Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.fan.douglas-adams » movie PG rating
movie PG rating [message #27622] Mi, 04 Mai 2005 05:45
somebody  
Was it Adams desire to have a PG rating, or something Disney or others
decided?
Re: movie PG rating [message #29439 ] Fr, 06 Mai 2005 05:04
Weird Beard  
"somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote in news:czXde.695863$w62.429917 [at] bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> Was it Adams desire to have a PG rating, or something Disney or others
> decided?

It's the decision of the MPAA. But why do you ask? You don't honestly think
that a comedy about the world getting destroyed is appropriate for General
Admission, do you?
Re: movie PG rating [message #29517 ] Fr, 06 Mai 2005 23:30
afda  
On Fri, 06 May 2005 03:04:56 GMT, Weird Beard
<weird_beard [at] worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>"somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote in news:czXde.695863$w62.429917 [at] bgtnsc05-
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> Was it Adams desire to have a PG rating, or something Disney or others
>> decided?
>
>It's the decision of the MPAA. But why do you ask? You don't honestly think
>that a comedy about the world getting destroyed is appropriate for General
>Admission, do you?

Is "PG" an actual film rating in the US?

Here in the UK the film rating will be decided by the BBFC - British
Board of Film Censorship (or whatever they're called). A body that, I
hope, is independent from the MPAA.

Lloyd
--
"In fact, everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade'
appears to be missing" -- Svlad Cjelli
Re: movie PG rating [message #29546 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 03:18
somebody  
> Is "PG" an actual film rating in the US?
>
> Here in the UK the film rating will be decided by the BBFC - British
> Board of Film Censorship (or whatever they're called). A body that, I
> hope, is independent from the MPAA.


yup, thar's G, PG, PG13, R, NC-17 (they show naughty bits but in an artsy
way), X, XXX (they show naughty bits but not so much in an artsy way)

Woulda thought HHG2G would be PG-13 in the States. But if it was R, the
towel scene would have been gratiutious and not in the spirit of things.
Re: movie PG rating [message #29570 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 11:54
afda  
On Sat, 07 May 2005 01:18:59 GMT, "somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote:

>> Is "PG" an actual film rating in the US?
>>
>> Here in the UK the film rating will be decided by the BBFC - British
>> Board of Film Censorship (or whatever they're called). A body that, I
>> hope, is independent from the MPAA.
>
>
>yup, thar's G, PG, PG13, R, NC-17 (they show naughty bits but in an artsy
>way), X, XXX (they show naughty bits but not so much in an artsy way)
>
>Woulda thought HHG2G would be PG-13 in the States. But if it was R, the
>towel scene would have been gratiutious and not in the spirit of things.

Ah, I see. Here in Blighty we've got:

NC = "Not Classified"
U = "Universal"
PG = "Parental Guidance"
12 = Viewers must be aged 12 or over.
15 = Viewers must be aged 15 or over.
18 = Viewers must be aged 18 or over.

I believe that The Movie is a PG over here.

Lloyd
--
"In fact, everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade'
appears to be missing" -- Svlad Cjelli
Re: movie PG rating [message #29589 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 14:32
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: movie PG rating [message #29595 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 16:24
John Coxon  
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Lloyd Gilbert's voice said the
following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
low as to make a man weep:

> On Sat, 07 May 2005 01:18:59 GMT, "somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote:
>
>>>Here in the UK the film rating will be decided by the BBFC - British
>>>Board of Film Censorship (or whatever they're called). A body that, I
>>>hope, is independent from the MPAA.

I should think so, too!

>>yup, thar's G, PG, PG13, R, NC-17 (they show naughty bits but in an artsy
>>way), X, XXX (they show naughty bits but not so much in an artsy way)

'Clerks', of course, being famous in that it was awarded NC-17 purely for
excessive bad language and then got changed to R after a court appeal
without having to edit any content.

>>Woulda thought HHG2G would be PG-13 in the States. But if it was R, the
>>towel scene would have been gratiutious and not in the spirit of things.

Ah, I would've loved a gratiutious towel scene with Zooey. Trés bien, non?

> Ah, I see. Here in Blighty we've got:
>
> NC = "Not Classified"
> U = "Universal"
> PG = "Parental Guidance"
> 12 = Viewers must be aged 12 or over.
> 15 = Viewers must be aged 15 or over.
> 18 = Viewers must be aged 18 or over.

You missed out R18 (the R stands for "Restricted") which means that it's a
pornographic film. And UC, which means that it's "Universal" but more aimed
at "Children".

> I believe that The Movie is a PG over here.

Yeah, it is.

--
John Coxon

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted then
used against you.

Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
Re: movie PG rating [message #29612 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 17:28
somebody  
> 'Clerks', of course, being famous in that it was awarded NC-17 purely for
> excessive bad language and then got changed to R after a court appeal
> without having to edit any content.

I'M THIRTY-SEVEN?


*not* PG rated:
http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/article/24040503.php
Re: movie PG rating [message #29616 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 17:34
Bondee  
"somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote in message
news:E85fe.189296$cg1.81386 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > 'Clerks', of course, being famous in that it was awarded NC-17 purely
for
> > excessive bad language and then got changed to R after a court appeal
> > without having to edit any content.
>
> I'M THIRTY-SEVEN?

In a row?!?!?!

Brilliant film! One of my all time faves.

I'd watch it tonight if my DVD player wasn't on the blink! : (
Re: movie PG rating [message #29617 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 17:44
somebody  
"Bondee" <fudgebear [at] spamhotmailspam.com> wrote in message
news:d5in6g$90p$1 [at] newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:E85fe.189296$cg1.81386 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > 'Clerks', of course, being famous in that it was awarded NC-17 purely
> for
> > > excessive bad language and then got changed to R after a court appeal
> > > without having to edit any content.
> >
> > I'M THIRTY-SEVEN?
>
> In a row?!?!?!
>
> Brilliant film! One of my all time faves.
>
> I'd watch it tonight if my DVD player wasn't on the blink! : (


I found my copy. Stop on over, and bring a pint... If there's ever a
sequel, should Randal be number 42?

In a sort of related matter, what's up with Laura Bush saying George Bush
tried to milk a horse--a male horse.
Re: movie PG rating [message #29620 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 17:51
John Coxon  
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, somebody's voice said the
following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
low as to make a man weep:

>>'Clerks', of course, being famous in that it was awarded NC-17 purely for
>>excessive bad language and then got changed to R after a court appeal
>>without having to edit any content.
>
> I'M THIRTY-SEVEN?

Think of the roof contractors!

--
John Coxon

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted then
used against you.

Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
Re: movie PG rating [message #29625 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 18:19
somebody  
"somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote in message
news:E85fe.189296$cg1.81386 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > 'Clerks', of course, being famous in that it was awarded NC-17 purely
for
> > excessive bad language and then got changed to R after a court appeal
> > without having to edit any content.
>
> I'M THIRTY-SEVEN?
>
>
> *not* PG rated:
> http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/article/24040503.php


Which leads me wonder, is there anything the Internet/Wikipedia/Google don't
have?
Re: movie PG rating [message #29627 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 18:36
Bondee  
"somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote in message
news:Vn5fe.189337$cg1.187579 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Bondee" <fudgebear [at] spamhotmailspam.com> wrote in message
> news:d5in6g$90p$1 [at] newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote in message
> > news:E85fe.189296$cg1.81386 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > 'Clerks', of course, being famous in that it was awarded NC-17
purely
> > for
> > > > excessive bad language and then got changed to R after a court
appeal
> > > > without having to edit any content.
> > >
> > > I'M THIRTY-SEVEN?
> >
> > In a row?!?!?!
> >
> > Brilliant film! One of my all time faves.
> >
> > I'd watch it tonight if my DVD player wasn't on the blink! : (
>
>
> I found my copy. Stop on over, and bring a pint... If there's ever a
> sequel, should Randal be number 42?

I'm there! Should I catch the number 37 bus, or the number 42?

> In a sort of related matter, what's up with Laura Bush saying George Bush
> tried to milk a horse--a male horse.

Errr... I think that speaks for itself!
: )
>
Re: movie PG rating [message #29628 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 18:40
John Coxon  
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, somebody's voice said the
following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
low as to make a man weep:

> "somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:E85fe.189296$cg1.81386 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>>'Clerks', of course, being famous in that it was awarded NC-17 purely
>>>for excessive bad language and then got changed to R after a court
>>>appeal without having to edit any content.
>>
>> I'M THIRTY-SEVEN?
>>
>>*not* PG rated:
>>http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/article/24040503.php
>
> Which leads me wonder, is there anything the Internet/Wikipedia/Google don't
> have?

Probably not. Heh.

--
John Coxon

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted then
used against you.

Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
Re: movie PG rating [message #29630 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 18:51
somebody  
> > I found my copy. Stop on over, and bring a pint... If there's ever a
> > sequel, should Randal be number 42?
>
> I'm there! Should I catch the number 37 bus, or the number 42?

The number 4.2 SuperAeroBus goes right past my place . I'd suggest that
one... Or, if you looking to go on the cheap, you could catch the 69 and
then transfer to the 96. I've seen those in my neighborhood, but they don't
stop on my street and you will have to walk a bit if you go that route.

I'm in flat #4... The movie is going to start at 8, but there will 10
minute of pre-mmercials. So adjust your time accordingly.
Re: movie PG rating [message #29645 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 20:20
Kaare Fiedler Christi  
somebody wrote:

<snip>


> Which leads me wonder, is there anything the Internet/Wikipedia/Google don't
> have?

I'm sorry, but I can't answer that. In that case the internet would know
about it, which would contradict it.

It's just like making a page of Google Whacks, really.

Best
Kĺre
Re: movie PG rating [message #29649 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 21:44
afda  
On Sat, 7 May 2005 13:32:49 +0100, Kenny Hutchings
<mhfk51 [at] dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>In article <cl0p71tdf5hm9rqi6pf4hqn0nfq7qdjfkh [at] 4ax.com>,
>afda [at] zanoop.org.uk.invalid says...
>
>>
>> NC = "Not Classified"
>> U = "Universal"
>> PG = "Parental Guidance"
>
>You forgot:
> 12A = Viewers must be aged 12 or over, unless they have an adult
> with them, in which case they can be as young as they like.

Oh. Ah.

No, actually, I didn't forget that. I don't think I ever knew that.
How long has that been around?

Damn this living nowhere near a cinema malarky. When I lived in
Southampton I was a 10 min walk from a multiplex Odeon. Now I'm a one
hour drive from the nearest decent film-showing establishment.

>> 12 = Viewers must be aged 12 or over.
>> 15 = Viewers must be aged 15 or over.
>> 18 = Viewers must be aged 18 or over.
>>
>> I believe that The Movie is a PG over here.
>
>It is indeed.

Well at least I got that right.

Lloyd
--
"In fact, everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade'
appears to be missing" -- Svlad Cjelli
Re: movie PG rating [message #29651 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 21:44
afda  
On Sat, 07 May 2005 15:24:20 +0100, John Coxon
<rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

>In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Lloyd Gilbert's voice said the
>following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
>low as to make a man weep:

<mode=larking about>
Y'know, that's 3 lines of attribution you've got there John, and it
only serves to have my name in it. Some of us are on dial-up, y'know!
</mode>

>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 01:18:59 GMT, "somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote:

[I wrote:]
>>>>Here in the UK the film rating will be decided by the BBFC - British
>>>>Board of Film Censorship (or whatever they're called). A body that, I
>>>>hope, is independent from the MPAA.
>
>I should think so, too!

Huzzah!

>>>yup, thar's G, PG, PG13, R, NC-17 (they show naughty bits but in an artsy
>>>way), X, XXX (they show naughty bits but not so much in an artsy way)
>
>'Clerks', of course, being famous in that it was awarded NC-17 purely for
>excessive bad language and then got changed to R after a court appeal
>without having to edit any content.

I wasn't aware that "Clerks" had that famousness attributed to it. And
to think, I've had it on video for mumble-mumble years... Heh.

>>>Woulda thought HHG2G would be PG-13 in the States. But if it was R, the
>>>towel scene would have been gratiutious and not in the spirit of things.
>
>Ah, I would've loved a gratiutious towel scene with Zooey. Trés bien, non?

Whilst I think she has very pretty eyes in the fillum, I don't think
gratuity of that nature would've "sat right" with the rest of the
film. But that's just this man's opinion.

>> Ah, I see. Here in Blighty we've got:
>>
>> NC = "Not Classified"
>> U = "Universal"
>> PG = "Parental Guidance"
>> 12 = Viewers must be aged 12 or over.
>> 15 = Viewers must be aged 15 or over.
>> 18 = Viewers must be aged 18 or over.
>
>You missed out R18 (the R stands for "Restricted") which means that it's a
>pornographic film. And UC, which means that it's "Universal" but more aimed
>at "Children".

Where are all these new classifications coming from?

Universal /used/ to mean "Universal - suitable for all ages"

Which included children (obviously, and dogs and small furry creatures
from alpha centuri, etc.).

Now there's an "UC" sub-classification, you say? The world's gone mad,
I tell you. Mad!

And how is "R18" more restricted than a plain "18" film?

Lloyd
--
"In fact, everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade'
appears to be missing" -- Svlad Cjelli
Re: movie PG rating [message #29658 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 23:10
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: movie PG rating [message #29659 ] Sa, 07 Mai 2005 23:11
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: movie PG rating [message #29674 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 00:33
Fat Sam  
Lloyd Gilbert wrote:
> Whilst I think she has very pretty eyes in the fillum, I don't think
> gratuity of that nature would've "sat right" with the rest of the
> film. But that's just this man's opinion.

Agreed, but I'd still like to see it....

> And how is "R18" more restricted than a plain "18" film?

I've often wondered that too....It's like saying one corpse is more dead
than another corpse....

--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
Re: movie PG rating [message #29675 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 00:34
Fat Sam  
Kenny Hutchings wrote:
> In article <e70q719nt87a8rlpb7vgkc7atf8h0o3ed7 [at] 4ax.com>,
> afda [at] zanoop.org.uk.invalid says...
>
>
>>And how is "R18" more restricted than a plain "18" film?
>>
>
>
> It's restricted in that you can't get a copy down Blockbuster. Even if
> you were brave enough to ask for one.
>
> K.

???...I always thought cinema classifications and nome-rental
classifications were different....

--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
Re: movie PG rating [message #29697 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 10:08
afda  
On Sat, 7 May 2005 22:11:58 +0100, Kenny Hutchings
<mhfk51 [at] dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>In article <e70q719nt87a8rlpb7vgkc7atf8h0o3ed7 [at] 4ax.com>,
>afda [at] zanoop.org.uk.invalid says...
>
>> And how is "R18" more restricted than a plain "18" film?
>
>It's restricted in that you can't get a copy down Blockbuster. Even if
>you were brave enough to ask for one.

Ah, I see.

Lloyd
--
"In fact, everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade'
appears to be missing" -- Svlad Cjelli
Re: movie PG rating [message #29699 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 10:14
afda  
On Sat, 7 May 2005 22:10:08 +0100, Kenny Hutchings
<mhfk51 [at] dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>In article <l30q71humluahkar2pfu4nec8d59tkaibk [at] 4ax.com>,
>afda [at] zanoop.org.uk.invalid says...
>> >You forgot:
>> > 12A = Viewers must be aged 12 or over, unless they have an adult
>> > with them, in which case they can be as young as they like.
>>
>> Oh. Ah.
>>
>> No, actually, I didn't forget that. I don't think I ever knew that.
>> How long has that been around?
>>
>> Damn this living nowhere near a cinema malarky. When I lived in
>> Southampton I was a 10 min walk from a multiplex Odeon. Now I'm a one
>> hour drive from the nearest decent film-showing establishment.
>
>It's not really the sort of thing I'd expect you to know unless you've
>got a child approaching 12 of your own, so you're forgiven, but it's
>been around a couple of years now.

Thanks.

Lloyd
--
"In fact, everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade'
appears to be missing" -- Svlad Cjelli
Re: movie PG rating [message #29749 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 19:12
John Coxon  
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Lloyd Gilbert's voice said the
following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
low as to make a man weep:

> On Sat, 07 May 2005 15:24:20 +0100, John Coxon
> <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Lloyd Gilbert's voice said the
>>following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
>>low as to make a man weep:
>
> <mode=larking about>
> Y'know, that's 3 lines of attribution you've got there John, and it
> only serves to have my name in it. Some of us are on dial-up, y'know!

Yeah, like me. Running my 56k connection. So if I can deal with it for the
moment, all the rest of the 56kers can too. I'm trying to work out how to
change it.

> Now there's an "UC" sub-classification, you say? The world's gone mad,
> I tell you. Mad!

Yeah, it has.

> And how is "R18" more restricted than a plain "18" film?

Bob knows. I do not.

--
John Coxon

A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?

Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
Re: movie PG rating [message #29784 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 21:45
afda  
On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:12:32 +0100, John Coxon
<rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

>In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Lloyd Gilbert's voice said the
>following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
>low as to make a man weep:
>
>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 15:24:20 +0100, John Coxon
>> <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Lloyd Gilbert's voice said the
>>>following, in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so
>>>low as to make a man weep:
>>
>> <mode=larking about>
>> Y'know, that's 3 lines of attribution you've got there John, and it
>> only serves to have my name in it. Some of us are on dial-up, y'know!
>
>Yeah, like me. Running my 56k connection. So if I can deal with it for the
>moment, all the rest of the 56kers can too. I'm trying to work out how to
>change it.

56K connection! Surely no internet connection can be that fast! I'm
here running my 40kbps connection thinking how lucky I am to achieve
this sort of speed on a weekend!

Lloyd
--
"In fact, everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade'
appears to be missing" -- Svlad Cjelli
Re: movie PG rating [message #29797 ] So, 08 Mai 2005 21:59
e  
> >Yeah, like me. Running my 56k connection. So if I can deal with it for
the
> >moment, all the rest of the 56kers can too. I'm trying to work out how
to
> >change it.
>
> 56K connection! Surely no internet connection can be that fast! I'm
> here running my 40kbps connection thinking how lucky I am to achieve
> this sort of speed on a weekend!

I get around 52k when using "the old bastard"... not too far from the CO.
Re: movie PG rating [message #31977 ] Mo, 09 Mai 2005 21:14
afda  
On Sun, 08 May 2005 19:59:12 GMT, "someone" <e [at] mail.com> wrote:

>> >Yeah, like me. Running my 56k connection. So if I can deal with it for
>the
>> >moment, all the rest of the 56kers can too. I'm trying to work out how
>to
>> >change it.
>>
>> 56K connection! Surely no internet connection can be that fast! I'm
>> here running my 40kbps connection thinking how lucky I am to achieve
>> this sort of speed on a weekend!
>
>I get around 52k when using "the old bastard"... not too far from the CO.

I have *never* seen a dial-up connection speed in excess of 50k.
Before I moved I used to regularly get 44k, but these days I'm
generally connected at about 40k.

Lloyd
--
"In fact, everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade'
appears to be missing" -- Svlad Cjelli
Re: movie PG rating [message #31980 ] Mo, 09 Mai 2005 21:41
John Coxon  
On 09/05/2005 20:14, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Lloyd Gilbert spewed up:

> I have *never* seen a dial-up connection speed in excess of 50k.
> Before I moved I used to regularly get 44k, but these days I'm
> generally connected at about 40k.

I stand corrected. I've looked at my connection and it's going along at
45333bps (45k).

--
John Coxon

A day for firm decisions!!! Or is it?

Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
Re: movie PG rating [message #32025 ] Di, 10 Mai 2005 09:07
afda  
On Mon, 09 May 2005 20:41:57 +0100, John Coxon
<rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 09/05/2005 20:14, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
>unreason and Lloyd Gilbert spewed up:
>
>> I have *never* seen a dial-up connection speed in excess of 50k.
>> Before I moved I used to regularly get 44k, but these days I'm
>> generally connected at about 40k.
>
>I stand corrected. I've looked at my connection and it's going along at
>45333bps (45k).

I find that whenever I go online for more than "just sending this one
email and then that's it", the first thing I check is the connection
speed. This is because sometimes it's as low as 26k, and I end up
spending way too many of my hard earned pennies just trying to
download things.

Lloyd
--
"In fact, everything between 'herring' and 'marmalade'
appears to be missing" -- Svlad Cjelli
Re: movie PG rating [message #35740 ] So, 15 Mai 2005 06:30
Weird Beard  
"somebody" <no [at] thanks.com> wrote in news:7IUee.187231$cg1.69056 [at] bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>> Is "PG" an actual film rating in the US?
>>
>> Here in the UK the film rating will be decided by the BBFC - British
>> Board of Film Censorship (or whatever they're called). A body that, I
>> hope, is independent from the MPAA.
>
>
> yup, thar's G, PG, PG13, R, NC-17 (they show naughty bits but in an artsy
> way), X, XXX (they show naughty bits but not so much in an artsy way)

X is no longer a rating, because they forgot to trademark it and it got to
be associated with porn.

XXX was never a real rating, and was only created as a way to make porn
sound steamier than if they just used X
Vorheriges Thema:Just re-watched the TV series
Nächstes Thema:Some thoughts
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:49:28 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03852 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered