Nonononono... not like that, and I wouldn't "compare" them to Queen either. I just find Rush's lyrics don't bother me nearly so much if I assume they're being a little toungue-in-cheek like those other two. The handful of Rush shows I've been to support this approach, I think.

Not directly on topic, but I recently moved to Toronto and have made my pilgrimage to Pearson International.

There is unrest in the forest

You don't have to. In fact, I think Rush is best when not taken too seriously. Approach it like you would Queen or Muse, that is, without the monocle and cognac but also without shutting off your higher functions entirely (as one must for most dance music).

If I had Han's history and skills? No chance I'd give a guy like Greedo the benefit of the doubt. My life's on the line here, and it wasn't endangered by my being an upstanding citizen.

"Having trouble finding the proper output jack on the back of your computer for your headphones?"

Well fine, if you're going to shoot the person after you've mind-blasted them, then that's a problem. But it's because you're killing a now-defenceless person, which is normally considered wrong.

I think it's at least as obvious that killing someone would also violate their human rights. And we don't seem to mind weapons that do that.

I'm sort of hoping they don't find anything at all down there. Then we have a nice, deep, inescapable abyss for locking away all the unspeakable horrors we happen to unearth elsewhere.

His actual point is important, and well worth considering. It's really just the supporting graphics I have trouble with. There have to be much better ways to visually capture the core of his thesis.

Only new Trek show I'd watch would follow a group of Federation outcasts like the Maquis. This would either be in the traditional setting, or in some future or J.J. alternate setting where the Feds turn authoritarian and the Maquis have more of a Firefly Browncoat thing going on.

Ah, okay. I was thinking more about the "stop ruining my childhood" angle. George can't do anything to prevent the 8-year-old me from enjoying his first triology marathon. He's releasing new versions which, ontologically speaking, are new things. He's not altering Star Wars as it exist in all times and places. My…

I have to assume Tim was well-paid. He's so gleefully destructive at his introduction.

Good wizards glow with the Fire of the Undying Light. Evil wizards have horns (or horned skullcaps) and wear gold-embroidered black robes.

What Lucas says isn't relevant, though. I've got the originals on my computer and they're the only ones I'll ever watch. It's not up to George whether they still count as Star Wars movies. And no edits or extra material for new editions has any effect on that.

I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about their place in the context of modern aesthetic theory. Appropriation is perfectly valid, whether or not it's technically legal.

Personally, I don't think it's even relevant whether there's life on other worlds. I mean, it's relevant to us and our view of things, but I'd rather we just kept our paws off the rest of the universe whether there's life there or not.

Oh that's fine. Those are all perfectly valid reasons to dislike these (in fact I agree with most of them). I don't think they're great posters, either. But it sounds like people are dismissing them offhand for no reason other than their origin; which I don't think is appropriate in the light of 20th/21st Century…

Welcome to the early 1900s then. This is legitimate work.

Why is this a problem? He's restyled and recontextualized. It's been an important activity in the art world for ages now.