From: nicklasingels@gmail.com   
      
   I've heard things you people in alt.fan.blade-runner wouldn't believe,   
   like when Ned Ludd  On Sat, 02 Feb 2008   
   09:24:25 -0800 wrote:   
      
   >Eberhard Schefold wrote:   
   >> Sentinel wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Don't take this too personal, Eberhard, but this being a discussion   
   >>> forum... will you people stop this interpretation nonsense? We KNOW   
   >>> perfectly what the unicorn stands for. We KNOW exactly what is up with   
   >>> the Glowing Eyes (tm). We know *intimately* what Ridey Scott intended   
   >>> at this point. Why are you going on about "interpreting"? There is   
   >>> nothing to interpret.   
   >>   
   >> Seeing the same object twice in different contexts and making a   
   >> connection is ever an interpretation. It may be an obvious one to you,   
   >> but it is an interpretation. This is not a fact, and what's more, what   
   >> Scott /intended/ at this point is completely irrelevant.   
   >>   
   >> And no, I won't take this personal, but I won't stop, either.   
   >   
   >Without interpretation, Blade Runner is just a sequence of stunningly   
   >beautiful pictures.   
      
   Exactly, and I belive that each and everyone can have their own   
   interpretations of Blade Runner   
      
   Personally, Im with bible writer Sammon on this one (what he said in   
   the Final Cut Extras)   
      
    Nicklas Ingels  /  Los Angeles, 2019   
    http://www.tyrell-corporation.pp.se   
    http://www.ingels.se   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)