»New Topic«

Who among you has encountered any real evidence or news regarding this case? How would you all feel if you found out this was just one big hoax and Sophia Stewart didn't even exist?

I would quite literally soil myself with laughter.

Who the f~(# is Sophia Stewart anyways?

As far as Ms. Steward goes, I could care less about her. She doesnt have any conclusive, or for that fact, any evidence thats significant to the Matrix films. The Wachowskis are the true writters of the story. They not only wrote it, but created it into something so magnificent, they went beyond what they first started out with. So in conclusion, I do wish she didnt exist.

In the past I have made posts implying that Sophia's case was "ludicrous" and "harassment". But now some very nice gentlemen have explained to me that I was wrong, and that, in fact, the Matrix movies are rightfully the property of Sophia Stewart. May God bless her and may she walk ever in the light of her own righteousness and holiness till the end of her days.
God bless Sophia Stewart!
And, transio, I must say that your implication that Sophia might not be real is deeply troubling. She has a website! You can see for yourself that she is real, and that she is the Mother of the Matrix, and in fact the author of all popular culture and the creator of the reality we see around us. But this is not the true reality, for the Matrix is only an illusion, and in reality we are all batteries for sentient machines.
Am I making sense here? Yes, the Matrix is real, and an evil illusion, and Sophia Stewart is the mother of it.
Oh...but that means that Sophia Stewart is the mother of evil! Magna Mater! Magna Mater! I'll get you my pretty and your little dog too!
Uh, oh, here come the agents again. Sayoonara.

transio wrote:

Who among you has encountered any real evidence or news regarding this case? How would you all feel if you found out this was just one big hoax and Sophia Stewart didn't even exist?

actually this has been brought up before, its an interesting idea...one that i thought would be hilarious if it were true, what would be the point behind such an elaborate hoax?

-did paul mcartney ever really die?

Paul is still alive and well actually.

But John Lennon, he got assassinated.

allone, your avatar freaks me out!

Sorry....continue

Spinak wrote:

allone, your avatar freaks me out! Sorry....continue

ive been told it looks like neo on crack

allone wrote:

Spinak wrote: allone, your avatar freaks me out! Sorry....continue ive been told it looks like neo on crack

I'll have to take responsibility for that one.

lol

anyway, back on the topic...

IF it were just a hoax, whoever thought it up kinda went out of their way to make the Wbros and warnerbros and carrie anne moss and james cameron and everyone else mentioned in the lawsuit out to be horrible horrible people who steal everything they can from african americans.

Yeah obvisouly it is not a hoax.

The real interesting thing is how non-existent the media attention this case has gotten. That seems to be a result of Time Warner's monopoly on the media. But still, I've never heard a word about this case outside of the internet.

El Escogido wrote:

Yeah obvisouly it is not a hoax.

I wouldn't say "obviously" - I've seen exactly one account of someone who claims to know Sophia personally, and for all I know, that individual is the source of the story. "Obvious" for me is when I see it with my own eyes.

Quote:

The real interesting thing is how non-existent the media attention this case has gotten. That seems to be a result of Time Warner's monopoly on the media. But still, I've never heard a word about this case outside of the internet.

I've seen this "Time-Warner" monopoly thing before. It's utter BS.

There is no "monopoly" on the media. Fox (Fox News) and Disney (ABC News) are fierce competitors of AOL Time-Warner. Why don't they publish the story? They only stand to gain in doing so.

Even BET won't publish Sophia's story, according to one article I read.

If no veritable news source is publishing the story, that's because it's either not a story worth publishing, or possibly because it's a hoax.

|/ExoduS\| wrote:

As far as Ms. Steward goes, I could care less about her. She doesnt have any conclusive, or for that fact, any evidence thats significant to the Matrix films. The Wachowskis are the true writters of the story. They not only wrote it, but created it into something so magnificent, they went beyond what they first started out with. So in conclusion, I do wish she didnt exist.

I am in agreeance with Exodus, sophia is a small insuggnificant seed on the big mac of life. The W/broths are the true creators of the matrix. NOT! sophia. she is clearly crazy, cause apparantly she was the one how wrote the terminator movie as well. she is a joke.

even if sophia stewart wins the case, i will remain sceptical about the exact merits of her claims. i say this not because of the die-hard loyalty which as a fan of the trilogy i am supposed to bear, but there are just too many obvious other influences on the work from things that sophia stewart has nothing to do with (mythology, martial arts movies, animé to name but a few). i do, however, think that there is definitely a significant possibility that the Wachowskis may have absorbed some of her ideas from her work in creating the Matrix.

obviously, at the end of the day, none of us really know whether this is all BS or not. but if she has nothing to hide then she should let her original work be seen so people can see the nature of this alleged theft.

transio wrote:

I've seen this "Time-Warner" monopoly thing before. It's utter BS.

It does exist.

You've got to turn off the news and read.

It may not be all Time-Warner but "big business" owns all of these media sources.

When you start believing that the media is somehow controlled by a certain group of people (El Escogido's nebulous "big business") then you are entering into paranoid thinking. There is no such thing as a media monopoly in America anymore. Even Microsoft is not a monopoly. You want a monopoly, think Chinese military. They have massive holdings in almost all sectors of the Chinese economy, and they also have the resources to perform a coup d'etat. The private sector in America are not the monolithic monster they have been made out to be. It is kind of like the Matrix: big and scary but when you stand up to it, it runs away with its tail between its legs.
The American government as it is currently constituted. on the other hand, is a fascist nightmare. It runs from no one.

Regime Change is Coming in 2008!

footloosifer wrote:

When you start believing that the media is somehow controlled by a certain group of people (El Escogido's nebulous "big business") then you are entering into paranoid thinking. There is no such thing as a media monopoly in America anymore. Even Microsoft is not a monopoly. You want a monopoly, think Chinese military. They have massive holdings in almost all sectors of the Chinese economy, and they also have the resources to perform a coup d'etat. The private sector in America are not the monolithic monster they have been made out to be. It is kind of like the Matrix: big and scary but when you stand up to it, it runs away with its tail between its legs. The American government as it is currently constituted. on the other hand, is a fascist nightmare. It runs from no one. Regime Change is Coming in 2008!

I'd like to know what planet you live on?

Planet Tallahassee, Florida, home of Jeb Bush, the 2000 election debacle, and state-neighbors with Terry Schiavo's rotting corpse.

footloosifer wrote:

Planet Tallahassee, Florida, home of Jeb Bush, the 2000 election debacle, and state-neighbors with Terry Schiavo's rotting corpse.

That explains it...I'll keep it moving...

this post is sort of off-topic, but oh well...

ryanlewisjones wrote:

Paul is still alive and well actually. But John Lennon, he got assassinated.

you are correct...the reason i said that is because there was a time when people thought that he(paul mcartney) was dead.

there was a hoax/rumor/whatever you want to call it going around that paul had died and you can find "clues" to his "death" and the attempts of the "cover up" of his death on beatles album covers and in the lyrics in some of their songs.

part of the story goes something like: the newspapers that went out the morning after his death, telling about his death, were recalled and replaced with newspapers that did not have the story of his death(sound familiar?)...this was to keep the fans unaware, and paul was replaced with a look-a-like so that the fans would have no idea, this was to keep the fans happy and make them think that everything was A-OK. there is so much more to the story, that is just part of it.

the beatles will never admit to starting this rumor or even "helping" it out by placing certain...questionable things in their work...such as john saying at the end of strawberry fields, "i buried paul"...he says that he in fact said "cranberry sauce"...whatever.

some say it was to boost sales...others just a publicity stunt....nobody knows for sure. but this rumor did exist.

*turns off "old man story teller mode"*

whenever i think that this whole sophia stewart thing might be a hoax, i just cant help thinking of the whole, "paul is dead" hoax.

sorry to interrupt, carry on.

allone wrote:

you are correct...the reason i said that is because there was a time when people thought that he(paul mcartney) was dead. there was a hoax/rumor/whatever you want to call it going around that paul had died and you can find "clues" to his "death" and the attempts of the "cover up" of his death on beatles album covers and in the lyrics in some of their songs.

Well, atleast I understood what you meant lol.

allone wrote:

*turns off "old man story teller mode"*

I find this especially funny lol.

Funny.
I have my parent's LP copy of Abbey Road, which was the Beatles album that came out around the time those rumors really hit.
My father told me that there was a rumor that if you peeled back the cover of that album, there was another version of the cover art - you know, with the Beatles walking across Abbey Road - underneath it. The other version was supposed to have
pictures of actual beetles crossing the road. To indicate that Paul was dead and beetle food now.
Also if you look on the cover of that album, only Paul is barefoot. Another supposed "clue".

El Escogido wrote:

It does exist.

Oh, PLEASE. My philosophy doesn't even guarantee YOUR existence.

Quote:

You've got to turn off the news and read.

Who said I watch the news? READ? LOL! You associate different levels of credibility to different types of media input? Blahahaha...

Quote:

YIt may not be all Time-Warner but "big business" owns all of these media sources.

"BIG-BUSINESS"? OMG <Rolling on the floor> The size of a business somehow changes its goals from "making money" to "deceiving the general public." I love people who look for conspiracies just for the sake of explaining shit they don't get.

If your "media monopoly" were successful, how would there be ANY record at all of this Stewart case? You presume that media companies (e.g. AOL Time-Warner) have the ability to censor competitors' content, but not their own online content? If your theory were true, then why wouldn't this very forum be censored for AOL users?

transio wrote:

El Escogido wrote: It does exist. Oh, PLEASE. My philosophy doesn't even guarantee YOUR existence. Quote: You've got to turn off the news and read. Who said I watch the news? READ? LOL! You associate different levels of credibility to different types of media input? Blahahaha... Quote: YIt may not be all Time-Warner but "big business" owns all of these media sources. "BIG-BUSINESS"? OMG <Rolling on the floor> The size of a business somehow changes its goals from "making money" to "deceiving the general public." I love people who look for conspiracies just for the sake of explaining shit they don't get. If your "media monopoly" were successful, how would there be ANY record at all of this Stewart case? You presume that media companies (e.g. AOL Time-Warner) have the ability to censor competitors' content, but not their own online content? If your theory were true, then why wouldn't this very forum be censored for AOL users?

First off I wasn't talking to you - you seem a little insecure there kid.

Secondly, before you comment on my statements you should try and verify what you say with something valid and factually based.

Stop watching Fox News and making yourself look like a cock. There's a quotable for you.