By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
Total immersion: Your article is the best, most comprehensive and most accurate review of World War II Online: Blitzkrieg that I've ever read ("Toy Soldiers," by Eric Celeste, April 10). Your in-depth look at the game made all the difference. From interviews with other players to your very own experiences showed that you took the time to see what so many of us know. I actually have four separate accounts on four separate computers all sitting in one room, and my girlfriend and I play all four at once for, on average, 60-plus hours a week. The point being, I know the depth to which this game can immerse you.
I just wanted to take the time to let you know that I, for one, certainly appreciated your article.
Steve Brown ("Fogaban")
Lincoln Park, Michigan
Mutant Spitfire: The photo of an airplane on page seven of your most recent edition (April 10), which is repeated on page 28, is described as a Spitfire MKI. It isn't. The Mark One did not have the two wing-mounted 50-caliber cannon, and the wing is the wrong shape. You can call it whatever you wish, of course, but it seems to these old eyes you have some kind of a hybrid. It has a Spitfire nose and a Hurricane wing.
I'll just bet there are other glaring historical errors involved. Do the Germans win this time?
Great game: Great article on what I believe is a great game. Thank you for taking the time to research it and put together a very complete and satisfying article. I look forward to reading your future articles now regardless of subject matter.
Crybabies: The April 10 article "Dixie Down" (by Chris Parker) perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy and the crybaby tendencies of many in the anti-war movement.
So, the Dixie Chicks and all others in the leftist entertainment industry have the right to free speech and can say anything they want, right? But when the 70ish percent of us in the country who support the war disagree with them--i.e., those who exercise their right to free speech--that's wrong? Yeah, there's no logical disconnect there. The author even goes so far as to compare some forms of this disagreement with the Dixie Chicks as "extortion." So once again, the Left wants to impose a double standard--one for themselves and another for the rest of us cattle out here in flyover country--and they do it under the guise of defending the First Amendment.
In truth, we shouldn't be surprised. Every right we have carries with it a corresponding responsibility, but what the Dixie Chicks, the Janeane Garofalos and Martin Sheens of the world are saying is, "I have the right to free speech, but I have no intention of shouldering the responsibility that goes with it, namely, the responsibility to face the dissent that my comments and actions generate from my fellow citizens." This is the same responsibility-averse mind-set that has come to typify the Left in the country since the late 1960s. Do your own thing, and screw the consequences.
If the entertainment industry can't take the heat of public opinion, it should steer clear of the kitchen. Words and actions have consequences. I'll fight for their right to speak their mind, but don't ask me or the rest of the country to check our liberties at the door, just because some among us are not man or woman enough to stand up to public criticism.
Big-mouth babe: Isn't there a line in one of the Chicks' songs seeking "wide-open spaces; room to make the big mistakes?" Little did they know that the wide-open space was right below Natalie's nose.
Bothered: I am quite concerned and bothered to see you have not included any art listings in the past few Dallas Observers. This is the primary reason I pick up copies. I like to find out what gallery and museum openings and shows are happening each week, as well as reading the reviews. Of course, I can read The Dallas Morning News on Friday for The Guide, but I have preferred the Observer. How can there be an informative magazine without art? How do you just cut this culture out while still including music? Yet you still find the space to add all those classified ads.
Another turd: What happened to the gallery listings? And what's up with the diminished coverage of the arts in the area? I realize this is not New York City, but the local arts scene gets shit on enough as it is without you guys dropping a turd, too. Now I have absolutely no use in picking up the Observer. Thanks.
Big step back: Your new calendar format is a GIANT step backward. How can less information be an improvement? All you have done is made me go buy a Friday Dallas Morning News to find out what's going on. Did you really intend for me to give more money to the Belo boys? Figure it out.
Zelman Platon Brounoff
Editor's note: The Dallas Observer still publishes comprehensive listings of area art galleries--and all other cultural venues and events--on its Web site, www.dallasobserver.com.