Right on KB...back at ya! Go Bruins.

Like Steve, I too, have had a lifelong aversion to mobile phones, pagers, blackberries, cellphones...even ipods. Which, given that I live in LA, gadget capitol of the US, often resulted in people looking at me as if I was a social pariah. Or it could have been the B.O. But I digress. The fact is, not having an electronic device attached to me at all times didn't prevent me from having an active social life at all. All thru the years, as one person after another would implore "dude, you gotta get a pager" or "dude you gotta get on myspace" or "dude, you gotta get a blackberry" to the now popular "dude, you gotta get on facebook", I would just carry on, happy with my landline and message machine. Well, sad to say(and I'm sure Steve would say it's a result of me being a lily-livered liberal ), I've sold out my principles and recently bought a cellphone. Not just a cellphone, but a smartphone, at that. 3G, not 4G...and not an iPhone. Still, most of my friends and family were aghast and shocked. But two things lead me to finally get a cellphone. 1) Due to the fact that I am often out on the town at night, and frequently would go straight to whatever event from work, I often would not get my messages until I got home later that night. This meant I would miss out on some important things due to last-minute changes, when they had no way to reach me. I started thinking it might be a good idea for friends and family to have a way to reach me when plans change or things go wrong. 2) I discovered that it would be cheaper to have a cellphone than a landline. I noticed this as my monthly phone bill kept creeping up and there would be these hidden fees. So I took the plunge, bought a phone that also lets me surf the internet, watch youtube, check my e-mails and all that. But I refuse to let it suck me in. And since I've spent a lot of time railing at people who don't silence their beepers or cellphones while at the movies or the theatre, I always make sure to turn my phone off when I'm at a public event. It's ironic that people say we're more connected than ever, when it seems it's more the opposite. When I see people scurrying around, head down buried in their phone or ipad, they may be connected to their gadget but they're not connected to the real world around them. And you can see the damage that being engrossed in the virtual world at the expense of the real world has had on families and workplaces. All those yearning housewives alone in bed while the husband is jerking off to internet porn. Families eating dinner at a restaurant with everyone's attention focused on their gadget. What happened to families gathered around the table talking with each other, sharing their day. Now, I enjoy the time I spend here on the Zeppelin board. I wouldn't come here if I didn't. And I've even been fortunate to have a few of you friend me and exchange pms and talk about our lives and troubles. And I know some of you are going thru tough times and I feel for you...and there some of you that I should maybe pm more often. But as much as I enjoy our exchanges, and am happy to be your "friend", it would be unconscionable for me to put my virtual friendships ahead of my real friends and family. The real world will always take precedence over the internet. So, even though I have one of those gadgets, it's rarely out of my pocket. I will always prefer looking at a printed page or a person's eyes to looking at a small glowing screen anyday.

The good thing about Fox, is that you can immediately tell when you're talking to a Faux-bot because they will recite verbatim the exact same phrases and words used by the Fox talking heads. So it saves time. Say you're discussing healthcare with someone and they bring up words like "death panel" or "Obama-care"; BINGO! You know you're talking to a Faux-bot and now know it's a waste of time talking any further with this person, and you go merrily on your way.

Yes, but does the "ignoree" know he's being ignored? Is there some notification that is sent that tells you that you've been put on the ignore list by someone? Am I being ignored? :worry: I guess if you don't respond it means I am.

The MPAA is a joke; a shadowy organization whose bizarre decisions over the years have become legendary. Take this year, for instance...they gave THE KING'S SPEECH an R, just because of a few swear words, that in the context of the film weren't gratuitous at all, and quite reasonable. You should've heard the howls of laughter and outrage from my UK and European acquaintances over that one. Of course, it's an old joke in Europe that in the US a kid shouldn't see a man kissing a woman's breast; hacking it off with a chainsaw is ok, though. And you see it time and time again...the MPAA cut violent movies more slack than films with a sexual theme...and small independent films get tougher treatment than studio fare. Witness the Black Swan/Blue Valentine imbroglio. Both films feature a woman receiving oral pleasure...in Black Swan it's Mila Kunis and Nathalie Portman, and in Blue Valentine, Michelle Williams is on the receiving end from Ryan Gosling. Blue Valentine even shows less nudity than the Black Swan scene. Yet, Black Swan got an R, while the MPAA slapped Blue Valentine with an NC-17, which is the kiss of death in the US, as most newspapers and theatres won't advertise or show NC-17 movies. Only after an uproar ensued did the MPAA on appeal change the rating to an R. Sadly, this is what we're stuck with. For it's only the the film industry's creation of the MPAA in the 60's that has kept the government from sticking its censurous-nose in the mix. There's a good documentary that came out on the MPAA a couple of years ago...it's called "This Film is Not Rated". Back to Fast Times...I know there's quite a few women here, who were old enough to see it when it came out, either in theatres or home video, and who now have daughters of their own. Do you agree with me that this movie offers an excellent opportunity for a mother to engage her daughter on the pressures to have sex, knowing when it's the right time, all the trials and tribulations of high school? Even though Cameron Crowe wrote the script, much was made of the fact that the director was Amy Heckerling, and that it was her woman's point-of-view that allowed the movie to transcend the usual teen-sex comedy cliches. In other words, Stacy and Linda were able to be flesh-and-blood characters, not just stand around in bikinis, which was, and still is the norm. So women of the LZ board...what say you? You really had to be there back in 1982 to appreciate how groundbreaking and culturally significant Fast Times at Ridgemont High was. And you had to be North American, it seems as well. Discuss.

Ok, Silver Rider You see, I thought you were stating your personal opinion on who should see it; didn't realize you were just referring to the MPAA rating. Of course, the R rating didn't stop lots of kids sneaking in anyway. In fact, theatres had gotten so blasé about it all, that if you were tall or looked mature for your age, you could buy a ticket to an R movie, no problemo. This probably wasn't the case in the bible-belt.

Well of course the world didn't END when that old coot said it would...God wouldn't end the world BEFORE Robert Plant's tour was over. Look I know we're supposed to respect our elders, but this charade has gone on for far too long, and it's not just him. It's all the charlatans given a voice on national media these days. Think back to the Y2K-millenium scam. More and more, I'm reminded of the little-seen movie "Idiocracy" by Mike Judge, the man behind "Office Space". The way the media is sinking lower and lower, and the general public's tastes are dumbed down, it won't be long before the movie plays as documentary. Case in point is this Camping guy. Years ago, this kook wouldn't have been allowed near a tv studio, except for some religious show or public access. Every town has some wacko dowtown proclaiming the end of the world. Back in the day before cable news, people just walked on by and IGNORED them. Nobody said "Hey, let's put him on with Walter Cronkike!" The only media outlet for these nutjobs back then was Art Bell's Coast to Coast radio program, a one-stop shopping mart of UFO's, supernatural phenomena, conspiracy theories, and end-of-world scenarios. Or there was the zany, laughably bad WEEKLY WORLD NEWS tabloid, home of Bat-Boy and Alien Congressmen. But now, for some reason CNN and the BBC and the national press devote precious airtime and column inches to the bleatings of a fossil. Fox I can understand, as they'll put any religious wacko on, especially if they bash Obama. It is sad, truly sad to see how standards have lowered. As for all the stories about people selling their homes or spending their life savings...they're just more candidates for the Darwin Awards. Like the saying goes: "A fool and his money are soon parted."

Well Boston sure is doing this the hard way, letting this drag to a 7th game. With the Celtics already booted from the playoffs, Boston's gonna be one miserable town if the Bruins suffer the same fate. I don't think that'll happen, though...I see Boston taking care of business on its home ice in a game 7. And c'mon Silver, it just HAS TO BE the Winnipeg JETS! No other name will do...accept no substitutes. Winnipeg has given us the unique filmmaker Guy Maddin, director of such cool, quirky gems as "Careful", "Tales from the Gimli Hospital", "Twilight of the Ice Nymphs", "Dracula-Pages from a Virgin's Diary", and the pseudo-documentary "My Winnipeg", where he had film-noir legend Ann Savage (you MUST see her in "DETOUR") play his mother.

I believe that asking this question will only lead to slings and arrows...but since you asked, I believe in death and taxes. The rest is just conjecture.

Linda was just kidding around with Stacey when she said a quart. She may have been naive about older men, but she knew about sex. In fact, when Stacey's eyes get all big when she says that, Linda immediately reassures her she was joking. Frankly, there were much better quotes you could've chosen for Linda in your poll. And don't worry Brad, your little sister ain't a slut. Like most girls her age, she sometimes confuses sex and desire with love and acceptance. Adolescence and high school is a minefield. As for Damone, since he is a high schooler, I'll cut him some slack...but just barely. Actually, it was because this was the first teen comedy to deal with things like oral sex and abortion that got prudes like Roger Ebert all in a lather. Every generation likes to think they discovered sex. People get all excited about oral sex between students today, when actually kidz have been giving each other head for as long as I can remember. You can't get pregnant from it, and for most girls, it's a surer way to orgasm than vaginal intercourse, which when you're talking about teenage boys, usually doesn't last long enough for the girl to get off. Oh, and Silver Rider suggested this was for over 17 and over. I think that's a bit late. I think 15 and over is suitable...14 even, depending how mature the kid is. There are many teachable moments a parent can have with their kid watching this movie, regarding personal responsibility and respecting others and sexual boundaries. You want to discuss these issues BEFORE your kid enters high school hell, not AFTER, when it may be too late. That's how I see it anyway...watched it with my godson with his dad before he started high school, and plan on loaning my dvd to my sister-in-law in a couple of years to watch with my nieces.

Didn't stop the military from using dolphins in warfare PRECISELY because of their intelligence. Conversely, I have yet to see any building as intricate and functional as a bee-hive or an ant-hill. And Steve, the "hair" crack directed at Magic was beneath you...it's something I would expect from Big Dan or Spidersandsnakes. You're better than that.

Always happy to help. Would've preferred to make you my strawberry waffles, but glad this worked for you as well.

^^^ Well done, led boots! Had a feeling Pink Floyd played more shows than Zeppelin but too lazy to do the legwork. Nice job...have a beer!

As far as I'm concerned, it's a way of thinning the herd by getting rid of all these zombie idiots clogging the streets.

I started high school in 1976, so this movie was right in my wheelhouse. They pretty much nailed it to a T, even given the cultural difference between Southern California and small-town Texas. Every character in the film reminded me of someone I knew in school. They even got the girl's bodies right...no over-aerobicized, no-hips, boob job aspiring porn stars that seem to populate so many teen comedies of the last 10-15 years. Regarding the hazing, maybe it didn't happen where you went to school, but this wasn't meant to be a universal paean to high school in the 70's, but a very time-and-location specific personal memoir of Richard Linklater's experiences in a small town in Texas, 1976. Having spent time in Texas, I can totally believe hazing took place in high schools there.

I'm feeling lousy so I shouldn't even bother jumping into this question... First off, whenever you get into these type of discussions, they frequently develop into shouting matches. Everybody has already staked out their position and they'll be damned if they are going to be open to another point of view. And the whole kerfuffle over intelligent design is ironic given that Darwin and most scientists of the time were men of faith, to varying extents. Darwin was not trying to prove there was no God when he was working on the Origin of the Species. But now he has been trapped in this tug-of-war between the creationists and the atheists, both groups ignoring the nuances of his thoughts and beliefs. And it is that same divisive dichotomy that dominates just about every social, political, scientific, and religious debate today. You are given two extreme points-of-view to choose from, with no thought given to alternatives. It's either/or with no inbetween. Take this thread...the question is between intelligent design or pure chance. Well, that's a false choice, because just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you think it all just happened by accident. Maybe you believe in the design of Mother Nature. Besides, as someone noted above, natural evolution is not completely random. There are external environmental factors at work...an organism adapts, evolves or dies. Seen any dinosaurs lately? That's where I don't get the intelligent-design people; the more you look at the various species, the more you come across some odd ducks that don't seem to have much intelligence behind their design: dodo birds, anjin-san. But I grow weary. Frankly, at this point I'm less interested in how the world began than in where it's headed.

I admire your passion, and you are right; there's nothing like seeing a hockey game in-person, especially playoff hockey. But that wasn't my point. You are talking aesthetics, which is not a measurable trait. One man's art is another man's garbage. TV ratings are measurable and the ratings for football, basketball, baseball and NASCAR are all higher than hockey. Franchise values are also measurable and Forbes list of the Top 50 Sports Franchises includes soccer, football, baseball, basketball and auto racing teams. But no hockey teams. Anyway, about this year's playoffs...it would've been nice, as a Californian, to have San Jose in the Cup finals. But Canada has suffered so long, I can't begrudge Vancouver making it instead. Oh, and in the east, it's a no-brainer: Boston. It just feels weird cheering for Tampa Bay in hockey...or anything. Tampa Bay is one of the most unpleasant cities I've visited.

I realize OKC is a young team...but still, up 15 with less than 5 to go? That's a choke job. Westbrook still needs to learn how to be a point guard. And why is Durant settling for jacking up 30-footers. Meltdown city. With tonights win by Miami, it looks like the NBA Finals wil be a rematch of 2006: Dallas vs. Miami Only this time I hope the result is different. GO DALLAS! GO DIRK!

You two are like Chip 'n' Dale on crack. Where in hell do you get the idea Jimmy is 4'9"? Are you two completely blind, as well as oblivious? Hell, there's already been several pages of posts that pretty much establish his height as 5'11". Read it. Learn it. Live it.

I see you have the Wolfgang's Vault app, too...as that is the exact wording of their Bob Dylan birthday note. Happy 70th, indeed, Mr. Zimmerman! A birthday toast! Listening to Dylan and the Band, Boston Garden, 1974, that the Vault has up.

I'd love to be able to say I lost my virginity to a Led Zeppelin song...or any other cool music, be it Miles Davis, Marvin Gaye, or Johnny Hartman. But, as I had snuck into the girl's room in the middle of the nigh, it was in total silence that our love was consummated. But that's a long story.

You see, there ARE good things that can come from internet message boards. Just when you think you've had enough of trolls, a moment like this happens. Brad, I had never in my previous viewings of the film conceived the idea that it was Ron, the Pacific Stereo jerk, that impregnated Stacy, not Mike Damone. You've given us all something to consider. I'm not ready to say it was definitely Ron just yet. I'll have to rewatch the film...I think there may be timing issues with your thesis. And even if it does turn out to be Ron, it doesn't TOTALLY absolve Damone. He still left her in the lurch at her hour of need, too chicken-shit cowardly to even face her. Ok, so he couldn't come up with his share of the money...but at least man up, and drive her there and stay with her so she isn't alone. And OH MY GOD!!! Hamilton, I know EXACTLY that spot off Mulholland Dr. you're talking about! Made out there a few times, myself. Small world.

Enough talk about song licensing and ice cream...it's making me hungry. Back on topic. Regarding your poll, BH, my favourite character on seeing the movie was Jeff Spicoli, and he remained so for most of my life. But now, I find myself liking Mr. Hand the most...Ray Walston is dead-on in the role. By underplaying him perfectly, he is hysterically funny in a way a Rodney Dangerfield-type wouldn't have been. Aloha, Mr. Hand.

I know his name and title. I was just being a smart-aleck because I hear so many people refer to Prince Philip as "what's his name" when discussing Queen Elizabeth. The second most asked question regarding the Queen's hubby is why is he a prince and not a king? The short answer being that marriage confers no royal rank or privileges upon the male. But it does a woman. Hence, a man marrying a Queen can't be King, but a woman marrying a King can be Queen.

Man, lots of newbies arriving lately. Reminds me of late-2007. Anyway, welcome to the board. We can always use new blood around here to help skew the age curve downward. Lovely name, by the way. Hope you enjoy your time here. For some reason, that photo does look photoshopped.