Now, doesn't THAT sound familiar?

[I love Lyta]

Excerpt from the Stargate: SG-1 episode guide on one of the final episodes of season eight:

"Daniel is powerless to stop Anubis. Oma can't destroy him, but she can still fight him ù for eternity. She becomes pure energy and rushes at him. They rise toward the ceiling and vanish in a swirling stream of cosmic light."

Now if THAT doesn't sound familiar...
Can't they come up with their own ideas?

[Radhil]

I saw that when it aired. I have to say... I didn't see any similarities. Not with the characters and especially not the situation.

[AaronB]

I have to agree with Radhill on this. When I saw it, I didn't think that it was similar at all. And it's not like B5 has the copywrite on ascended beings not having any real body...

[Radhil]

If you want context - it happened in a diner. That kinda throws off the mood.

[Dr Maturin]

Lucas will have to sue both B5 and SG-1.

[Towelmaster]

Who owns the copyright to "sound in space" ? Much be a very rich person...

[AaronB]

Lucas will have to sue both B5 and SG-1.

Let's not give him any ideas, shall we?

[Dr Maturin]

Who owns the copyright to "sound in space" ? Much be a very rich person...

Hey, man...I replied to you at the OTD in the RIPT.

[I love Lyta]

If you want context - it happened in a diner. That kinda throws off the mood.

Which in itself is also a similarity to the final episode of Quantum Leap to a certain -tho admittedly even smaller- degree.


"it's not like B5 has the copywrite on ascended beings not having any real body..."

I never said that.


I have to admit that I haven't seen it since season 8 didn't even start here yet.
But the moment I read it that immediately struck me as being much too similar even tho oma and anubis are real enemies.

[Towelmaster]

Hey, man...I replied to you at the OTD in the RIPT.

Didn't see it, will check.

Edit : Jumping forums doesn't help of course.

In a nutshell(well sort of) :

I think that some of the view(s) you present are extremely lop-sided. I would like to remind you that I live two borders away from Poland and that we have lived in the middle of the cold war for 50 years in such a way that we would be the first to be wiped out in case it got hot. This gives Europeans(interested ones of course) a different outlook on the subject of the results of WW II.

By the way ; I am 43 years old, my IQ(for what it's worth), when tested, turned out to be 150, I was born in the year they built the Berlin Wall and I saw them tear it down 40 years later. I am an avid reader of lots of styles and genres about lots of subjects, of which history is an important one. I have read and read and studied and read some more about historical events with great interest.
Also: by profession I am an analyst, and a real analyst cannot stop analyzing when he goes home after work. He analyzes everything he sees, it is a professional deformation. My brain really never stops, this I have heard from many people who know me well. Therefor I do not accept what I read just like that. I admire the journalist with at least three different sources. So when 15 sources tell me through the years that A is A I am inclined to accept it as a fact. Just for the record; inclined.

Anyway : back to the subject :

Alger Hiss may have been a traitor, a spy, an asshole, etcetera, I don't doubt it. But in the end; do you really really believe that Stalin would have handed over Poland to the West if Hiss wouldn't have done what he did? If the answer is yes then I suggest we find another topic for discussion for we then have a diametrically opposed view of Europe, WWII and the cold war. If the anwer is more detailed then I'm game for a discussion.

But if you want to yank my chain then by all means keep posting like you are The Great Historian yourself. Just don't be surprised when I get pissed off with the shallowness and simplicity of some of your answers.

Posting a quote does not do the trick anymore. Every clever person on the web knows that there is too much lying and too much b*llsh*t going on. For instance : you quoted the Wikipedia. Now as much as I like that project, it is an "open source"-project where everybody can write articles and everybody can alter them afterwards. The only controlling factor is peer-pressure. I have read articles there that would make your hair stand up straight.


O.K. As a bit of input in this discussion :

Stalin decided during the second worldwar that the soviet union needed a cordon sanitaire, a secured perimeter around the soviet union. This was the central doctrine of the soviet union from that moment on. Why did the Allied forced rush into Germany at the end of WWII ? Because they knew that any land occupied by the russians would stay occupied by the russians. Hell, they even miscalculated and fought the Battle of Arnhem(remember "A bridge too far?) just so they could take a shortcut and be there before the russians.

A full discussion of the background of the carving up of Europe after WWII would go to far for one thread, but I hope you get what I mean. There is so much more to this than meets the eye that - in my opinion of course - you cannot use generalisms like 'Alger Hiss did it' to a subject so complicated.

Of course this is only my opinion and - fortunately - everybody is allowed to agree or disagree.

[colonyearth]

I have to add that while watching the SG-1 scene I never even once thought about B5, they're that different. A scene's description can be misleading.

All of that said, SG-1 "borrows" from and pays homage to other SF all the time and makes no attempt to hide it. In fact, they usually point it out. It's part of their schtick and part of what I love about the show. Their tongues are planted firmly in their cheeks and all references to famous SF moments or characters are done purely out of deep respect, not theft.

STARGATE takes potshots at SF while being great SF itself. It is a form of its own wonderful imagination.

CE

[AaronB]

Didn't see it, will check.

Edit : Jumping forums doesn't help of course.

In a nutshell(well sort of) :

I think that some of the view(s) you present are extremely lop-sided. I would like to remind you that I live two borders away from Poland and that we have lived in the middle of the cold war for 50 years in such a way that we would be the first to be wiped out in case it got hot. This gives Europeans(interested ones of course) a different outlook on the subject of the results of WW II.

By the way ; I am 43 years old, my IQ(for what it's worth), when tested, turned out to be 150, I was born in the year they built the Berlin Wall and I saw them tear it down 40 years later. I am an avid reader of lots of styles and genres about lots of subjects, of which history is an important one. I have read and read and studied and read some more about historical events with great interest.
Also: by profession I am an analyst, and a real analyst cannot stop analyzing when he goes home after work. He analyzes everything he sees, it is a professional deformation. My brain really never stops, this I have heard from many people who know me well. Therefor I do not accept what I read just like that. I admire the journalist with at least three different sources. So when 15 sources tell me through the years that A is A I am inclined to accept it as a fact. Just for the record; inclined.

Anyway : back to the subject :

Alger Hiss may have been a traitor, a spy, an asshole, etcetera, I don't doubt it. But in the end; do you really really believe that Stalin would have handed over Poland to the West if Hiss wouldn't have done what he did? If the answer is yes then I suggest we find another topic for discussion for we then have a diametrically opposed view of Europe, WWII and the cold war. If the anwer is more detailed then I'm game for a discussion.

But if you want to yank my chain then by all means keep posting like you are The Great Historian yourself. Just don't be surprised when I get pissed off with the shallowness and simplicity of some of your answers.

Posting a quote does not do the trick anymore. Every clever person on the web knows that there is too much lying and too much b*llsh*t going on. For instance : you quoted the Wikipedia. Now as much as I like that project, it is an "open source"-project where everybody can write articles and everybody can alter them afterwards. The only controlling factor is peer-pressure. I have read articles there that would make your hair stand up straight.


O.K. As a bit of input in this discussion :

Stalin decided during the second worldwar that the soviet union needed a cordon sanitaire, a secured perimeter around the soviet union. This was the central doctrine of the soviet union from that moment on. Why did the Allied forced rush into Germany at the end of WWII ? Because they knew that any land occupied by the russians would stay occupied by the russians. Hell, they even miscalculated and fought the Battle of Arnhem(remember "A bridge too far?) just so they could take a shortcut and be there before the russians.

A full discussion of the background of the carving up of Europe after WWII would go to far for one thread, but I hope you get what I mean. There is so much more to this than meets the eye that - in my opinion of course - you cannot use generalisms like 'Alger Hiss did it' to a subject so complicated.

Of course this is only my opinion and - fortunately - everybody is allowed to agree or disagree.

Woah! talk about forums jumping...

[Andrew_Swallow]

{snip}
Why did the Allied forced rush into Germany at the end of WWII ? Because they knew that any land occupied by the russians would stay occupied by the russians. Hell, they even miscalculated and fought the Battle of Arnhem(remember "A bridge too far?) just so they could take a shortcut and be there before the russians.

The allies also knew that fighting their way through every village in Italy, France, Holland and Denmark would take too long. There was a big risk it would turn into a re-enactment of World War 1.

From the US point of view this was all a sideshow. They wanted to get on with their real enemy Japan.

[I love Lyta]

I have to add that while watching the SG-1 scene I never even once thought about B5, they're that different. A scene's description can be misleading.

All of that said, SG-1 "borrows" from and pays homage to other SF all the time and makes no attempt to hide it. In fact, they usually point it out. It's part of their schtick and part of what I love about the show. Their tongues are planted firmly in their cheeks and all references to famous SF moments or characters are done purely out of deep respect, not theft.

STARGATE takes potshots at SF while being great SF itself. It is a form of its own wonderful imagination.

CE

Yeah. Maybe you're right.
Maybe I just got it down the wrong throat.
Possibly due to my current overall state of mind.

[Redrake]

I never found any refference to B5 in Stargate, but there are refferences to Star Trek, Idependence Day and Star Wars.