To mysticmoroni re: Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Elphaba]

So as not to hijack another thread, I decided to start a new thread here in the Church History forum to respond to mysticmoroni's comments regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Below is a recap of the conversation so far:

people forget that this was in the middle of the utah war and atrocities happen in war. look at the civil war.

Comparing the Utah War to the Civil War is absurd.

There was no "war" in Utah. There was only the perceived threat of a war, which was understandable under the circumstances. But the Civil War's dead was in the hundreds of thousands while the Utah War's dead was a little more than a hundred, none of them LDS, and most of them men, women and children murdered in cold blood in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

How, exactly, is it "way over played"?

this is very off topic but to clarify, you should check you history because there was a very real war in utah, in fact 1/3 of the us army was sent to utah, that being said i wasn't comparing the utah war to the scale of the civil war but to the type of war.

The following is my response:

I am aware the US government sent an army to Utah; however, as Wiki states:

The confrontation lasted from May 1857 until July 1858. While it had mainly non-Mormon civilian casualties, the "war" had no pitched battles and was ultimately resolved through negotiation.

. . . .

While the confrontation between the Mormon militia, called the Nauvoo Legion, and the U.S. Army involved some destruction of property and a few brief skirmishes in what is today southwestern Wyoming, no actual battles occurred between the contending military forces.

When you say you are comparing the "type" of war the Utah War was to the Civil War, I get the feeling you think that because the Army was sent to Utah, and because the word "war" is in the title "Utah War," you think there were actual battles being fought as if in a real war. There weren't, and your comparison to the Civil War is, again, absurd. Completely and utterly absurd.

And I ask again, what do you mean when you say the MMM is "way over played"?

Elphaba

[john doe]

I have to agree, the Mormon War was hardly a war by most peoples' standards. From what little I have known it was more like an occupation, with few skirmishes. The Mormons knew they could not defeat the US Army, and really only wanted to be left alone as much as possible.

[Guest mysticmorini]

So as not to hijack another thread, I decided to start a new thread here in the Church History forum to respond to mysticmoroni's comments regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Below is a recap of the conversation so far:

The following is my response:

I am aware the US government sent an army to Utah; however, as Wiki states:

When you say you are comparing the "type" of war the Utah War was to the Civil War, I get the feeling you think that because the Army was sent to Utah, and because the word "war" is in the title "Utah War," you think there were actual battles being fought as if in a real war. There weren't, and your comparison to the Civil War is, again, absurd. Completely and utterly absurd.

And I ask again, what do you mean when you say the MMM is "way over played"?

Elphaba

You obviously know very little about the study of wars, wars are classified into generations where similar tactics and means are used and tolerated. of course there were no major battles but there is a whole lot more to war than battles.

as for it being way over played, yes i believe it is and what i mean by that is, when you are a people who have had there leader killed by neighbors, driven at gun point from there homes, raped and pillaged, and having your holy buildings desecrated at what point do you defend yourself? Fact: many victims of the MMM bragged about being from Missouri. You could claim the Mormons wanted revenge, or perhaps they were fearful of the people who had just drove them from one of the most prosperous towns in Illinois.

[Maureen]

...Fact: many victims of the MMM bragged about being from Missouri...

I doubt that just being from Missouri was the great rumour that added more fuel to the fire.

Thus, historians argue that southern Utah Mormons would have been particularly affected by an unsubstantiated[62] rumor that the Fancher wagon train had been joined by a group of eleven miners and plainsmen who called themselves "Missouri Wildcats," some of whom reportedly taunted, vandalized and "caused trouble" for Mormons and Native Americans along the route (by some accounts claiming that they had the gun that "shot the guts out of Old Joe Smith"[63]) They were also affected by the report to Brigham Young that the Fancher party was from Arkansas,[64] and the rumor that Eleanor McLean Pratt, the apostle Pratt's plural wife, recognized one of the party as being present at her husband's murder.[65]

62. ^ It is uncertain whether the Missouri Wildcat group stayed with the slow-moving Fancher party after leaving Salt Lake City. See Brooks 1991, page xxi; Bagley (2002), p. 280 (referring to the "Missouri Wildcats" story as "Utah mythology".

Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M.

[NeuroTypical]

at what point do you defend yourself?

whoa now, mystic. By what tortured stretch of a deluded imagination can anyone with a basic grasp of the high points of the MMM consider it a defensive action?

Intellectually honest people must expose that particular horrible lie for what it is. There may be explanations for what happened, they do not include self defense.

From the Church's publication on the matter:

On Friday, September 11, Lee entered the emigrant wagon fort under a white flag and somehow convinced the besieged emigrants to accept desperate terms. He said the militia would safely escort them past the Indians and back to Cedar City, but they must leave their possessions behind and give up their weapons, signaling their peaceful intentions to the Indians. The suspicious emigrants debated what to do but in the end accepted the terms, seeing no better alternative. They had been pinned down for days with little water, the wounded in their midst were dying, and they did not have enough ammunition to fend off even one more attack.

As directed, the youngest children and wounded left the wagon corral first, driven in two wagons, followed by women and children on foot. The men and older boys filed out last, each escorted by an armed militiaman. The procession marched for a mile or so until, at a prearranged signal, each militiaman turned and shot the emigrant next to him, while Indians rushed from their hiding place to attack the terrified women and children. Militiamen with the two front-running wagons murdered the wounded. Despite plans to pin the massacre on the Paiutes—and persistent subsequent efforts to do so—Nephi Johnson later maintained that his fellow militiamen did most of the killing.

If you claim people make too much of such an event, you automatically lose.

LM

Edited March 29, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[marts1]

If your going by what it says at lds.org. the church had nothing to do with this. Council from Pres.Young was to be ready for self defense and escape into the mountains if necessary.

[Moksha]

You obviously know very little about the study of wars, wars are classified into generations where similar tactics and means are used and tolerated.

Fact: many victims of the MMM bragged about being from Missouri.

I think I catch your historical point: The people of the Mai Lai Massacre also bragged about being from Vietnam and that was very much a war.

[Elgama]

mentally being worried about war about to happen or waiting for attack is almost worse than the attack itself. i know the situation I am in with my neighbours whilst not exactly Afghanistan is similar to living in a war zone for those of us coddled in relatively peaceful times, for me its almost worse when something doesn't happen because you are still on edge and not using that to deal with a situation.

I am just blessed to have been brought up by people who lived through real war, and they were determined nothing would change the way they acted or Hitler would have won, my Aunty wasn't evacuated and none of them ever used an airraid shelter or even huddled under a table, only concession they made was to sleep in same room as any children to help them through the fear. Without growing up with them, I am not sure I wouldn't have been violent towards my neighbour by now especially right now waiting for her to act.

That recent gameshow experiment in France where all bar about 16 of 80 gameshow contestants because of the enviroment they were in were able to kill a fellow contestant with electric shocks for the 40 euros not even the 1 million euro prize because they were told it was just a pilot and there was no prize to win. These were ordinary everyday people and of them several of the ones that did resist had learned the hard way through trauma already

I was lucky my first telling of the Mountain Meadows Massacre came on a documentary about the Wild West told over many weeks and gave a balanced account. And I agree with the gist it was awful but when a group of humans are in the situation they were in also entirely understandable and with no guarantee any of us would have reacted any differently, we'd like to think we would but many in the French Experiment would never have dreamed they would kill someone before they went in

Edited March 29, 2010 by Elgama

[Just_A_Guy]

[Citing Wikipedia]Bagley (2002), p. 280 (referring to the "Missouri Wildcats" story as "Utah mythology".

Considering that (last I heard) Bagley's position is that Brigham Young plotted the whole thing, methinks Bagley's in no position to be labeling anything as "Utah mythology".

[Guest]

I'm not sure I understand what road this discussion is on, so if you can be patient with me for a little bit...

Mysticmoroni believes the MMM is just part of the "war of the times" and no big deal while Elphaba and everybody else believes the MMM is a major tragic event but that the LDS church is not the leader of it?

Did I get that right?

[john doe]

If your going by what it says at lds.org. the church had nothing to do with this. Council from Pres.Young was to be ready for self defense and escape into the mountains if necessary.

The Church, as an organization, likely had nothing to do with the attack. Members of the church, under the direction of a bishop, a position of leadership at that time more powerful than current bishops, absolutely participated in the attack. The MMM was a stain on members of the church, especially those who participated or encouraged participation in this atrocity. Just as we condemn the nasty things that some members do today, we condemn the rotten acts that some members did in those days.

[marts1]

Actually there was a stake leader or pres.(I forget which) organizing this thing trying to get another stake pres. to go in on it, but wouldn't. This was all organized mostly in secret using lies. I wouln't say the church was involved in this at all. I would say it was caused by a few members, not the church.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I'm not sure I understand what road this discussion is on, so if you can be patient with me for a little bit...

Mysticmoroni believes the MMM is just part of the "war of the times" and no big deal while Elphaba and everybody else believes the MMM is a major tragic event but that the LDS church is not the leader of it?

Did I get that right?

I most certainly do not believe that MMM was "no big deal" it was a tragic event. what i find disturbing is the willingness to condemn the perpetrators without considering the circumstances. you CANNOT separate the circumstances and experiences of the men involved. MMM was a tragic and unfortunate event but it SHOULD NOT be compared to 9/11 or any other sort of "terrorist" attack (as some do) to do so would be inaccurate and dishonest.

[FunkyTown]

Well, not 'Dishonest'. The attack did occur on September 11th, 1857.

Truth be told, I'm still unsure what motivated the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center, so I don't know if comparisons are inaccurate. I've heard neat answers like 'Extremism' to describe why a group of people got together and killed more people than Pearl Harbour and were willing to throw their lives away, but I really don't understand the mindset of such a person. Because of that, I can't quite figure out if you can compare the two, if I'm honest.

I most certainly do not believe that MMM was "no big deal" it was a tragic event. what i find disturbing is the willingness to condemn the perpetrators without considering the circumstances. you CANNOT separate the circumstances and experiences of the men involved. MMM was a tragic and unfortunate event but it SHOULD NOT be compared to 9/11 or any other sort of "terrorist" attack (as some do) to do so would be inaccurate and dishonest.

[NeuroTypical]

MMM was a tragic and unfortunate event but it SHOULD NOT be compared to 9/11 or any other sort of "terrorist" attack (as some do) to do so would be inaccurate and dishonest.

I'd agree with that. Terrorism is implemented to force governmental change.

The MMM was certainly a massacre, it was inexcusable, and a valid stain on our LDS history. For me personally, the lesson I draw from it is that the seeds of horrible evil is present within all of us, so we'd better learn to watch for this crap so we can fight against it when we see it coming. Because even the 'good guys' can fall into such nonsense if we allow it.

LM

[Elphaba]

Actually there was a stake leader or pres.(I forget which) organizing this thing trying to get another stake pres. to go in on it, but wouldn't.

Not quite.

The stake president you’re referring to is Colonel William Dame, stake president of Parowan, and yes, he was vehemently opposed to attacking the wagon train, Dame wanted nothing to do with any Mormon attack(s) and made his feelings known so there could be no question about them.

On the other hand, the commander of the Second Battalion, Tenth Regiment of the Iron County Militia, and ecclesiastical leader of several Mormon congregations was Isaac Haight. Haight was also serving in the Utah Territorial Legislature, and was the current mayor of Cedar City, one of the towns in Southern Utah affected by the extremism that led to the MMM.

Haight led a very full life of service to both his God and his fellow man. His commitment to public service was predicated on his devout belief that Brigham Young was the mouthpiece of God, and if he said they needed to prepare for war, it was the same as God saying he needed to prepare for war.

To say Haight planned the murders in secret is true, but it should be noted that all of the planners were local area leaders of the same type as he. They were not just rogue Mormons who saw an opportunity for some target practice to help ease their anger. They were included in the leaders of Southern Utah. As for Haight, he truly believed the Fancher train had to be eliminated to protect the Mormons. This belief was a result of a combination of things, including:

1. The Reformation, which called for a return to Christ and a rejection of sin. The goal was to be re-baptized, and most members of the Church eventually were re-baptized. Blood atonement was a doctrine of The Reformation (but not of the Church itself). According to Massacre at Mountain Meadows:

From Young's perspective, the reformation accomplished a great deal of good, though the tough talk about blood atonement and dissenters might have helped create a climate of violence in the territory, especially among those who chose to take license from it.

I think blood atonement played a large part in the MMM. In Massace at Mountain Meadows, the fact that many young children were not killed is said to be because they didn't think these children would be able to remember what happened.

However, others attribute it to blood atonement, as the children were too young to have been able to sin; thus, they had no need for blood atonemennt. I think this is accurate.

2. Temple ordinances included revenge for the horrific persecutions the Mormons had experienced, as well as revenge for the cold-blooded murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. This was deefinitely a part of the perpetrator's religious experience, and they took the idea of revenge deadly serious.

3. Millennialism, or the belief that Christ was going to return to the earth any day now, and that they must be prepared to meet Him by doing everything The Reformation called for.

Brigham Young had already put the members in Southern Utah into a bit of a frenzy by sending apostle George A. Smith, whose fiery rhetoric used images of the apocalypse, to their settlements, where he laid on the anti-government rhetoric, including resistance and fighting if necessary. This rhetoric was heard in various meetinghouses, and included how to be prepared to take to the mountains, and hide if necessary, or fight from that location if it came to that.

The emotional climate of Southern Utah just prior to the MMM was one of extreme tension and fear. In this time of terror, you are correct that Dame had vehemently opposed attacking thee Fancher-Baker wagon train. This caused he and Isaac Haight to argue often.

But then, Dame changed his mind when some Indians attacked the wagon train company and killed some of its members. The problem was the wagon train members recognized the Indians were really Mormons, and thus, they knew the Mormons wanted to kill them as well.

The reason Dame changed his mind and ordered the murders is he realized that if even one person in the party reached California, that person would talk about the murders of his/her fellow wagon train members at the hands of the Mormons, and the most likely response would be a repeat of the despicable anti-Mormonism and persecution of he past.

So, while Dame initially refused to participate in the MMM, eventually he ordered the murder of all the wagon train members. Even then, he did attempt to stop the killings, but got there too late. According to Walker, Turner and Leonard, in Massacre at Mountain Meadows, when he arrived upon the scene and saw all the naked women‘s bodies strewn on the ground:

Another argument ignited between him (Dame) and Haight. Dame “spoke low, as if careful to avoid being heard,” and he insisted the attack would have to be reported. Incensed, Haight blustered, “You know that you counseled it and ordered me to have them used up.”

“I did not think there were so many women and children,” Dame replied. “I thought they were nearly all killed by the Indians.”

The book goes on to say:

In truth, there was fault enough to go around for both men . . . .

So, it is true that Dame initially said no to murdering the members of the wagon train, but he did change his mind and did order the executions, much to his profound regret for the rest of his life.

As far as these groups using lies as an excuse to commit the murders, I think that is completely inaccurate. First, the reasons for the MMM are very complicated and go far beyond the secret meetings held by the men who commmited the murders. In fact, I would say the secret meetings, were the product of a very complicated and emotionally terrifying period of time for the Saints.

Terror makes people do taings they would never consider doing under other circumstances. And the reason these Saints felt terrorized is criticial to understanding why the MMM occurred.

So, to intimate the massacre was simply a bunch of rogue Mormons meeting in secret to tell lies so they could justify commiting mass murder is to completely ignore the real reasons the MMM occurred.

If you'd like to know more, I would recommend Juanita Brooks': "Mountain Meadows Massacre," and Walker, Turley and Leonard's "Massacre at Mountain Meadows." I also enjoyed Will Bagley's "Blood of the Prophets," but because he says it's possible Brigham Young was more involved than we want to believe, based on the fact that BY usually knew any and everything that was going on in the territory, many LDS dismiss the book's many verified references. I enjoyed it, but liked Massacre at Mountain Meadows better.

Elphaba

Edited March 30, 2010 by Elphaba

[pam]

I never argue with Elphaba when it comes to Church History. She knows her stuff.

[NeuroTypical]

I also enjoyed Will Bagley's "Blood of the Prophets," but because he says it's possible Brigham Young was more involved than we want to believe, based on the fact that BY usually knew any and everything that was going on in the territory, many LDS dismiss the book's many verified references.

Good post, up until that part. All the decent criticism I've heard about Bagley's book don't exactly sound like "he sez facts but we don't wanna hear them!". The decent criticisms I've heard all revolve around him cherry-picking a paradigm, overemphasizing facts that support it, and deemphasizing facts that don't. Bad juju, no matter what side you're on.

LM

[Elphaba]

You obviously know very little about the study of wars, wars are classified into generations where similar tactics and means are used and tolerated.

You’re right. I have never studied wars, and had no idea what these "generations" were until you pointed them out. I'm not ashamed of that, as I have no doubt most people have not studied wars or their generations.

However, I was glad at the prospect of learning something new. But I have to wonder, after reading about these “generations,” how knowledgeable are you?

First, the “Generations of War” concept is not universally accepted, and in some cases, is highly criticized by members of the military.

Second, you’re right that the “generations” refer to the tactics used by each faction in a conflict. The Civil War is classified as “Generation War 2 (GW2),” which is defined as:

Second generation warfare was developed in response to the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire, the machine gun and indirect fire. Tactics were based on fire and movement but they remained essentially linear. Defenses still attempted to prevent all penetrations. Attacks were laterally dispersed along a line and advanced by rushes in small groups.

. . . .

A list of wars that are considered 2GW:

Civil War

Boer War

World War I

Spanish Civil War

World War II

You’ll note the Utah War is not listed, nor is it listed in any of the other references I found, though I don't find that, in and of itself, proof of anything. But the only tactic of the 2GW that fits both the Utah War and the Civil War is “Defenses still attempted to prevent all penetrations,” which was also a tactic in the First Generation of War (1GW).

That's it. None of the other tactics identified in the second generation of war demonstrate the Utah War is the same "type" of war the Civil War was, and, in fact, there is almost nothing similar between the two “wars” at all, and it is still an absurd comparison.

of course there were no major battles . . .

You’re still not getting it. There were NO battles, period, major or minor. This was not really a “war.” John Doe is correct in that it was more of an occupation.

but there is a whole lot more to war than battles.

Such as? What aspects of the Utah War are always present in wars in general?

as for it being way over played, yes i believe it is and what i mean by that is, when you are a people who have had there leader killed by neighbors, driven at gun point from there homes, raped and pillaged, and having your holy buildings desecrated at what point do you defend yourself?

When you’re actually being attacked by someone. The Fancher party was not a threat to anyone.

Additionally, LM already explained how outrageous your comment is. There is absolutely no excuse for the MMM.

Fact: many victims of the MMM bragged about being from Missouri.

Fact: So what? How in the world does that make it okay to murder them in cold blood?

You could claim the Mormons wanted revenge,

Yes, you could. Revenge for what the Mormons had suffered before they reached Utah, including for the murders of Joseph and Hyrum, was part of the temple ceremony at the time.

. . . or perhaps they were fearful of the people who had just drove them from one of the most prosperous towns in Illinois.

The Fancher party had not driven them from anywhere, and the Mormons had no reason to suspect they had.

That’s not to say the Southern Utah Mormons weren’t fearful--they were, in fact, terrified. Not only had they been warned by George A. Smith‘s fierty rhetoric of a coming war, they were terrified of being attacked from the west as well, which was the ultimate reason the entire Fancher-Baker party was murdered. Some of the Mormons involved in the MMM had already murdered some members of the party. They believed that if the remaining members of the party made it to CA, they would tell of these murders, which would result in the Saints being attacked from the west to answer for their crimes, and I am sure they were right.

Ultimately, there are many reasons the MMM occurred, including The Reformation, and the millennialism the Mormons believed in, which said that Christ was going to return any day now.

However, in my opinion, the US government played a significant role in the MMM because it neglected to communicate its purpose to Brigham Young. The coming Army had no intention of attacking the Mormons, but the Saints had no way of knowing that. In fact, Brigham Young discovered he was going to be replaced as governor not from the federal government that was replacing him, but via the press!

But the resulting fear and anger, stirred up by sermons of coming war, including the fiery war rhetoric of George A. Smith to the Saints in Southern Utah, escalated the Mormon’s fear and anger to the point that the tension was unbearable. The Fancher-Baker party came along in the very midst of this tension, and were massacred because of it. Not because they claimed to be from Missouri. Not because they claimed to have killed Pratt. Not because they supposedly poisoned a cow. Not because of any of the reasons you applied, or were applied by Mormons after the fact.

The only reason they were massacred is that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I find your willingness to blame them for their own massacre shocking.

In fact, it makes me wonder if you even know what happened at MMM, or if you've just assumed it was a war battle, and thus, your insistence that the deaths of the wagon train party are acceptable because they happened during a "war." At least, that's what it sounds like to me, which leads me to suspect you don't have a clue what happened at MMM.

Elphaba

Edited March 30, 2010 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Good post, up until that part. All the decent criticism I've heard about Bagley's book don't exactly sound like "he sez facts but we don't wanna hear them!". The decent criticisms I've heard all revolve around him cherry-picking a paradigm, overemphasizing facts that support it, and deemphasizing facts that don't. Bad juju, no matter what side you're on.

Actually, I was sort of being facetious, by using JAG's post as an example of a silly criticism, when he wrote:

Considering that (last I heard) Bagley's position is that Brigham Young plotted the whole thing, methinks Bagley's in no position to be labeling anything as "Utah mythology".

The truth is it's been a long time since I've read BotP, and I don't have it in my collection anymore, as I loaned it out a couple of years ago. So, I'm glad I have Juanita's book annd the one published by the Church's historians.

Anyone have a "Blood of the Prophets" they disdain and no longer want?

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Good post, up until that part. All the decent criticism I've heard about Bagley's book don't exactly sound like "he sez facts but we don't wanna hear them!". The decent criticisms I've heard all revolve around him cherry-picking a paradigm, overemphasizing facts that support it, and deemphasizing facts that don't. Bad juju, no matter what side you're on

In the context of my comment, it doesn't matter whether it is decent criticism or not. The fact is, if I had to guess how many times I have been told, by a member of the Church, that they wouldn't read Bagley's book becaue he said "Brigham did it," and therefore it is bogus, I would have to say it's more than ten, but less than twenty. Probably less than fifteen.

JAG wrote a variation of it on this very thread.

That doesn't mean your criticisms are wrong. It just means "he sez facts but we don't wanna hear them" shouldn't be so easily dismmissed either. It might not be effective criticism, but I wouldn't have written of it if I hadn't experienced it.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

Elphaba, much (but not all) of Blood of the Prophets is on Google Books here.

I would note that Bagley is not innocuously pontificating about what is "possible". From page 379:

[brigham Young] encouraged his Indian allies to attack the Fancher party to make clear to the nation the cost of war with the Mormons. Young had already sent George A. Smith south to make sure local leaders provided the Paiutes with the encouragement and support needed to create a violent incident. After learning from Stewart Van Vliet that the government’s intentions were not as demonic as he had feared, Young sent orders south with James Haslam to stop the events he had set in motion.

As for my earlier statement: I should have fleshed it out more. My beef isn't wholly that Bagley speaks ill of someone I like (though I can't deny that that's part of it); the way he gets there is a major issue as well--Loudmouth encapsulates it nicely.

I strongly doubt you'd let Joseph F. Smith, Andrew Jenson, or apologetics gang at BYU get away with that kind of thing. I hope you wouldn't give Bagley a pass on it, either.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Elphaba]

Elphaba, much (but not all) of Blood of the Prophets is on Google Books here.

It has never occurred to me to look at Google Books before. That was so cool!

I would note that Bagley is not innocuously pontificating about what is "possible".

You're absolutely right. I had been doing some further resarch and realized I had downplayed Bagley's conclusions about BY's involvement. I was going to post a clarification, but you beat me to it, and I'm glad you did, as it is a vitally important point when discussing BotP. So thanks for that.

Elphaba

[NeuroTypical]

I'd just like to sieze the opportunity to take my favorite jab at the more foolish part of church critics.

Bagley's book was a main source for that horrible movie in 2007. It cost ten million to make. It lost nine point nine million. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 0% Cream of the Crop rating as of February 2008. Roger Ebert gave it a rare "zero stars" review. The New York Post gave it 0/4.

I'd like to add some smarmy loud laughter here, but the serious subject matter constrains me. An event this important deserved a much more serious treatment than the "Buck Rogers vs. the evil emperor ming" nonsense that got vomited on theater audiences for two weeks.

LM

[Maureen]

...Bagley's book was a main source for that horrible movie in 2007.

Really? It didn't mention the book in wikipedia.

...An event this important deserved a much more serious treatment than the "Buck Rogers vs. the evil emperor ming" nonsense that got vomited on theater audiences for two weeks...

Maybe that's your calling LM, you're the next James Cameron. :)

M.