Re: PJ's interpretation ofAragorn - am I alone ?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 "Morgil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "jere7my tho?rpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> >      *shrug*  Crap doesn't generate two years of interesting
> > discussions.  Discussions about crap die down; consensus is reached
> > relatively quickly.
> 
> That's a nice theory, but a Google groups search for
> "Phantom Menace"+movie brings up almost 80000
> hits, compared to about 20000 to "two towers"+movie.

     That's a remarkably unscientific way to go about measuring 
discussions.  How many of those "Phantom Menace" cites consist entirely 
of "I bet this other movie will suck, just like 'The Phantom Menace'," 
and how many were actual discussion?  How many posts spell out the 
entire titles of the movies, and how many refer to them as TTT vs. TPM?  
What is the mean posting date of the two sets of data -- i.e., how 
quickly did the discussions die down?

     From my (also unscientific) observations, TPM generated a _lot_ of 
serious discussion on Usenet for a couple of months, after which it was 
turned into shorthand for "crappy movie".  I've seen next to no actual 
discussion of the pros and cons of TPM since fall 1999, since 
near-consensus was reached fairly quickly, but I've seen hundreds of 
passing references to it.  FotR and TTT, on the other hand, continue to 
generate more or less interesting debate to this day.

                                                       ----j7y

-- 
**************************************************************************
jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913      "There is no spoon."  "SPOON!"  "There
    >>>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  <<<           is no spoon."  "SPOON!"  "There is no 
invert liws to reply via email       spoon."  "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo