**************************************************************

>From: "JOE"

>Subject: Re: screenplay

>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 06:28:07 -0500

>

>I purchased both the screenplay and stage play online through

>amazon.com. (http://www.amazon.com) and got great service within

>just a few weeks.

>

>Gary

>-------------------------------------------------------------------

>> From: Taiyed

>> Subject: screenplay

>> Date: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 6:01 PM

>>

>> Hello, I need some help. Can anyone tell me where I can buy the

>screenplay

>> of BT in the U.S. I live in Hawaii, so I doubt anywhere on this

>island would

>> sell it. Maybe a mail order co.

>> Thanks in advance,

>> Donovan

>

>

**************************************************************

>From: "JOE"

>Subject: Re: What time again????

>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 06:36:10 -0500

>

>From: David

>Subject: Re: What time again????

>Date: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 4:16 AM

>

>Bruce  wrote...

>

>> Sorry if I'm a bit dense about these things, but could someone

>please post those times for the IRC chat in CIVILIAN time. Since I'm

>not in the military the times posted mean nothing at all to me.

>

>We use the 24 hour format interchangeably with AM/PM Bruce. It's not

>limited to the military. I've always thought it the best way to do

>time seeing as we have 24 hours each day. AM/PM only makes sense when

>you're a sun-dial maker :-)

>

>Here in the US, 24-hour time is pretty much limited to the military.

>The military folks are also the only ones who would write todays date

>as 16 April or 16/4/97, when the rest of us would write "April 16" or

>4/16/97. But, then, we also are the only folks in the world who

>still hate metric. <G>

>

>Gary

>writing on 4/16/97 at 6:35 a.m. CDT, and the temperature is currently

>62. <G>

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:25:27 +0100

>From: Gavin

>Subject: Re: What time again????

>

>At 22:05 4/15/97 -0800, you wrote:

>> Sorry if I'm a bit dense about these things, but could someone please

>post those times for the IRC chat in CIVILIAN time. Since I'm not in the

>military the times posted mean nothing at all to me.

>

>Lor...

>

> irc.stealth.net

> #BTList

> Sunday, April 20

> 9pm Greenwich Mean Time

> 10pm British Summer Time

> 2pm Pacific Daylight Time

> 4pm Central Daylight Time

> 7am Australian Eastern Standard Time (21 April)

>

>Anyway, that time format isn't just military. It is used universally in

>Europe and is used at all airports and all train stations in the UK. Most

>TV schedules are given on a 24hr clock as well. In fact, it is used for

>practically everything except everyday conversation. All you have to do is

>subtract 1200 if the time is 1300 or greater and that gives you the time in

>hours and minutes, p.m. You may want to reconsider doing that tour of the

>BT sites in London if that bothers you so much. :-)

>

>

>Gav.

>

**************************************************************

>From: "David

>Subject: Re: What time again????

>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:16:15 +0100

>

>Bruce  wrote...

>

>> Sorry if I'm a bit dense about these things, but could someone please

post those times for the IRC chat in CIVILIAN time. Since I'm not in the

military the times posted mean nothing at all to me.

>

>We use the 24 hour format interchangeably with AM/PM Bruce. It's not

limited to the military. I've always thought it the best way to do time

seeing as we have 24 hours each day. AM/PM only makes sense when you're a

sun-dial maker :-)

>

>It's real easy too,

>

>12:00am == 00:00

>1:00am == 01:00

>..

>11:00am == 11:00

>12:00pm == 12:00

>1:00pm == 13:00

>2:00pm == 14:00

>..

>10:00pm == 22:00

>11:00pm == 23:00

>

>To convert from 24 hour clock to 12 hour...

>

>If the 24 hour value is 12 or more add PM, else add AM

>If the hour is 13 or more subtract 12 from the hour.

>

>Examples:

>

>00:30 hours == 12:30AM

>09:59 hours == 9:59AM

>12:45 hours == 12:45PM

>13:04 hours == 13:04PM - 12:00 == 1:04PM

>16:00 hours == 16:00PM - 12:00 == 4:00PM

>21:15 hours == 21:15PM - 12:00 == 9:15PM

>23:59 hours == 23:59PM - 12:00 == 11:59PM

>

>Davie.

>

>

**************************************************************

>From: "Adam "

>Subject: Hi There !

>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:13:00 +1000

>

>Hi ,

>

>I have been sitting back and reading what everyone has been saying ,

>thought I better open my mouth ( well type ) , and say hello . Beautiful

>was one of the most beneficials movies I had seen , as I saw it for the

>first time just after I came out , and ended up going back to see it 4

>more times . Devotion ah hehe . But I took as many of my straight

>friends as possible and it changed there attitudes as well .

>

>Anyways this aussie has to get back to work .

>

>Take care

>

>Adam

>

>P.S Looks like I will get to chat to you for my breakfast on Monday ,

>sheeesh time differences don't they get on your nerves .

>

>"Life is like a river , jump in and get wet"

>"No one ever seems to remember that life is a game we play"

>

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:38:21 -0800

>From: Bruce

>Subject: Time! What a concept.

>

> Thanks to Gav and Davie for setting me straight on the time thing and

showing me an easy way to figure it out. I'm sorry that my American

ignorance was showing! But, as Gary said, the only people in the U.S. who

use that time system are the military folks. I guess I better get it sorted

out before I make any excursions to Europe!

>

>

>cheers,

>

>Bruce

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 13:21:28 +0200

>From: Meinolf

>Subject: Is BT E-Mail List down?

>

>Hallo?

>

>Is anybody out there?

>

>Or is the list down, or am I out of the list now?

>

>Since three days I get no Mails!

>

>Help me

>

>Meinolf

>--

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 20:15:37 -0400 (EDT)

>From: Jody

>Subject: Re: Two of Us - London

>

>In a message dated 97-04-15 14:13:13 EDT, you write:

>

>> There's something about an airline that is playing a Pet Shop Boys video in

>

>> the

>> cabin as you walk onto the plane that just basically appeals to me.

>

>I can just imagine what the inflight movie play list is.

>

>Jody

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 20:15:36 -0400 (EDT)

>From: Jody

>Subject: Beautiful Thing Wins Best Picture Award

>

>Didn't know if you guys knew it or not, but the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against

>Defamation (GLAAD) here in the USA gave "Beautiful Thing" its Best Picture in

>a Limited Release award.

>

>Truth be told this was the only real excitement of the entire contest, as BT

>beat "Stonewall" the favored (and recommended) winner.

>

>Score more for our boys.

>

>Jody

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 01:51:09 -0700

>From: Nathan

>Subject: Beautiful Thing Wins Best Picture Award -Reply

>

>I find it very interesting that Stonewall was the "recommended" winner for the

>award... I found that I had quite opposite reactions to the two films. I

>think that I saw Stonewall first (a few weeks before Beautiful Thing was

>released in San Jose) and the film made me feel ill. The whole seen at the

>beach where people aren't allowed to dance together or be seen with each other

>made me sick; I don't know if that is because I didn't live in that time and

>therefore don't know or understand what that was like, or it is an interesting

>misrepresentation of history - I'm not sure which it is, and it may be a

>combination - to some degree - of both. I would be interested to hear other

>people's reactions to Stonewall as compared to Beautiful Thing, and see if

>anyone else had a reaction as severe as mine. Hope everyone is well.

> *nathan*

>

>

**************************************************************

>From: "David "

>Subject: Re: Beautiful things

>Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:11:50 +1000

>

>: From: Robert

>:

>: Dear all,

>:

>: Nothing to do with the film- but other beautiful things. I'm in

>: Berlin at the moment and I find that it is the most liberal

>: place I have found in Europe. I saw lots of gay couples holding

>: hands and being open. I haven't experienced this in France- although

>: I don't go to Paris that often. I just wondered if the Germans are

>: like this all over Germany? Berliner Rundfunk 91,4 are even playing

>: 'Dream a little dream of me' at this very moment. What

>: are the best places in Eurpe for tolerance and acceptance??

>:

>Thanks Robert for sharing your experience. I'd love to be in Berlin too, 'cept

>I'm in Australia.

>

>Ciao

>

>David

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:12:43 +1000

>From: Alex

>Subject: Laserdisc of film

>

>Hi,

>I was wondering if anyone could help me. I am interested to find out if Film

>Four Distributors in UK or Sony Pictures Classics or anyone else for that

>matter has or plans on releasing The Beautiful Thing film on Laserdisc? It

>would not matter in which format it was released (PAL or NTSC). I would

>definitely be interested in Buying one. If someone has released a

>Laserdisc could you please supply me with their contact details if you

>have them (fax no or email). Thank you for your help.

>

>Alex.

>

>PS I have tried sending this message to beautiful and

>have recieved no reply. I have also noticed other msgs from users who also

>have ahad a similar problem. I have also tried to emial another person in

>Ireland. Email ends with numb.ie and have not received a reply. So I'm

>wondering if their is a problem with getting email to the UK or am I just

>having a bit of bad luck :-(

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:59:31 -0500

>From: JOE>

>Subject: Re: Beautiful Thing Wins Best Picture Award -Reply

>

>Nathan  wrote:

>>

>> I find it very interesting that Stonewall was the "recommended" winner

for the

>> award... I found that I had quite opposite reactions to the two films. I

>> think that I saw Stonewall first (a few weeks before Beautiful Thing was

>> released in San Jose) and the film made me feel ill. The whole seen at the

>> beach where people aren't allowed to dance together or be seen with each

other

>> made me sick; I don't know if that is because I didn't live in that time and

>> therefore don't know or understand what that was like, or it is an

interesting

>> misrepresentation of history - I'm not sure which it is, and it may be a

>> combination - to some degree - of both. I would be interested to hear other

>> people's reactions to Stonewall as compared to Beautiful Thing, and see if

>> anyone else had a reaction as severe as mine. Hope everyone is well.

>> *nathan*

>

> I have yet to see Stonewall, but I doubt the scenes you describe could

>be considered misrepresentations. I came out in 1969 and I still recall

>the cuts on my hands from falling in a gravel parking lot while running

>out the back door of a bar the Atlanta police were raiding. Why the

>raid? Because the bar allowed same-sex dancing! That was a crime at

>the time.

> I've never been into drag, but drag was a crime in most cities, for it

>was considered to be "wearing a disguise," and therefore likely to be

>planning to commit a crime. In some cities, drag performers could

>register with the local police and get an ID card with their name and

>(drag) picture on it allowing them, if they police were in the mood, to

>perform in drag.

>

> Times have changed.

>

>Gary

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: 21 Apr 1997 13:43:04 -0400

>From: "John

>Subject: Beautiful Thing

>

> 1:39 PM 4/21/97

>

>A very nice, if intimate, production of Beautiful Thing took place this past

>Thursday, Friday and Saturday (April 17, 18, 19) night in Silliman College on

>the campus of Yale University. It was, for the most part, well cast and well

>performed and, supposedly, the first known American theatrical performance.

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 21:37:30 +0100

>From: Gavin

>Subject: Re: Beautiful Thing at Silliman

>

>At 13:43 4/21/97 -0400, you wrote:

>>A very nice, if intimate, production of Beautiful Thing took place this past

>>Thursday, Friday and Saturday (April 17, 18, 19) night in Silliman College on

>>the campus of Yale University. It was, for the most part, well cast and well

>>performed and, supposedly, the first known American theatrical performance.

>

>"Intimate" means it wasn't well attended? I just wonder that they had no

>difficulty with the dialogue? Did you watch it? Was it americanised? I

>have little difficulty understanding most english dialects (so accent's no

>problem), but I sure as hell don't know the slang. And if you water down

>the accent, I can't imagine that the vocabulary goes! I know I spent a lot

>of time finding out what all the words meant.

>

>I'm thinking of movies like Fever Pitch for example (advertised: "What do

>you do when you love one woman and worship eleven men?"), which is showing

>now in the UK: but how could anyone expect foreign viewers to empathise with

>the English football fan? The British make excellent movies, but not all

>are easily exported...

>

>

>Gav.

>

**************************************************************

>From: "Jeff "

>Subject: www.reel.com

>Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:18:01 -0500

>

>I've found the most incredible movie web site. It's Reel.com. I had read a

>newspaper article that said the site just went up Monday. You can rent or

>buy thousands and thousands of movies. A totally new concept for the web.

>It has a search engine to peruse its 75,000 listings.

>

>http://www.reel.com/

>

>Well, needless to say, it's pretty comprehensive. So much so that it has BT

>listed already. Here's the URL for the BT listing:

>

>http://www.reel.com/cgi-bin/reel.exe/QC3W3XL9W52/moviepage.html?MOVIEID=1263

>9&GENRE=0&PERIOD=0&RATING=0&AVAIL=BOTH

>

>It has BT available for $79.19. Could be worse. Also gives you the chance

>to rate it and see what other people (and critics) think of it. It also

>dissects the movie by character development, romance, sex, etc.

>

>Jeff

>

**************************************************************

>From: jens.

>Subject: Beautiful things

>Date: 22 Apr 1997 12:00:36 +0000

>

>Hi Robert,

>

>Am 21.Apr.1997 schrieb wimpory an Jens :

>

> w> Nothing to do with the film- but other beautiful things. I'm in

> w> Berlin at the moment and I find that it is the most liberal

> w> place I have found in Europe. I saw lots of gay couples holding

> w> hands and being open. I haven't experienced this in France- although

> w> I don't go to Paris that often. I just wondered if the Germans are

> w> like this all over Germany?

>Actually, Germany is just like most other European countries: major cities

are often rather tolerant about gays/lesbians or homosexuality relevated

themes. But there are still many things to be changed here.

>But I have to admit, that Germany is not the most intolerant country ... :)

>

> w> Berliner Rundfunk 91,4 are even playing 'Dream a little dream of

> w> me' at this very moment. What are the best places in Eurpe for

> w> tolerance and acceptance??

>Amsterdam is supposed to be Europe's gay capital, London is second in line,

I think.

>

>BTW: I am wondering if anyone else is thinking that Prague will be another

"gay capital" in the future?!

>

>Amicalement,

> Jens

>

>

**************************************************************

>From: "Jeff "

>Subject: Ooops.

>Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:04:21 -0500

>

>Sorry, the BT part of the URL is broken. But the search engine on reel.com

>will find it quickly. Enjoy.

>

>Jeff

>

>

**************************************************************

>From: "David "

>Subject: reel.com

>Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 21:18:18 +0100

>

>I took a look at the site, and emailed asking them to correct the stars

list :-)

>

>How could they miss out our Glen and Scott!?

>

>Davie.

>

>

**************************************************************