[continued from previous message]   
      
   which the audience will doubtless start applauding, and then   
   resumes quietly in the "wrong" key, building to the real ending a   
   minute and a half later. [-gmg]   
      
   ===================================================================   
      
   TOPIC: The Fear of Death, Agnosticism, and Atheism (letters of   
   comment by Gary McGath, Hal Heydt, Scott Dorsey, and Tim   
   Illingworth)   
      
   In response to Hal Heydt's comments on a fear of death in the   
   08/08/25 issue of the MT VOID, Gary McGath writes:   
      
   As I understand the terms, you can't really be "between" atheist   
   and agnostic. To be atheistic means not to believe in a god. To be   
   agnostic means to think the question of a deity's existence can't   
   be resolved. An agnostic can believe that there's a god in spite   
   of that lack of evidence, or not.   
      
   The main point is that being atheistic doesn't require   
   affirmatively believing in the non-existence of a god. Someone who   
   has never been exposed to the idea of gods and hasn't come up with   
   it independently would be an atheist.   
      
   Personally, I don't fear death (the state of being dead), but I do   
   fear dying (the process). [-gmg]   
      
   Hal replies:   
      
   I don't know whether or not the existence of one or more deities   
   can be resolved. I do know that, at least to my satisfaction, that   
   it has not been. To date, despite great efforts by many people   
   over many centuries, there is a profound lack of evidence or   
   demonstration FOR the existence of a god or gods. So far, this   
   makes the probability of such existence extremely low, so--at   
   present--my default position is that god(s) do not exist.   
      
   So....you tell me. Does that make me an atheist or an   
   agnostic...or some fuzzy state in between the two that has not yet   
   had a quantum collapse?   
      
   As for death... In the specific instance, I would never have   
   experienced dying. [-hh]   
      
   Scott Dorsey responds to the question:   
      
   Perhaps it makes you actually a god, but you don't know it yet?   
   [-sd]   
      
   And Tim Illingworth adds:   
      
   You are Emperor Claudius and I claim my 5 million sesterces. [-ti]   
      
   Gary suggests:   
      
   Both. You say you don't know whether the question can be resolved.   
   That's the agnostic position. You also say your default position   
   is that god(s) do not exist. That's the atheist position. The two   
   aren't mutually exclusive. [-gmg]   
      
   [And in response to never experiencing dying]   
      
   Sounds to me like the best way to die, given that we have to.   
   [-gmg]   
      
   ===================================================================   
      
   TOPIC: UNEARTHLY STRANGER (letter of comment by Jay Morris)   
      
   In response to Evelyn's comments on UNEARTHLY STRANGER in the   
   08/08/25 issue of the MT VOID, Jay Morris writes:   
      
   [Evelyn wrote,] "(Also, the claim is that the aliens don't blink,   
   except they do.)" [-ecl]   
      
   The only time I noticed any blinking was at the dinner table and I   
   think Julia was playing upon the line "Thank you Kindly Sir she   
   said" and John follows up with "as she waved her wooden leg   
   aloft". This was evidently a saying at the time. [-gmg]   
      
   Evelyn replies:   
      
   I was specifically looking for blinking, and caught it a couple of   
   times, including once when Julia was at her desk with no one else   
   in the room to see her. [-ecl]   
      
   ===================================================================   
      
   TOPIC: RUMOURS (letter of comment by Paul Dormer)   
      
   In a follow-up to his comments on RUMOURS in the 08/08/25 issue of   
   the MT VOID, Paul Dormer writes:   
      
   Nowhere as weird as his other films. [-pd]   
      
   Evelyn notes:   
      
   Well, I did say, "RUMOURS is Guy Maddin's latest film, and may be   
   the most normal Guy Maddin film I've seen." [-ecl]   
      
   ===================================================================   
      
   TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)   
      
   KING KONG by Edgar Wallace and Merian C. Cooper, novelization by   
   Delos W. Lovelace (Bantam, no ISBN) is a little unusual for a   
   novelization in that there are a lot of differences from the film.   
   This is because Lovelace was working from Ruth Rose's first draft   
   of the script.   
      
   So the book has the ship's name as the Wanderer, not the Venture,   
   and has it docked in Hoboken rather than in New York. The cook is   
   "Lumpy", not "Charlie" (and isn't Chinese). (Jackson restored the   
   name in his 2005 version.) The monkey is "Ignatz" rather than   
   "Iggy". (It's possible that the filmmakers decided to pick a less   
   German name, I suppose.)   
      
   The first dinosaur encountered on the book is more a therapod than   
   a stegosaurus. Lovelace also seems to think that "triceratops" is   
   the plural of "triceratop". He also has a character describe the   
   triceratops as "another of Nature's mistakes," but since it   
   survived as a species for about two million years, it wasn't an   
   immediate mistake.   
      
   The animal that crawls up a vine to attack Driscoll is a spider   
   rather than a lizard. It is possible that it started out that way,   
   but that Willis O'Brien thought the spider would be too   
   difficult/expensive/time-consuming to animate.   
      
   There are a few "racially insensitive" comments. Ann at one point   
   says, "Probably the natives will be as friendly as reservation   
   Indians." Denham uses the term "a Chinaman's chance", and   
   Englehorn refers to the native men as "bucks".   
      
   I also read KONG UNBOUND edited by Karen Haber (Byron Preiss, ISBN   
   978-1-4165-1670-5), a collection of essays about Kong that came   
   out in 2005 to ride the coattails of Peter Jackson's KING KONG.   
   (It's labeled "Official Movie Merchandise" along with a logo for   
   the movie.) Some of the more interesting articles include Robert   
   Silverberg writing about the dinosaur inaccuracies, Harry Harrison   
   writing about various plot holes, and several about just what the   
   attraction of Kong for Ann was based on. [-ecl]   
      
   ===================================================================   
      
                                        Evelyn C. Leeper   
                                        evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com   
      
      
              The fundamental flaw in God is that He will say that He   
              requires the sacrifice of Isaac/Isma'il; the fundamental   
              flaw in man is that he takes his knife in hand to do   
              God's bidding.   
                                           --Russell Hoban, PILGERMANN   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)