funeral.
There's a line of dialogue explaining why everyone is in costume/uniform (I forget exactly what it is offhand, but it's in the screencap of the funeral above). Not saying I necessarily prefer everyone in costume, but I do appreciate that it was addressed.
Oh. Oh my, this issue. Where to start.
Indeed, there were two Pizza Hut promotions. The one highlighted here produced the infamous "X-Men Pizza Hut Comics" that are kind of a thing in some circles. The second gave us the "Creator's Choice" VHS tapes with episodes from the animated series bookended by a brief roundtable interview of various creators. This is how I learned what Fabian Nicieza and Scott Lobdell look like, and more importantly, that comics are made by actual human beings. (Which, OK, I knew, but those names in the credits were always pretty abstract until I could put faces to them.)
That explanation for Magneto surviving the destruction of Asteroid M reads as awfully hand-wavy. It's such a throwaway line that I initially assumed it was a recap of information previously detailed elsewhere, rather than the reveal itself. Ultimately it doesn't matter, but seems like a story they could've gotten a little mileage out of (say, in X-Men Unlimited?).
How would Magneto know or reasonably expect Cortez contracts/dies of the Legacy Virus, as implied? It's one of those examples of very obvious foreshadowing that tries to look profound, but makes no logical sense under scrutiny. Glad that gets dropped.
Conversely, the Banshee/Bishop exchange holds up quite nicely. Neat to see that groundwork being laid so early.
Maybe it's for the best that late shipping swapped the order of this book and Unlimited #2. Kinda makes the "Erik" thing less jarring. Thematically, the story in Unlimited functions well enough as an interlude without requiring any ultra specific placement within this first half of the crossover.
The multiple artists mostly work for me in terms of how the issue breaks down structurally. Jae Lee on the stylistic flashbacks, Smith handling the chatty character bits, then Romita and Peterson alternating for the big slugfest. Although I agree that one of the artists is not like the others...
How would Magneto know or reasonably expect Cortez contracts/dies of the Legacy Virus, as implied?
Presumably, he'd already be infected at this point, and Magneto knows somehow (because this Magneto is nearly all-knowing at times, I guess). But it's all moot cuz that never really happens.
I'm always amazed at how well that setup works - by the time GEN X launches, it seems like an obvious fit for Banshee to be the teacher, when in hindsight, that really just starts getting laid out here. It's groundwork that manages to be laid over both a remarkably short and long period of time.
Jae Lee on the stylistic flashbacks, Smith handling the chatty character bits, then Romita and Peterson alternating for the big slugfest.
I think it's Sprouse doing the pre-funeral chatty stuff, then Smith after Petersen (that's Smith, I think - his style looks a lot different now - in the "Shi'ar tech" and "walk my path" screengrabs), which is just odd.
cyke68 October 24, 2017 at 11:41 AM
Oh jeez, that is Smith mixed up in the fight scenes. I totally glossed over those images and figured it was Peterson. Different style for sure, and not necessarily helped by '90s coloring either. Given how late this book was, it seems quite telling of those behind the scenes production problems that the office would draft two artists not on the usual rotation. I guess with the way CABLE is burning through artists and X-Factor lacking a regular penciller, they didn't have anyone on standby.
Matt October 25, 2017 at 11:14 AM
I'm sure the "off-model" Paul Smith art in this issue is due in large part to the inks. When he comes back for X-MEN #42 and 43 a couple years after this, he looks much more like the Smith of yore. I wonder which of the gaggle of inkers handled his pages here?
(Sorry for the double post)
For all of Bishop's talk about a supposed traitor to the team, nothing is made of Colossus defecting here. When he, you know, betrays the team, by attacking Bishop. It's as if they stumbled into a resolution for that subplot without meaning to, and thus have to ignore the elephant in the room. In any event, Colossus blowing up at Xavier is understandable, but outright joining the Acolytes is certainly a bridge too far. After all of the trauma he's endured, it doesn't follow that he'd take up with another perceived demagogue; if anything, he's walking away from the war altogether.
Nevertheless, if it absolutely has to happen, we have a catalyst RIGHT THERE in the form of Illyana's death. To Austin's point, if any effort had been put into reminding everyone what Illyana meant to Magneto, perhaps a grief-stricken Peter convinces himself that Magneto was a better steward for his sister -- and by extension, all of mutantkind -- which at least gives some dimension to his motivation beyond "I hate the X-Men." It isn't terribly more convincing, but works if you squint hard enough.
And on that note, yeah... why aren't we exploiting Illyana's death to its fullest? The way it's handled here, the funeral could be for any random X-Men associate. I get trying not to harp on the deep cuts of franchise continuity too much (outside of the insanely convoluted tapestry the Harras regime is weaving at this juncture, that is). But in an overstuffed issue already laden with Magneto flashbacks, is it really asking too much to throw in a page establishing that Magneto and Illyana once had strong-ish ties and regarded one other as kindred spirits? I feel like Lobdell could write the shit out of something like that and it would be a nifty way of showing how deeply moved he'd be by her death. With tensions already running high on both sides, that leads to the misunderstanding/bitter fight as Austin suggested. Play it up as a conflict that was going to be inevitable anyway, made so much worse by the timing and optics of a child's funeral. Magneto is galvanized in his cause and the X-Men are understandably out for blood. It's trying to write itself!
But enough fanfic. At the end of the day, I don't have any fundamental objection to making Magneto the "bad guy" again. They just don't do a very good job of showing their work. I also don't understand Harras' need to make him out to be a Total Monster. The Senyaka bit especially reads as a massive overreach -- Magneto not only kills his follower in gruesome fashion, he goes out of his way to explain that it's for a breach of "etiquette" rather than a condemnation of his savagery? Why the fuck is that in here? What do we gain in making Magneto a less-nuanced character? I get that marketing dictates he needs to be positioned as their principal antagonist, but he can comfortably fill that role without becoming a mass-murdering psychopath. While the latter is certainly more in fashion during this time period, it's not a contest. This is Magneto. No one's going to question his significance to the mythos.
Lots of longtime readers are going to hate this character turn for Magneto no matter how it's executed. But wow did they ever take the path of most resistance.
Good point on the obvious balldrop re: the X-Traitor and Colossus. That whole traitor thing really gets dropped until "Onslaught" comes along and resolves it more or less out of nowhere.
I get that marketing dictates he needs to be positioned as their principal antagonist, but he can comfortably fill that role without becoming a mass-murdering psychopath.
Yeah, I have no issue with Magneto being a villain, but that doesn't mean he has to be one-dimensional. The Magneto of Claremont's final story was a villain, but still nuanced, and a logical continuation of Claremont's development of the character. He can be an out-and-out bad guy AND be complex. Thankfully, for the most part, outside of this issue, he is moving forward.
I feel like the next time the X-Traitor mystery is even seriously dealt with was the Bishop limited series right before AoA? Wherein it's sort of implied to be resolved, in a fashion that I remember being more clever than I expected from a throwaway mini that was eclipsed by a gigantic crossover on which it had no bearing. Or at least left ambiguous enough that the regular creative teams could take it or leave it.
The notion that Magneto holds more power as a symbol than as a man has been fertile ground for some compelling stories over the years. Claremont first played at these edges as his swansong to the character, then Grant Morrison picked up the idea a decade later when Magneto was presumed dead (and ultimately used it to fuel the big swerve capping off his run). But there's a gap in the middle section that could have been explored while Magneto is alive and well. Consider: a Fatal Attractions where Magneto makes his grand re-entrance, but doesn't plan to actually DO anything all that drastic or destabilizing. Just shepherd some wayward mutants to Avalon, picking up from Claremont's last story like you said. Of course, the X-Men/the world flips out, not over anything he's directly done, but because of who he is/what he represents. It leads to a super-powered arms race of sorts with exponentially escalating conflicts and disproportionate overreactions on the part of both sides. The world "shoots first" (The Magneto Protocols), but this time Magneto doesn't roll over. He retaliates (EM pulse), and it's no turning back from there. With the tragedy being, the whole thing could've been avoided had anyone regarded Magneto as a human being instead of some harbinger of doom. But Magneto can't escape his past, and through his actions has assured that he'll NEVER be trusted or vindicated going forward, and everything is terrible. That's sort of my mental rewrite of this event. Basically, a sequel to X-Men #1-3, but with a more proactive Magneto and higher stakes.
Keep the Wolverine and Xavier bits though. Those are great, "cinematic" moments.
Matt October 23, 2017 at 5:33 PM
I have my issues with this... issue. The "jam" style is really jarring, and is especially bizarre for such a momentous milestone. Magneto is totally out of character even by his previous villainous standards. Colossus walking out on the X-Men is totally understandable, but his joining the Acolytes makes no sense. Your rewrite of the story, Teebore, is excellent and gets all the objectives accomplished in a much more organic and less offensive fashion.
BUT -- I love Bishop's big moment in this one. All the energy-wielding X-Men charging him up, his assault on Magneto... Heck, if not for Colossus's sudden betrayal, it seems pretty clear that Bishop would've beaten Magneto and saved the day. And, Bishop being one of my favorite X-Men in this era, that's okay by me.
(I was just thinking -- who are my favorite X-Men from this era, anyway? If I had to come up with a Top Five 90s X-Men List, I think I'd say Cyclops, Banshee, Bishop, Angel, and... Psylocke?)
"Exodus then turns his power on Cortez, and though the art makes it look pretty harmful, Exodus notes that Magneto wants Cortez left alive, the victim of someone else's legacy."
I always thought that was a really cool line, considering how much I enjoy obliquely worded clues. And dying of the Legacy Virus would've been a fine end to Cortez, considering that, as you note, he basically drifts into limbo following "Bloodties".
"Banshee, making his first appearance since X-Men #7...is on hand for the funeral."
I'll save my rant about him being out of the picture for so long when you cover X-MEN 24.
"But Senyaka will return shortly, alive and well, over in Cable."
...For some reason. I've never actually read the issue where he returns, so I have no idea how his survival is addressed there, but he sure seems dead here! And I don't really get the reason for bringing him back; it's not like he was an A-list character who just had to remain alive. I've sometimes wondered if it was just done to soften Magneto a bit following his uncharacteristic bloodlust in dispatching the guy.
(Though in my opinion, of all the Acolyltes, Senyaka deserved to die after what he did to that nurse in X-FACTOR.)
"There's also a double page, Joe Madureira-drawn ad for Pizza Hut, presumably a precursor to the later animated series promotional tie-in."
I love this ad. I had minimal (if any) exposure to Madureira at this time, so this may well have been my first peek at his artwork. It's burned into my brain, possibly more than any of the actual issues in which it appeared, as the definitive image of the X-Men of this era.
Oh, I nearly forgot about Bishop stealing the show here. He definitely had Magneto on the ropes, and with JR Jr's fondness for drawing gigantic, crackling energy blasts, it looks tremendous. He could be the butt of the joke at times, but overall, Bishop's creation and development throughout the '90s is a real highlight of the era. Despite starting out as a collection of cliches, Nicieza and Lobdell took care to find a proper character in there FAST.
Your rewrite of the story, Teebore, is excellent and gets all the objectives accomplished in a much more organic and less offensive fashion.
Thanks. I usually try to avoid fan fiction-y rewrites like that, but it just seems *so easy* to have made this issue a lot better with just a couple-three changes of dialogue.
Stand by - I have some pro-Bishop thoughts coming up in a future review inspired by his showing in this issue.
I was just thinking -- who are my favorite X-Men from this era, anyway?
Depending on how we're defining "era" and "X-Men", offhand, I'd probably say Cyclops, Cable, Cannonball, Jubilee and, much as it pains me to admit it, Gambit (this was kind of peak era for Gambit, in turns of being a big mysterious 90s figure).
I suppose if I was going to come up with formal criteria, when I say "X-Men of this era", the era I mean would run from X-MEN #1 up to the 90s' first major team reshuffling circa X-MEN #70 in 1997, and candidates would be anyone who had been an actual, formal member of the X-Men team during that time, but also taking their non-X-Men appearances from that same span into consideration when choosing for the list.
(Hence, I have Banshee on my list even though he was only officially an X-Man for a handful of issues in the time covered, but I loved him in GENERATION X. Cannonball and Jubilee would therefore fit for your list too, even though they weren't X-Men for the full period in question.)
Blam October 23, 2017 at 7:22 PM
Today on Poor Timing Theater…
"Let's call this guy Exodus for his role in guiding mutants to a promised land from under the yoke of oppression!"
"Let's establish that Magneto isn't actually Jewish!"
Teemu October 24, 2017 at 12:59 AM
Drat, I meant to point out Exodus' Jewish connection. But, Mags himself has gone full New Testament at this point, spouting the "I died" like he himself was the biggest believer of it. Maybe they felt they had to do away with his Jewishness because of the otherwise too uncomfortable allusion to that other Jewish guy.
Should've named him Brian Lensherr.
But goddamnit, to tail-light Cyke68, Illyana as a character would have deserved a one or two actual pages' worth of history recap at her funeral.
Jack October 24, 2017 at 10:05 AM
I said about Uncanny #303 that it was the writer Lobdell could be when he was, pretty much, himself.
Uncanny #304 is the writer that, sadly, he's remembered for being, the one clearly writing for editorial fiat and not himself.
There's some good stuff in here, and Bishop comes off so amazing here that it's a shame so little was done with the character afterwards, but you have so much awful around it. Everything about Magneto is wrong. Not only is his characterization out of whack for his other appearances in the crossover, the line about Avalon having Shi'ar weaponry taken while Magneto was the mentor of the X-teams goes back and tries to stomp on the Claremont era. Colossus should've turned his back on everyone-the X-Men who he sees failed his family, Magneto who picked his sister's funeral to come start a war-and walked away. Hell, you could've got some mileage out of turning Colossus into the leader of a group of mutants that sought to find a path neither Xavier's or Magneto's, but this is 1993 so we need a big shock event.
Which they promptly did nothing with.
The issue tries to find a tension between the Big Crossover Moments and the quieter things Lobdell does, and fails miserably. The art is off, though I love the Romita Jr. stuff-this is the height of his channeling Kirby era, especially with Bishop taking on Magneto. But otherwise, this issue really feels like Bob Harras outlining all of the points he wants it to hit and Lobdell just shrugging his shoulders and going along with it. Even in 1993, which was a time where comics often got away with stories working by Being Cool, this was a disappointment.
You're right - I missed it, but Austin too pointed out that line about Magneto/the Shi'ar tech. It's a slight retcon, but another example of this story bending over backwards to vilify Magneto. We've gone from, "He's not a good guy" to, "Not only is he not a good guy, he's a very bad guy" to, "In fact, he's a very bad guy who was never a good guy." All in the span of a few pages. Amazing.
You're not kidding about that tale of two Lobdells. The contrast just within two consecutive issues is striking.
angmc43@hotmail.com October 25, 2017 at 5:36 AM
Couldn't Xavier just be confusing the Graymalkin part of Avalon and jumped to conclusions?
Jack October 25, 2017 at 8:49 AM
Xavier calling out Shi'ar weaponry suggests he recognizes the technology, which presumably wouldn't be the same as the weaponry on Graymalkin. The line only exists to sell the notion that Magneto never reformed.
John F October 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM
And this would be my last issue of anything X-related for years--I would only start back in earnest with the TPB's of Morrison's New X-Men run, and the old DVD-ROM of about 40 years of Uncanny issues. By this point, my interest was mostly nostalgic. I'd stopped buying regularly, and was really only sucked in for the anniversary/hologram cover. In truth, I have a hard time not seeing X-Men #3 as the "end" of the story. Everything after that sort of felt like a weird imitation--close to the real thing at times, but always just a little off.
Ingonyama October 30, 2017 at 1:52 PM
The first issue of Uncanny I ever owned. As a child, I thought it was perfect.
Now...well, now I'm a lot more ambiguous. I grew to love the Claremontian Magneto, a flawed, tragic, person at heart who really wanted the best for the world and his people. #304 goes out of its way to put the kibosh on that perspective -- in their efforts to re-establish Magneto as the X-Men's #1 villain, it was like they wanted to make him the most evil. Which is hard to do when the Shadow King, Mr. Sinister, Stryfe, and Apocalypse are all things. So Magneto ends up just feeling wrong...wrong in what he's doing, written wrong, handled wrong. "Mad old terrorist twat" Magneto just isn't interesting to me, and I don't understand why he keeps cropping up. Can't Magneto be a complex, nuanced, tragic villain and still get in regular scraps with the X-Men over their conflicting ideologies? Marvel apparently thinks not.
Otherwise I still really enjoy this issue. It featured a truly touching send-off for Magik, with a eulogy delivered by Storm that I loved. Ororo and Magik weren't close, and yet they were at the same time -- it was the Limbo version of Storm that gave Illyana a moral compass even in Hell, after all. And tiny touches, like Sam hugging Kitty and talking about how it never gets easier, and Xavier's musings about his feelings of abject failure only to be interrupted by Lilandra's hologram, really work to make this issue achingly sad. Storm and Kitty's conversation about "the shadow passes" was one of the more poignant moments between them not written by Claremont, and even though his mental processes didn't make a lot of logical sense, the pain and rage Colossus felt towards the X-Men made his actions make emotional sense. Kind of like the reverse of a Disney movie.
People without much emotional connection to Illyana, like Banshee, Beast, and Bishop taking center stage seemed an odd fit, but I kind of like it. Even though I'd much rather have seen more from Roberto, Rahne, or Sam, Kitty was the focal point of the issue for the first part of it, and I really appreciated that.
And even the teams all dressed in their colors is touched upon in Storm's eulogy -- that Illyana would have been happy to see everyone show up at her funeral decked out in their bright, flashy world-saving gear. It fits what Magik was like before Inferno -- conflicted, snarky, and sarcastic, but also a fan of levity, parties, and festivity, and at the end of the day, a dyed-in-the-wool heroine despite her dark side.
So #304 is, to me, a mostly good, if sad issue with the portrayal of Magneto being its one glaring fault.
Ian Miller November 1, 2017 at 9:31 PM
This is one of the earliest X-Men comics I remember owning, I'm pretty sure I got it right when it came out. I must've liked it, because I re-read it over and over and over again, even drawing my own comics with a huge roster of characters like those featured in the battle. There was plenty of action to keep me satisfied, too.
The last page is also where I realized you're supposed to add a comma in front of a person's name when using it at the end of a sentence (Xavier says something like "Thank you, Warren" and not "Thank you Warren."). To say comics helped me learn to read is an understatement.
But I just re-read this issue for the first time in possibly 20 years, and.....Let's just say I liked it better as a kid. The entire thing feels rushed and sloppy in both writing and art. As a kid I don't think I realized multiple artists were drawing this issue, but now I can clearly see the different styles in each part. One thing I did notice as a kid, though, were the lack of backgrounds like you mentioned. I thought it was cool - Magneto was so powerful that he made the air crackle with energy wherever he was as soon as he showed up.
I have a fondness for this era of X-Men due to the nostalgia of it being the period where I discovered them, but these reviews are making me realize this era was a mess in a lot of places. X-Men #25 was my favorite issue of this crossover, though, so I'm hoping to see if it stands up.
X-aminations in November 2017
An Unoffical Guide to NYPD Blue
Force in Focus: The Last Jedi Trailer
X-amining Deadpool: The Circle Chase #1-4
X-amining X-Men Unlimited #2
X-amining Cable #4
The Milch Studies - DEADWOOD Season Two


I don't have a tune my friend just an opionion! I feel your posts are often in the negative and based mainly on team bias. Sadly that seems to be norm on the forum these days. That is why I rarely post any more and tend not to look in that much lately. I also note most of the original forum members appear to have lost patience and are not seen of late.
Woffinded,King,Nicholls,Cook, Lambert(u21). Not sure it makes sense not to allow an under 21 rider to take a ride for an underperforming rider?
I often wonder why you get so much stick but now the penny seems to have dropped. You seem to be a glass half empty kind of guy?
Great meeting great track. Well done Danny great meeting riding Sverre Harrfeldt lines all night. Remember watching him as a 17 year old around Lakeside being mentored by Craig Boyce and always said there was something about him. Hope he now kicks on.
I changed my viewing last night from back straight to the bar. I normally move to the back straight after the first pint but rather than get wet externally I chose to stay put and wet my insides instead! The crowd was down from Friday. I think there are a number of reasons for this. Having already raced on Friday another on Monday and a further home meeting on Friday can get a little expensive even with a discount for the middle match. these schedules make no sense to me? The weather would not have helped and I think the England Ladies were playing in the World Cup. A lot would save a tenner and watch from the comfort of there arm chair. Another factor could be our recent home record. The crowd I would say was 1/2 to 2/3rds down from Friday. I personally went because I cannot make next Friday and always prefer to watch at the track (you can see so much more). I thought the meeting itself had some good racing despite the conditions and Lingrens poor showing. I hope the person removed from the main stand by the medical team is ok.
Sadly I'm a virgin customer so will not be able to watch I believe or do they have a quest channel?
Wolfie, PK last season was not the same rider and I feel he would have been a better guest than fast Freddie! As you say a case of if my Aunty. However I do think Richard may have had an outing in 15 and I think it took a bit of the wind out of our sails. (I refer you to my Aunty). Most enjoyable meeting by the way. Apart from an Idiot shouting about Bech not getting off the track in 14 (If that was the case he must have some confidence in his skipper).
Is Rich Lawson The New Harry Kane?
If he keeps wining it will do for me. There are not many genuine riders now who will miss the gate and win the race from the back! Perhaps a sign of the times, tracks/equipment! I wonder how many more world titles Jack Young would have won if he could gate? Or how few Ivan would have won if he lost his skills at the gate?
A bit like Harry the rest of the side are making him look good. Joking aside Lawson has improved season on season for the hammers and is a supporters favourite. Harry is having a great season and like Richard currently the one shining star in the team.
Perhaps they can also check on the condition of the showers whilst there at it!
Swindon different kettle of fish to Peterborough 29yds longer and longer straights, different shape I believe? Still should give a good idea of his progress/flexibility! Interesting Statistic Arena 275yds, (Small), Peterborough 367yds (medium ?), Swindon 396yds (large) Custom house 415yds (Big) 450yds (original pre Jack Young) The change in shape at custom House helped the racing so, as I say to the missis it's not all about size!
I'm sure all speedway fans across the country appreciate the time an effort put in by track staff and promotions trying to get a meeting on so you will hear no criticism from me. If you are a speedway fan a rain off is part of the sport sadly it is dictated by weather conditions. I understand it is annoying but no one is at fault.
As far as I was aware there was or used to be showers? Not sure I would use them though, probable cold water, but hey these are big hard speedway riders As the promotion do not own the facility I think it is difficult. I agree what I have seen of the facility it leaves a lot to be desired. In this day and age a grant from sport England could help or think out of the box and share some other local facility for a small charge! Should be interesting to see how the the lad goes on a big track!
When I watched regularly at Custom House and visiting places like Wimbledon, Hackney and Ipswich they always seemed kind of small and quirky, as you say it is all about perception.? Funnily enough I never had that with Romford my Thursday night track, perhaps because I spent half the night ducking. I do not know what I would have made of New Cross and Walthamstow but I bet it would have been a shock to the system.
Tellboy what was your vantage point? Having watched a lot of my speedway at a big track (West Ham) it did take a while to get used to racing at Arena but it is no way as bad as people make out.


text:
Category Archive 'Television'
Newer Entries » — Next Page »
James Garner Memorial Posting
Clint Eastwood, Entertaining Commercials, James Garner, Obituaries, Television
Americans were saddened this week by the passing of the good-looking and always affable James Garner. It seems appropriate to remember Garner with a look at a few of his best-known roles.
Bret Maverick takes on Clint Eastwood (1959):
Garner's late 1970s-early 1980s Polaroid commercials with Mariette Hartley were considered one of the advertising industry's biggest hits. Garner tended to play the graceful loser in the battle of the sexes. Their badinage was so persuasive that a lot of people believed that Garner and Hartley were really married.
Comment This! | Permalink
Obama Gets to See "Game of Thrones" First
"Game of Thrones", Barack Obama, Television
Barack Obama has been described as "binge watching" his favorite television shows. Apparently, unlike other Americans who binge watch after the season is over, from recordings or Netflix DVDs, President Obama is able to persuade networks to give him advance screenings of program seasons which have not yet begun to air.
Naked DC reports that the fix is already in for Barack Obama to score his own advance viewing of the upcoming season of "Game of the Thrones."
Be jealous, America. Instead of having to binge watch the show on Netflix or HBOGo after the season is finished like everyone else in America, the Commander in Chief will get to watch King Joffrey choke to death an entire season early.
SPOILERS, sorry. Also, like you didn't know.
Anyway, back when HBO's CEO met with White House officials as part of a pow-wow over technological leadership and the balance of security and privacy, President Obama made it his top priority to request an advance copy of the next season of Game of Thrones and then reiterated his request last week at a State dinner for French President Francois Hollande (adding True Detective, of course, though he'll have to watch that the same way we all do, now that the season has ended). And as it turns out, when you're the President, you can pretty much get what you want, especially out of top level donors.
Shortly after the news spread that President Obama requested advance copies of HBO's "Game of Thrones," headlines everywhere speculated if the main man in charge would get his wish.
It turns out, he did.
When asked by Vanity Fair if the president got a sneak peak of the "Game of Thrones" season premiere, co-creators David Benioff and D. B. Weiss jointly replied, "One perk of being the most powerful man in the world: yes, you get to see episodes early."
The episode premieres for the rest of America on April 6.
2 Comments | Permalink
How Did Jeff Probst Ever Get Up There?
"Survivor" (television show), Jeff Probst, Television
In the opening sequence of this season's Survivor television show, Survivor Caramoan, filmed in the Caramoan Islands of the Philippines, presenter Jeff Probst began his presentation of the program standing heroically atop a narrow rock spire, helicopters speeding past his precarious aerial perch.
Viewers naturally wondered: How on hell did CBS ever get Jeff Probst up there?
Happily, CBS has provided a 2:11 video demonstrating exactly how it all was done.
"Hector Goes Hunting" (With the Scarteen)
Hector Ó hEochagáin, Ireland, Scarteen Hunt, Television
Ireland has some interesting television.
In this individual segment of a four-part series, Hector Ó hEochagáin (I think that would be "Hector O'Hogan" to you or me), as part of a personal investigation of important aspects of Irish life, goes out fox hunting with Ireland's illustrious black-and-tan Scarteen pack.
Someday, we have to visit the Scarteen, too.
1 Comment | Permalink
Taking Lena Dunham Seriously
"Girls" (TV series), "Girls" (Television series), Culture Wars, Television
The principal characters of Girls: Allison Williams (Marnie Michaels), Jemima Kirke (Jessa Johansson), Lena Dunham (Hannah Horvath), Zosia Mamet (Shoshanna Shapiro)
Kurt Schlichter, at Breitbart, issued a manifesto yesterday, demanding that conservatives take Lena Dunham's appalling and bizarre HB0-comedy-series seriously.
There's plenty about Girls to annoy conservatives, yet this often creepy, usually skeevy, critically-acclaimed HBO series is also a test for conservatives.
Will we finally heed Andrew Breitbart's warnings about the importance of taking pop culture seriously or just keep fiddling as the culture burns?
If conservatives are going to be in the popular culture – and act to change it – they can't simply ignore shows like Girls that capture the zeitgeist, even if the zeitgeist makes their skin crawl. Season two is well under way, and conservatives need to participate in the discussion.
Girls is about four young, aimless college grads living in New York. Think of Sex and the City, except Sarah Jessica Parker has doubled her weight, dresses like a potato sack and fancies herself the voice of some undefined generation. There's sex and nudity – just not hot Homeland sex and nudity. This is the first show in the history of cable television where male viewers actively root for the heroine to keep her clothes on. …
So, why should conservatives want any part of this?
Great question.
The answer, if the fact that the show can be pretty amusing isn't reason enough for you, is that conservatives need to be a part of big cultural events if they want to be a part of culture at large. But that begs the questions of why we conservatives would even want to be part of the culture at large. It's a cesspool. And there's an answer for that too – so we can participate in changing it.
I'm not sure what exactly Mr. Schlichter believes conservatives ought to do. Purchase half-an-hour of weekly air time after each Girls episode broadcasts to have some white male conservative of mature years offer a lecture on sexual morality?
Develop an alternative series, to be titled Good Girls, to be broadcast weekly on the Hallmark Network, depicting four religiously observant, socially conservative, and rationally behaving young ladies conventionally employed in Omaha, Nebraska or Salt Lake City?
Myself, I do undertake the effort (and it takes a bit of an effort) to watch the series. It certainly does have some moments of effective humor and amusement, but the life-style and perspective of the millennials depicted is actively embarrassing to watch. Lena Dunham's frequent nude scenes and the regular depictions of inept, unsatisfying, and sometimes aspirationally perverse sex persistently gross one out. The viewer is left rather baffled at Dunham's self-deprecatory exhibitionism, and winds up shaking his head and wondering: Do people of her generation routinely view themselves as that stupid and incompetent? And, if they do, why would they make a television program and tell everyone? There are no answers.
I suppose all we can do is write these sorts of editorials, marveling aloud, and wondering what the success and popularity of a television series like that tells us about just how far the Abendslands have Unterganged.
One correction: Oberlin is not, definitely not, an Ivy League school.
Maggie Smith Does Reaction Well
Downton Abbey, Maggie Smith, Television
Ten top Dowager Countess Violet Grantham scenes from Downton Abbey.
Spectacular Photos
BBC, Ethnography, Human Planet, Photography, Television
Eagle Falconry, Altai Mountains, Mongolia
This 7:28 trailer for Human Planet, a BBC Ethnographic Travelogue series scheduled to begin broadcasting in March, has some striking images. Photographer Timothy Allen did the voice-over.
I Have No Explanation
Blue Ridge Hunt, Fox Hunting, South Korea, Television, Virginia
As to how it happens that our own Blue Ridge Hunt was recently filmed hunting at Persimmon Hill by a Korean NBC station for its news coverage. Principals featured included: retired Huntsman Chris Howells (releasing the hounds from the hounds truck), MFH Linda Armbrust and Huntsman Dennis Downing (both briefly commenting), and Charlie (dashing gallantly through the countryside).
1:49 video
Mythbusters Hit Homes With Cannonball
Accidents, Artillery, Mythbusters, Television
Television's Mythbusters had one of their experiments, apparently testing the velocity or the penetrating ability of a cannonball, go severely wrong. The projectile, intended to penetrate multiple barrels of water and a cinderblock then wind up buried in a hillside on an army base southeast of Oakland, instead sailed over the Diablo foothills and went right into the suburbs.
The misaimed cannonball went straight through the front door and the interior and exterior walls of one house in Dublin, California, then flew across a busy highway (luckily missing the passing cars), and took out the slate roof of a second house 50 yards away before coming to rest in a third family's minivan.
I bet that program's insurance will be markedly more costly next season.
CBSLA
Vanderleun offers maps.
Andy Rooney (January 14, 1919 – November 4, 2011)
Andy Rooney, CBS, Television
Andy Rooney was old, but he could effectively argue the superiority of his old manual typewriter over those newfangled personal computers that replaced them.
The Significance of Pop Culture
Angry Birds, Carl Barks, Comic Books, Culture, Donald Duck, Firefly, Nerd News, Scrooge McDuck, Television
Scrooge McDuck and his nephew Donald were responsible for some pretty impressive cultural contributions.
Hat tip to Jose Guardia.
According to Jay Black, Nathan Fillion is television's Martin Luther.
When the alien invaders arrive…
Cognitive Surplus
"Cognitive Surplus", Books, Change, Clay Shirky, Gin, Social Change, Television, The Internet
Clay Shirky, in a new book titled Cognitive Surplus, maintains that the post-WWII age of suburbanization was one of those eras of abrupt, dislocating social change which left Americans morose and seeking for self-medication just like 18th century Englishmen driven by economic change from the countryside to the city.
They used gin, a new, potent yet inexpensive distilled spirit, whose method of production had arrived from Holland as part of the the fashionable baggage accompanying William and Mary. Americans used television.
Shirky contends that the Internet is bringing about the end of the age of self-narcotization via sitcoms and game shows. Leisure time sucked down the television time sink, the cognitive surplus simply wasted previously, will instead be transferred to more useful and communitarian activities (like writing Wikipedia entries and blogging) and a wonderful new era of transparency, creativity, and productivity will bloom.
Hmm. I wonder if he has ever heard of World of Warcraft.
Barnes & Noble review.
Jonah Leher brings formidable Friedrich Nietzsche to television's defense.
I would disagree. In some peculiar way, if I hadn't watched and re-watched The Sopranos then this sentence wouldn't exist. (And I would have missed out on many interesting, intelligent conversations…) The larger point, I guess, is that before we can produce anything meaningful, we need to consume and absorb, and think about what we've consumed and absorbed. That's why Nietzsche, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, said we must become a camel (drinking up everything) before we can become a lion, and properly rebel against the strictures of society.
William Hogarth, Gin Lane, Engraving, 1751
Your are browsing
the Archives of Never Yet Melted in the 'Television' Category.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: How does Idris avoid using dot patterns for inaccessible patterns? In Agda one had to use dot patterns to tell the compiler which parts of a function definition cannot be inspected, in particular which variables can be used for pattern matching and which cannot (in new releases it seems that dot patterns are just optional and one can use new variables instead).
Idris apparently does not use any mechanism of this sort, so how does the idris compiler guess which pattern are accessible and which are not in a function definition? How does it get which are the arguments on which pattern match?
Thanks in advance.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Amoria undulata, common name wavy volute, is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Volutidae, the volutes.

Synonyms
 Amoria (Amoria) undulata (Lamarck, 1804)
 Amoria kingi Cox, 1871
 Scaphella moslemica Hedley, 1912
 Voluta angasii Sowerby II, 1864
 Voluta australiae (Cox, 1872)
 Voluta sclateri Cox, 1869
 Voluta undulata Lamarck, 1804 (basionym)

Distribution
This marine species occurs off East Australia and Tasmania.

Description

The length of the shell varies between 60 mm and 120 mm. These shells are elongated, fusiform, smooth and solid and roundly shouldered, with long pointed conical spire. Suture shows a callous edge. The aperture is elongate, salmon to orange in colour, with smooth outer lip, thickened in adults. The base colour of the external surface of the shell is fawn or white-cream, with thin axial wavy brown lines. Foot shows similar coloured zigzag lines and stripes.

Habitat
These sea snails live intertidally on sand and mud, at depths of 9 to 503 m. They live in deeper waters in their northern range. They emerge only at night to feed.

Biology
These gastropods are carnivore, mainly feeding on other sea snails. In the spring Amoria undulata migrates from deep water to shallow water sandbanks to breed. It lays egg masses similar to a hollow cylinder, with a diameter of . The embryos hatch as well developed juveniles and crawl away.

Bibliography
 A. G. Hinton - Guide to Australian Shells
 Bail P. & Limpus A. (2001) The genus Amoria. In: G.T. Poppe & K. Groh (eds) A conchological iconography. Hackenheim: Conchbooks. 50 pp., 93 pls
 Harald Douté, M. A. Fontana Angioy - Volutes, The Doute collection
 Wilson, B. (1993). Australian Marine Shells  Part 2

References

External links
 Encyclopedia of life
  Discover Life

Volutidae
Gastropods described in 1804
Gastropods of Australia

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Ерик Стивън Реймънд () , наричан често ESR, е американски компютърен програмист, автор и защитник на отворения код.

Неговото име става известно в хакерската култура, когато през 1990 г. започва да поддържа Jargon File. След публикацията на книгата му "Катедралата и базарът" ("The Cathedral and the Bazaar") през 1997, Реймънд става неофициален говорител на движението за отворен код.

Биография
Ерик Реймънд е роден на 4 декември 1957 г. в Бостън, Масачузетс, но живее във Венецуела, преди да се установи в Пенсилвания през 1971 г.  Често твърди, че детският паралич го мотивира да се занимава с компютри.  Обвързването му с хакерската култура започва през 1976, а през 80-те започва да работи върху проекти с отворен код. Първите му приноси са поддръжката на пощенския клиент fetchmail и gpsd. Допринася за разработката на Emacs, GNU ncurses и други. Реймънд разработва и CML2, система за конфигурация на изходен код, която първоначално е предназначена за Линукс ядрото, но бива отхвърлена от разработчиците му.

Реймънд е автор на голямо количество документация, част от която е в Linux Documentation Project. Книгата му от 2003 "Изкуството на Unix програмирането" (The Art of Unix Programming) разглежда историята и културата на Unix и съвременните инструменти за разработка и работа под Unix.

Освен интереси в сферата на компютрите, Реймънд е почитател на научната фантастика , активен либерал., притежател на черен пояс по Таекуондо , анархист  и привърженик на свободното притежаване на оръжие.  Реймънд е също така и активен блогър.

През юни 2009 г. Реймънд участва в създаването  на уебсайта NedaNet, създаден в чест на Неда Солтан "за да поддържа демократичната революция в Иран" чрез прокси сървъри, анонимизатори и други. Реймънд участва предимно като публично лице на уебсайта, заради което е получавал и смъртни заплахи.

Източници

Външни препратки
 Официален уебсайт
 Блог

Американски програмисти
Американски таекуондисти
Американски либертарианци
Американски общественици
Родени в Бостън


text:
BusinessTechnologyLogistics
Tom Krisher | Associated Press
September 2, 2021 6:15 PM, EDT
GM, Ford Halt Some Production as Chip Shortage Worsens
GM will be closing several plants due to chip shortages. (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg)
[Stay on top of transportation news: Get TTNews in your inbox.]
DETROIT — The global shortage of computer chips is getting worse, forcing automakers to temporarily close factories including those that build popular pickup trucks.
General Motors announced Sept. 2 that it would pause production at eight North American plants during the next two weeks, including two that make the company's top-selling Chevrolet Silverado pickup.
Ford will stop making pickups at its Kansas City Assembly Plant for the next two weeks. Shifts will be cut at two more truck plants in Dearborn, Mich., and Louisville, Ky.
The cuts will compound an already short supply of cars, trucks and SUVs on dealer lots nationwide that have pushed prices to record levels. Automakers reported that U.S. dealers had just under a million new vehicles on their lots in August, 72% lower than the 3.58 million in August of 2019.
Midsized pickup trucks and full-size vans are seen in a parking lot outside a General Motors assembly plant in Wentzville, Mo. (Jeff Roberson/Associated Press)
"It now appears to be accelerating in the wrong direction," said Jeff Schuster, president of global vehicle forecasting for LMC Automotive, a consulting firm.
Industry analysts say the delta variant of the novel coronavirus has hit employees at chip factories in southeast Asia hard, forcing some plants to close. That's worsened a chip shortage that was starting to improve earlier in the summer.
"Now the prospects for new sales for the rest of the year continue to dim with the reality that tight inventory will last well into 2022," said Kevin Roberts, director of industry insights for Cargurus.com.
Demand for trucks, SUVs and other autos is strong, but buyers are growing frustrated due to lack of inventory and high prices. U.S. light vehicle sales fell nearly 18% in August compared with a year ago, while the average vehicle sale price hit more than $41,000, a record, according to J.D. Power.
Sales of Ford's F-Series trucks fell nearly 23% for the month.
The August sales dip and inventory shortages prompted Schuster to cut his U.S. sales forecast for the year to 15.7 million. Until the pandemic hit, sales had been running around 17 million per year.
Consumers who need a new vehicle don't have many choices with dealer supplies so short, Schuster said. Some have left the market because they can't find anything that meets their needs. For others, "pricing is through the roof, so they can't afford it and aren't willing to spend what it's going to cost to get that vehicle."
GM is shutting down pickup truck plants in Fort Wayne, Ind., and Silao, Mexico, for a week starting Sept. 6. A plant in Wentzville, Mo., that builds midsize pickups and big vans will close for two weeks. Other plants that make small and midsize SUVs will be idled for two weeks or longer.
"These recent scheduling adjustments are being driven by the continued parts shortages caused by semiconductor supply constraints from international markets experiencing COVID-19-related restrictions," GM said in a statement.
The GM and Ford cuts come on top of temporary plant closures announced previously by Toyota, Nissan and Stellantis, formerly Fiat Chrysler.
RoadSigns · Roadsigns E66 (Preview)
Fleet managers find that healthy, happy drivers are key to business success. Stephen Kane of Rolling Strong says driver health starts with "being vulnerable enough to listen to somebody that knows about health." Hear a snippet above, and get the full program by going to RoadSigns.TTNews.com.
Stellantis shut down its Ram truck assembly plant in Sterling Heights, Mich., this week due to the chip shortage. The company's Belvidere, Ill., small-SUV plant and a minivan plant in Windsor, Ontario are down for two weeks.
Toyota said it would slash production by at least 40% in Japan and North America for the next two months, cutting production by 360,000 vehicles worldwide in September alone.
Nissan, which announced in mid-August that chip shortages would force it to close its huge factory in Smyrna, Tenn., for two weeks until Aug. 30, now says the closure will last four weeks, until Sept. 13.
There is a little good news. Ford said its overall production rose 76% from July to August, although it's not clear how long that would last.
Want more news? Listen to today's daily briefing below or go here for more info:
General Motors, Ford Motor
GM Looks for Location for Second US Battery Factory
GM Enters Electric Pickup Battle With 400-Mile Silverado EV
GM Factory ZERO Grand Opening Event Marks Automaker's Growth in EV


text:
Islam, Women and Feminism ( 26 Sept 2016, NewAgeIslam.Com)
Qur'an Is Not Anti-Women, the Men-Made Shariah Is
By Asma Barlas
The reason Muslims have failed to read the Qur'an as an anti-patriarchal text has to do with who has read it (basically men), the contexts in which they have read it (basically patriarchal), and the method by which they have read it (basically one that ignores the hermeneutic and theological principles that the Qur'an suggests for its own reading)
(In 2003, professor Asma Barlas delivered a keynote address at Ithaca College based on her book, "Believing Women" in Islam, Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an, dealing with the Qur'an's position on sexual equality. A modified version of her talk was published in three parts by The Daily Times, Pakistan a few months later. We are republishing an abridged version of the articles as they have a direct bearing on the current debates in India, within and outside the Supreme Court, on the issues of triple Talaq, Halala marriages and polygamy)
M y interest in studying Islam grew out of experiences in Pakistan, which is my home country and where I lived until 1983, and in the US where I've spent the last twenty years of my life.
It is easy to assume that the prevailing culture in Pakistan is Islamic because 98% of the people are Muslims and it wasn't until I no longer was embedded in that culture that I came to realise show much of what passes as Islam actually ignores or violates the Qur'an's teachings. (The reason I use the Qur'an as a yardstick to evaluate Muslim practices is because I believe that a scripture offers the most authoritative and compelling exposition of a religion.)
A case in point was the introduction of segments of Muslim law, the Sharia, into the country by its previous military ruler, Zia ul Haq. The Sharia, unfortunately, legalises sexual inequality by equating the testimony of two women to that of one man and it also fails to distinguish between rape, adultery, and extramarital sex, for all of which it prescribes stoning to death, something that the Qur'an itself does not sanction for any crime in any context.
Such laws naturally had devastating consequences for women. One particularly notorious case involved the rape of a blind woman who became pregnant. The court took this as evidence that she was guilty of extramarital sex and sentenced her to be stoned, though the sentence was later stayed.
Meanwhile, the rapist went free because, being blind, she couldn't identify him. However, even if she had been able to see him, the court would still have discounted her testimony because it wasn't corroborated by another woman. This, however, is a gross misreading of the Qur'an since in only one out of several instances of evidence-giving does the Qur'an say that two women can serve as witnesses to a financial transaction if a man is not available.
In the other cases, it does not distinguish between women's and men's testimonies and in the case of adultery; it privileges the woman's testimony. If a man accuses his wife of adultery and cannot produce four male witnesses to corroborate his testimony, the Qur'an allows the wife to be her own witness; if she swears her innocence, it gives her husband no further legal recourse against her.
But the Sharia clearly does not see the Qur'anic privilege given to women in this instance as proof that women's evidence isn't automatically half that of a man's. So, even before I left Pakistan, I had become aware of the "striking difference between what can be safely inferred from the Qur'an itself and what has frequently been read into it" (Neal Robinson, Discovering the Quran, London: SCM Press, 1996: 29).
This realisation grew in the US where people ascribe all sorts of stuff to Islam that either has nothing to do with it or isn't Islamic in its particular manifestations, such as the harem, the veil, and female circumcision, and after 9/11, the concept of holy war. There is, however, no concept of holy war or of female circumcision in the Qur'an, and the forms of polygyny most Muslims practice violate the Qur'anic provisions on marriage, as do many forms of veiling…
I raise two sets of questions in my book ('Believing Women' in Islam, Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an, University of Texas Press, 2002) as a way to flesh out the Qur'an's position on equality.
First, is the Qur'an a patriarchal or misogynistic text? When I ask this question, "I am asking whether it represents God as Father/male or teaches that God has a special relationship with males or that males embody divine attributes and that women are by nature weak, unclean, or sinful. Further, does it teach that the father/husband is divinely ordained and an earthly continuation of God's Rule, as religious and traditional patriarchies claims? Alternatively, does the Qur'an advocate gender differentiation, dualisms, or inequality on the basis of sexual (biological) differences between women and men? In other words, does it privilege men over women in their biological capacity as males, or treat man as the Self… and woman as the Other, or view women and men as binary opposites, as modern patriarchal theories of sexual differentiation and inequality do?"
Second, I ask whether we can read the Qur'an for liberation. When I ask this question, "I am asking whether its teachings about God as well as about human creation, ontology, sexuality, and marital relationships challenge sexual inequality and patriarchy. Alternatively, do the teachings of the Qur'an allow us to theorise the equality, sameness, similarity, or equivalence, as the context demands, of women and men?" (Asma Barlas, "Believing Women," in Islam 2002:1).
As is obvious, these questions presuppose a particular view of patriarchy and in passing I should mention that no one until now had applied a definition of patriarchy to read the Qur'an even though, as I noted earlier, many Muslims regularly condemn Islam as a patriarchal religion.
I define patriarchy in both a narrow (specific) and a broad (universal) sense in order to make the definition as comprehensive as possible. Narrowly defined, patriarchy is a historically specific mode of rule by fathers that, in its religious and traditional forms, assumes a real as well as symbolic continuum between a patriarchalised view of God as Father/male, and a theory of father-right, extending to the husband's claim to rule over his wife and children. I apply this definition in reading the Qur'an because the Qur'an was revealed in the context of a traditional patriarchy, and my aim is to see if it endorsed this mode of patriarchy by representing God as Father or by representing the father or husband as ruler over his wife and children.
Since the Qur'an's teachings are universal and since father's rule has reconstituted itself, I also define patriarchy more broadly, as a politics of sexual differentiation that privileges males by 'transforming biological sex into politicised gender, which prioritises the male while making the woman different (unequal), less than, or the 'Other'"( Zillah Eisenstein,
Feminism and Sexual Equality: Crisis in Liberal America, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1984: 90. I should note that in her later work, Eisenstein does clarify that difference doesn't mean inequality, which is a crucial point to which I will return).
Using this definition, I show that it is possible "to answer the first set of questions — is the Qur'an a patriarchal or misogynistic text — in the negative, while [answering...] the second— can the Qur'an be a source for women's liberation — in the affirmative"(Barlas, p. 2)
To begin with, the Qur'an does not represent God as Father or male; indeed, it explicitly forbids sacralising God as Father or using similitude for God. Nor does it sacralise fathers or fatherhood. It does recognise that in historically existing patriarchies, men are the locus of authority and it does address patriarchies, but addressing a patriarchy is not the same as condoning or advocating one and indeed, the Qur'an repeatedly says that "following the ways of the father" has prevented people from the path of God.
My reading of the Qur'anic accounts of the prophets Abraham and Muhammad, also suggests an inherent conflict between monotheism and patriarchy inasmuch as the latter sacralises men and their authority over women and children, which the Qur'an does not do.
Thus, contrary to what many Muslims claim, the Qur'an does not establish men as ontologically superior to women or as rulers over them; rather, it designates women and men each other's "guides" (Awliyah) and establishes love and mutuality as the basis of marriage. Moreover, in Islam sexual equality is ontological in that the Qur'an teaches that God created humans from a single self (Nafs). It does not privilege the man's creation or endow him with attributes or faculties not given to the woman. Rather, humans "manifest the whole" (Sachiko Murata, The Tao of Islam: A Sourcebook on Gender Relationships in Islamic Thought, Albany: SUNY, 1992, p. 43; her emphasis).
The Qur'an also does not define men and women as opposites, or portray women as lesser or defective men, or the two sexes as incompatible, incommensurable, or unequal. In fact, it does not even associate sex with gender; thus, while the Qur'an recognises biological differences, it does not assign them any gender symbolism making it difficult to derive a theory of sexual and gender inequality from its teachings. The Qur'an also does not link women and men to specific gender roles. There is not a single verse that suggests that men's gender roles are a function of their biology, or that biological differences between men and women make them unequal.
Therefore, while the Qur'an does treat women and men differently with respect to some issues this doesn't mean that it establishes them as unequal. For one thing, difference in itself does not imply inequality. For another, the Qur'an does not tie its different treatment of women and men to any claims about biological superiority or inferiority.
The only basis on which Islam does distinguish between human beings is on the basis of their moral praxis...; as Sachiko Murata (p. 44) says it "distinguishes between those who have faith and those who do not: the 'believers' and the 'unbelievers.' In all the perspectives of Islamic life and thought people are separated into groups according to the degree to which they fulfill the purpose of life.'"
It is not just on the basis of such teachings that I describe the Qur'an as anti-patriarchal, but also on the basis of the claim that the anti-patriarchal nature of Qur'anic epistemology flows from Islamic conceptualisations of God. This part of my argument maintains that since there is an intrinsic relationship between God Being's and God's Speech, we need to connect them, which means we need to base our readings of the Qur'an in our understanding of God.
For instance, the doctrine of Tawhid maintains that God is One and God's sovereignty/rule is indivisible. To my mind, this means that we should not read the Qur'an as designating men as rulers over women, or as intermediaries between God and women, since this constitutes shirk. Similarly, the Qur'an teaches that God is Just and never does Zulm to people (Zulm, in the Qur'anic context, means transgressing against another's rights). As such, I believe God's Speech also cannot teach transgression against the rights of humans.
Since patriarchies do transgress against women's rights by oppressing them, I argue that the Qur'an cannot possibly endorse them and we should read its provisions with this idea in mind. Likewise, the Qur'an teaches that God is un-representable; as such, linguistic references to God as "He" should be seen as limitations of human language and not accurate statements about God's Reality.
If we apply such criteria to read the Qur'an and also read it for its best meanings and as a thematic whole, privileging its clear verses over its allegorical, as the Qur'an itself recommends, then we arrive at an interpretation that captures the radically egalitarian nature of its teachings.
If, as I have argued, the Qur'an does not endorse theories of male privilege and female inferiority and subordination, then the question becomes why haven't Muslims read it as an anti-patriarchal and liberatory text? I want to address this problem, as well as the larger issue of interpretation, in the last part of my talk.
I believe that the reason Muslims have failed to read the Qur'an as an anti-patriarchal text has to do with "who has read it (basically men), the contexts in which they have read it (basically patriarchal), and the method by which they have read it (basically one that ignores the hermeneutic and theological principles that the Qur'an suggests for its own reading)" (Asma Barlas, "Challenging Patriarchal Interpretations of Islam," Anderberg Lecture, University of Nebraska, 2002).
Much of the religious knowledge Muslims regard as canonical today is the product of a method that has been described as linear, atomistic, and hermeneutically flawed. However, because of how religious knowledge and authority came to be structured in Muslim societies historically, most Muslims continue to regard these interpretations and this methodology as Islamic.
Much of this religious knowledge also was produced by male scholars in the first few centuries of Islam which were co-terminus with the medieval period of European history. Even though Muslim civilisation was at its zenith during this period of European decline, this was nonetheless an era of enormous misogyny that was cross-cultural and inter-national in its scope.
Added to this is the fact that many of the Qur'an's provisions threatened existing relationships of power between women and men and between the rulers and the ruled and produced a strong conservative resistance that extended to de-radicalising parts of its message very early on. For instance, Fatima Mernissi shows how many Muslim men tried to misread the verses that extended inalienable rights to women (The Veil and the Male Elite, New York: Addison-Wesley, 1991).
Similarly, Louise Marlow argues that as early as the second Islamic century, Muslim Ulema had begun to dilute the egalitarian impulse in various parts of tradition, by justifying hierarchical "models of kingship" in a society whose Scripture extolled the virtues of egalitarianism. Thus, the ulema who had "gained incontestable possession of the moral high ground [refused to] translate the anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian moral at the heart of their scholarly tradition into an active social and political opposition."
Instead, they sought to justify not only hierarchies, but quietism as well, even though some of them "felt obliged to defend their quietism, since it was activism that had been suggested most strongly by early Muslim experience." By the third Islamic century, even Quranic exegesis showed that the egalitarianism once associated with the Qur'an had lost its "subversive connotation" (Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977: 93; 66).
On its part, the early Muslim state also became involved in promoting certain interpretive practices and certain readings of Islam that were oppressive to women. This has been documented by several scholars, including Leila Ahmed, who also points out that different readings of the same texts yield "fundamentally different Islams" for women (Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate, Yale University Press, 1992).
All this suggests, of course, that hermeneutical and existential questions are connected and to the extent they are, it is reasonable to argue that one cannot read scriptures in liberatory modes by means of flawed methodologies and in oppressive and anti-democratic circumstances. Many people, including disillusioned Muslims, believe that Islam itself is anti-democratic, but I reject such essentialism because, as my own work shows, a religion is always polysemic (has a multiplicity of meanings) and we can read it in more than one way.
To me, then, the more appropriate question becomes "why does a community come to regard certain interpretations and ideas as authentic, authoritative, or canonical?" And that takes us back to such issues as how knowledge itself is produced and the contexts in which it is produced.
If we look at Muslim societies today, we find a rather dismal picture. Most of the regimes in power are viewed by their own people as illegitimate, oppressive, and un-Islamic. Moreover, as a result partly of Western support of such regimes and partly of the legacy of Western colonialism, Muslim societies have experienced modernisation not as economic development or political freedoms, but as a "coercive secularism" (Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, New York: Modern Library, 2000: 166).
This brings me to how non-Muslim Westerners view Islam and to the role of the US in keeping anti-democratic regimes in power in Muslim societies, and around the world generally. I have argued elsewhere that in spite of a 1,400 year long shared history, and in spite of the fact that Islam is as much a part of Abrahamic monotheism as are Judaism and Christianity; there is very little understanding of Islam in the US and the West. Even and perhaps, especially, in the Academy, only certain types of discourses on Islam get fore-grounded that continues to perpetuate ignorant and damaging stereotypes about it.
My own view is that this ignorance "is cultivated, not accidental, and that it arises in an age-old politics of misrecognition that 'confuses Islam with Muslims, disregards the role of political, economic, cultural, and historical factors in shaping not only Muslim attitudes and actions, but also their readings of Islam, and denies Western complicity in creating many of the conditions that are conducive' to religious extremism and not just on the part of some Muslims" (Asma Barlas, "Jihad=Holy War=Terrorism: the Politics of Conflation and Denial," American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, Winter 2003: 1).
In such a milieu, learning about Islam requires unlearning deeply entrenched modes of ignorance and non-recognition and while some people are open to such a possibility, most can see no stake in it because of the instrumentalist belief that there's no value in learning about things that don't impact their own lives in immediate and tangible ways. However, one of the things 9/11 should have brought home to us — and I intend the pun here — is that even as we secure ourselves behind imaginary borders of inside/outside, in real life, what happens "out there" is likely to have repercussions "in here" sooner or later as well.
This is why I believe US-Americans have a stake in the foreign policies that governments pursue in their names and which, for the most part, are conducive to oppression, not democracy. I also believe that US-Americans have a stake in egalitarian readings of Islam and of their own religions (and secular ideologies, for that matter) because we need to devise more egalitarian modes of "knowing one another," to use a Qur'anic phrase. In the absence of mutual recognition based in mutual knowledge and understanding, we will be hard put to live peaceably together.
Asma Barlas is professor of politics, Ithaca College, USA.
Source: sabrangindia.in/article/qur'-not-anti-women-men-made-shariah
URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/asma-barlas/qur'an-is-not-anti-women,-the-men-made-shariah-is/d/108685


text:
By Andrew Janson
Vine to be trimmed by Twitter
Andrew Janson
Vine's announcement on Medium.com
At a time when apps are ubiquitous, it's hard to imagine them ever not being available. I'm still surprised and a little saddened when I search for an old app I used to love on the App Store only to find that there are no results. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat have all become staples of the social media toolkit, and for a while, Vine, the six second video sharing app that Twitter acquired in 2012, was also on that list. But in an announcement yesterday Twitter said that it will no longer be continuing support for the app. This move serves as a reminder that even when the internet seems like it's forever, it isn't. Sure, those photos that you posted on that one internet forum 10 years ago are probably still there. But services offered through the internet can still close up shop, just like a good ol' brick and mortar store.
Earlier this year, Twitter Inc. reported its slowest revenue growth since going public, continually struggling with decreasing user growth and quarter after quarter of being unprofitable. Make no mistake, Twitter is making hundreds of millions of dollars in ad revenue a year; it's just that their stock-based employee compensations have been costing them more than they make. As TIME reported in February, Twitter posted losses of $250 million in 2015, and nearly $2 billion since its launch. Even though their adjusted earnings (which don't include compensation) show them in the black, it's not a model that they can sustain indefinitely. It's not clear exactly why Twitter is making this decision, but it wouldn't be completely insane to attribute the move to their struggling revenue stats.
The rise of Snapchat, and more recently Instagram's Stories feature, may also be to blame. Twitter has always sort of been that secondary social network, and in acquiring Vine it may have put it in a similar position.
Regardless of the reasons, Vine will surely be missed. Boasting 200 million users at the end of 2015, Vine certainly has no shortage of people who will mourn it. Luckily, though, for both Vine fans and content creators, Twitter is planning on leaving the site up — at least for now — so that people can continute to view their vine videos.
Get the Latest News Sent to Your Inbox
(Plus Exclusive Tech Deals and Our Digital Magazine)
We will only use your info to send you awesome content and exclusive deals.
Next article Toyota Invests In Car Sharing
Previous article 4 Best, Classic Mobile Games Worth Revisiting
Andrew is a long-time staff writer and editor with Innovation & Tech Today. Though he fights crime in his free time, you wouldn't know it to look at him; his alter-ego is as mild-mannered as they come.
Tommy Lee on the Power of Self and Riding Life at 320 MPH
Exclusive Disney+ Sneak Peak Of Nat Geo's "THE REAL RIGHT STUFF"
Aiming for Space — and Our Higher Potential: Behind the Making of The Right Stuff
Coming to Newsstands!
We hate spam too. You'll get great content and exclusive offers. Nothing more.
*Your information will only be used to send you great content and special offers.
Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter and Get Our Digital Issues Free


Global Design Events & Exhibitions | 2018 Archive.
Global Design Events & Exhibitions | 2017 Archive.
Maison & Objet Paris 2017: Best In Show.
Global Design Events & Exhibitions | 2016 Archive.
Menu Launch Brand New AW16 Collection at Maison & Objet 2016.
Maison&Objet 2016: Best In Show // Furniture, Lighting & Accessories.
Global Design Events & Exhibitions | 2015 Archive.


Auroboros from Toolarmy emailed me today, to tell me that his Mum tells him that Tool have been booked by Frontier Touring and will be playing in Melbourne on the 9th or 10th of December. The dates sound about right based on Maynard's comments earlier this year, but I guess we'll have to wait and see as to how accurate this rumour is…..
I hope that means a show in Honolulu!
If they miss Adelaide… well… it won't be pretty.
Note: Those dates are figments of my imagination at this stage…..
Touring twice in the same country in support of the same album at such ludicrous prices. You'd have to be a tool to go.
i saw tool twice already in he same year, and its worth if want to go ! and if going twice you are a tooltool not a tool .. get it ?
hhehe i made a funny one !


text:
Home > Extraordinary Profiles > Business & Entrepreneurship > Your Biggest Challenge May Be
Your Greatest Gift
Your Biggest Challenge May Be
Tony Dovale
Ever hear of death by Google? Neither had Tony Dovale, until it destroyed his thriving business.
The South African native had conquered his childhood demons and was making big money sharing his self-awareness, spiritual generosity, and motivational productivity methods. Fortune 500 companies and individual soul-searchers from far and wide emailed him daily to book him as a speaker. He was living in a beautiful house with the woman of his dreams.
Suddenly, it all came to a screeching halt. No requests for his services came in for several days. Weeks passed. Then months. By the time he figured out that Google had reconfigured its search engine algorithms, dropping his ranking from number one to number 700, his income had already plummeted. Worse, his fiancé lost interest in their relationship.
"You'll never be good enough." The words he had heard throughout his childhood started coming back to haunt him. He had overcome those feelings of inadequacy years ago working on a frigate warship for the South African Navy during the Angolan Bush War. It had taken years, voracious reading, and fearless self-confrontation to become an internationally admired inspirational leader.
But when Google dropped his search ranking and decimated his life, everything his unforgiving father had ever said to him came flooding back with a vengeance. The charismatic man who'd motivated thousands of people around the world with his positive energy and enthusiasm now felt like the slight, frightened boy he used to be.
Instead of falling into an abyss of depression, however, Dovale chose to fly. He'd beaten the odds before, after all, when his radio station went silent years earlier. Asking what he could learn from a challenge was not new to this man, and he did it again, digging even deeper into his own history and personality to find the love, the peace, and the freedom he needed for true happiness.
Today, Tony Dovale has regained his previous monetary success. More important, he has achieved what he calls the "end goal" of success: A deep feeling of personal joy that can only come from inner contentment and daily selfless giving. He's built an even more impressive body of work, including books, CDs, and mindset shifting systems that benefit individuals as well as corporations around the globe.
Dovale does not appear to be slowing down any time soon. He considers himself a work in progress, practicing what he preaches every day. He's a disarmingly honest man who doesn't sugar coat intimate details about himself, and we enjoyed a delightful conversation with him recently.
Get ready to be inspired.
To read Tony Dovale's interview, subscribe today.
Business & EntrepreneurshipEmpowermentExtraordinary ProfilesInspiration