posted
I liked Cruise in Risky Business and Minority Report. That's it.
Every movie by Russell Crowe that I've seen is an instant entry on my favorites list. I don't know anything about his private life or political views; I don't wanna know.
I don't have much respect for the actor-class that uses their celebrity status to push their own private issues. Its a job, get over yourself already.
Posts: 90 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, right, Minority Report! I forgot that was even Tom Cruise, which I guess speaks well for his role in the film. I liked that movie. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really didn't like MI2, so I won't bother with seeing the 3rd in the theater. I'll likely see it when netflix gets it though.
I do think Tom Cruise is a nut...but, I dislike the personalities of many actors...but still like their movies. I think Tim Robbins is a nut as well, but love the Shawshank Redemption. Judging by his interviews, I think Russell Crow is an arrogant jerk...but I see every movie he is in because that man can seriously act.
I just don't think Tom Cruise is in the same league acting wise. He has some great movies (Top Gun is one of my favorite movies), but for the most part I think his acting ability is uninspiring.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
[QUOTE]That's like buying a book and saying the only thing that matters is that its well written. It matters who wrote the book and why, and who that person is and what they believe in should affect the book.
No it doesn't.
A good book is a good book no matter who wrote it or where it is "coming from". It's value is determined by it's impact on the reader, which is not determined by where the author is coming from, but rather by how good of a book it is and by how the reader comes to approach it.
The fact that you had to edit out my explanation of that point proves to me that you saw something in it which was valid, and didn't want to admit it. Please don't do that, I explained what I meant, and you reacted to it as if I had said something completely different.
Ps. A categorical denial of a point which has some merit on the whole, is not going to advance your side of the issue, but keep me from wanting to engage you at all, since it seems you don't care for listening to what people actually say.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: That's like buying a book and saying the only thing that matters is that its well written.
It is!
quote:If the performance of a computer is on par with a human, and that is all you need, then why not.
Thus far, that conditional has yet to be satisfied. But when and if it is, bring on the computer-generated entertainment! (I, for one, welcome our new silicon overlords.)
This is exactly my point. If you could have a computer write a book which speaks to you on as many levels as a human written book, or was even BETTER than a "real" book, what does that say about the value of literature? If you base everything on the enjoyability of the experience, you miss the whole point of art, which is supposedly to be mirror on life. That mirror, IMO isn't real if a computer makes it up according to what you'll like and respond well to. That's an Orwellian nightmare to me.
This kind of society, where we only respond to the enjoyability or ease or virtuousity of a performance, would inevitably lead to decay, almost immediately. While there is nothing at all wrong with liking enjoyability, pleasure, virtuosity and computers, there is an inherent tendency to entropy in such a sense-heavy system. I think eventually a society that prides itself on nothing but workmanship and show, and all other surface qualities -(because make no mistake something totally computer generated would be ALL surface value)- will have no artistic or intellectual base at all.
Is that where you arrive from not caring what the person who writes your books actually believes about life? Maybe. The answer I'm afraid, is not a categorical no; you have to consider the implications of any trend. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that I edited out the rest of your explanation only proves that I don't like to quote whole posts. It's too long. You just did the same thing to my post, leaving out my response to your computer argument. Does that prove that you see how it shows I am right and just don't want to admit it?
I did respond to your explanation, where you argued that we need to know where an author is coming from. Here is what you wrote:
quote:I'm not saying you need to exlude an author based on who or what they are, but you do need to know things like that too, in order to understand where the writing (or in this case the performance) is coming from. Isn't this the reason why DVD commentaries and documentaries have become so popular? It gives you an idea of where the film is coming from... otherwise we might as well just develop computer programs that can write our movies for us and do it all with CGI. If the performance of a computer is on par with a human, and that is all you need, then why not.
I, in turn, pointed out that this simply isn't true - that "value is determined by it's impact on the reader" rather than "where the author is coming from", and that I find nothing wrong with a computer writing a great novel, if one could do so.
If you want further proof of this, I'd point to my enjoyment of Ender's Game. I had no idea who OSC was or what he was intending when I read Ender's Game, yet I knew it was a great novel nonetheless and I don't understand it better now just because I know where OSC was coming from when he wrote it. I did not need to know anything about OSC to understand Ender's Game, and thus it must be false to say you need to understand where an author is coming from in order to understand a book.
To take an even more clear example, consider The Illiad and The Odyssey. We have no idea who wrote these - we simply call that person Homer, although it could even be different people. Nevertheless, we still do understand them, still do appreciate them, and still do consider both to be great works. Hence, it is false to say understanding where the author of those works is coming from matters, at least insofar as the value of reading them is concerned. It is the book itself that determines its worth.
Finally, a categorical denial of a point does not advance my side of the issue, but it does explain to you what about your argument I don't accept as a given. I don't accept as given that it matters where an author was coming from when he wrote a book. You have asserted this, offering the computer example that I disagree with as the proof.
Keep in mind, as I've argued in past threads, I think a story exists in the reader's mind, and is not controlled or ruled by the author's views on what it ought to be. Art should be a reflection of life - but fiction should be first and foremost a reflection of the reader's life, not the author's. What a story tells us about an author is not really significant to me, the reader. But what a story tells me about ME is quite important to me. A computer-generated novel could allow me to reflect on my life just as well as a human-authored novel, provided the novel is well-crafted by the computer.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I, in turn, pointed out that this simply isn't true - that "value is determined by it's impact on the reader" rather than "where the author is coming from"
Huh. I just always assumed that a little of both is true. Some books seemed more meaningful to me once I understood the author or the purpose a little better. Sometimes a story will have more of an impact on me if I feel that I can relate in some way to the author. Of course, most of the time I know very little about the author, but that doesn't prevent me from creating my own message from the story.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't follow actors personal lives. I know alot of people who do and they miss good movies simply cause they don't wanna see actors they think are jerks or crazy or whatever. Some examples I've run into: I have a lot of friends who refuse to see movies with Russel Crowe in them. Even A Beautiful Mind. I had a friend who thought Matt Damon was a useless pretty boy and refused to see any movies with him in them. Even Good Will Hunting. If you judge actors from their personal lives you'll likely miss some very good movies.
That said, I haven't seen MI:3 yet and doubt it's very good. But I plan to see it anyway eventually.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The fact that I edited out the rest of your explanation only proves that I don't like to quote whole posts. It's too long. You just did the same thing to my post, leaving out my response to your computer argument. Does that prove that you see how it shows I am right and just don't want to admit it?
No, I shortened it but didn't ignore what you were talking about. I didn't respond much to your post at all except to say that I felt you needed to take my point in the spirit I intended it. Just as now, I knew you would point out that I had taken only part of your post, but in that case I did take a complete idea and didn't edit out your support for the argument. In my case I felt I was taken out of context and shot (to mix metaphors).
To respond to the rest of your post, I am saying really, that I think there needs to be an author coming from SOMEWHERE. You make a valid point that you don't necessarily need to know where, (although I think it helps you understand a work better), but surely you concede that it should come from somewhere. Then again maybe you don't, if you think you are master of all art in the world as you interpret it, (and I have said before I think your silly for thinking that).
A computer comes from nowhere human, and I think "art by committee" is a bad thing. That's what hollywood does often times, and the result is work that seems to come from somewhere, but really doesn't come from anywhere. I do think there is something in what an author intends which effects the value of the work.
There was a thought experiment of a kind in Douglas Adam's book "Life the Universe and Everything" (I think it was that one). It was about a poet who lived in the swampy woods of an isolated planet and wrote without the benefit of education or correcting fluid on dried leaves. He wrote three epic poems and was known as the greatest poet in the galaxy, of all time. Later on correcting fluid companies transported him from the past to do commercial spots and interviews, and he became so future-popular that the girl who inspired his most epic work never left him, and his work was never written. As a result he was sacked up in a cottage over a weekend to recopy his work from a late edition (with mistakes corrected with fluid).
Adams posed the question in his book, as to whether the works were still meaningfull. I think the most important part of this is the warning about what advertising, technology and consumer culture can do to damage artistic and cultural growth. Sure a computer in some far-off future might write what feels like the best book ever written, but what work does it represent? What mastery of thought created it? The programmer? The person who told the machine to do it? Tools are useful in some things, but I am afraid we may become the tools, when our tools have more use of us than we do of them.
edit: and be sure, if we stopped relying on fellow humans to write books and create art and music, then we would fall apart as a culture. There wouldn't then be any need to understand the difference between good and worthless expression, virtuosity and pleasure versus dissapointment and squaler. If you have no creative impetus except in your own personal thought process, then IMO you can be made to believe anything is good, or worthwile, simply because you are told it is. If you believe it enough, you will convince yourself that the world knows something you don't know. It took me most of my adolescent years to realize that it wasn't that I didn't "get it" about things I found painfully stupid and useless... those things really were painfully stupid and they were useless. My worry is that if I had never found that out by being exposed to a different level of expression and thought, what would I be then?
posted
Olivet: Ben Afleck(sp) is much handsomer.. but he's all 0.< too.
Anytime Matt Damon comes up in conversation around my husband, he breaks into Team America's Matt Damon....
hmm... since only 6 people in the entire world saw that movie...two of whom were my hubby and me... I guess I should point out that every time the Matt Damon puppet came on screen he said his own name in a voice resembling a learning disabled individual.
quote:Tres...they weren't just reported, he DID them on TV, during either shows or interviews, so there isn't any sort of spin possible.
That's how spin always works. The incident may be public, but the spin comes afterwards, from the way people talk about it. There's nothing crazy about jumping around couches on Oprah, other than that celebrities don't usually act that way on TV. But when people start to gossip about it as if it is, then people come to believe it is.
Treas, once again you show us the futility of using logic to get a point across.
Thanks.
I didn't need the press to tell me he was acting wacky.
His beliefs are public record, as is his behavior...unless you would like to try to "redefine" those terms as well. He is an idiot, and unbelievably arrogant, and has made a point of discussing those views in public, unsolicited.
He really believes it all, I am sure, which only strengthens my feelings about him.
I don't particularily like him as an actor, although I HAVE enjoyed some of his movies a lot, but I have the right to spend MY money wherever I want, and I feel strogly about not supporting his movies anymore.
You want to see it, fine...but I probably won't, at least not in a theater, and we won't buy any DVD with him in it.
Spin is how someone TALKS about what happened...I didn't need spin to notice what an ass he was, I saw it myself. I turned off his interview where he talkied about Brooke Shields in disgust myself before any spin happened...and was grateful that for once the "spin" was in aliginment with my personal views of his beliefs, actions, and behavior.
Celebs use the press all the time, or at least try to, so I don't particularly care if something they do becomes public knowledge, as long as it was intended to be public when it happened. All their griping is because THEIR spin wasn't accepted as the "truth", someone elses was, and to me it is all part and parcel of their career choices.
If something is stolen and released to the public, that is different, but if I went on TV and acted like that, I would not have a right to be pissed about other peoples reaction to me.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
What a form of entertainment means or is worth is not solely, or even mostly, a factor of its origin. It's a factor of the audience.
So there's no particular reason any work can't be judged solely on its own contents. Where it came from is only important if you think it is.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:*laugh* Seriously? I've heard a few people in the industry complain about his opinions, but I've never seen an orchestrated campaign -- even a recommended boycott -- of any kind. When did it happen?
I was referring to small-scale actions. Picketers or flyer-distributors at his signings, encouraging people to stop buying his books because of his opinions. And this was happening BEFORE he even had a weekly column to annoy people with Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But anyway, on the subject, I can understand boycotting a book or a movie or a video game if the proceeds are being donated to Al Qaeda, or if the art was printed using slave labor in sweatshops, or if the studio forced its people to work unpaid overtime. By denying money to those who fund such art, you are making a statement about a serious political issue, and are potentially improving people's lives.
But boycotting something because the actor is weird? I just don't get that. Where is the grand statement, and what is it saying? Whose life is it improving? "I won't stand for other people being WEIRD!" What? Why not? Why shouldn't people be allowed to be weird? If I made great movies and entertain billions of people, I'd damn well better be allowed to be weird.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
May I please be allowed to be weird without making great movies or entertaining billions of people? Pretty please?
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, boycotting someone because they go on national TV and lambast someone who suffered from PPD, then caliming all sorts of impossible medical claims that fly in the face of everything we have learned about human biology and psychology...
Well, it is a little more than him being weird.
I am not making any request that others do the same, only explaining why he offended me, and why I dislkie him enough to avoid seeing his movies.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Palliard: What a form of entertainment means or is worth is not solely, or even mostly, a factor of its origin. It's a factor of the audience.
So there's no particular reason any work can't be judged solely on its own contents. Where it came from is only important if you think it is.
Here I went to all the trouble of explaining why I feel that way... I didn't realize we could just make declarations at eachother! Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Treas, once again you show us the futility of using logic to get a point across.
Well, yes, it often does seem like people are not convinced by solid logic, but I'll keep using it nonetheless...
quote:I didn't need the press to tell me he was acting wacky.
Then you, in particular, haven't been spun. Nevertheless, that still doesn't mean the conclusions you draw about the character of a man you've never met from a few TV appearances are accurate enough to warrant not only disliking them but boycotting their work. The man has some weird opinions and does some weird things. It doesn't make him a wacko. I'm sure I'd do plenty of weird stuff on TV too if they kept putting me on TV.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But boycotting something because the actor is weird? I just don't get that. Where is the grand statement, and what is it saying? Whose life is it improving? "I won't stand for other people being WEIRD!" What? Why not? Why shouldn't people be allowed to be weird? If I made great movies and entertain billions of people, I'd damn well better be allowed to be weird.
I think it's the word 'boycotting' that's giving you a problem. Boycott, to me, implies some sort of organized and public refusal to participate in a particular activity/event. People not seeing a movie because the actor leaves them with a bad taste in their mouth isn't boycotting, it's exercising their right to choose which movies they see.
This happens with every movie, and book, and comic book, and newspaper, and radio show, and TV show. There's a limited amount of time and money that the average person can devote to these activities, so you can't see and read everything. If you're on the fence about seeing a movie, the actor's offscreen behavior may be enough to convince you not to see it, especially when said behavior is weird enough, even by hollywood standards, to creep out the vast majority of the public. Image is important to your livelihood, and everyone in Hollywood knows it.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I didn't realize we could just make declarations at each other!
Uhm... I did provide a quality example of my point. I figured restating it would be redundantly redundant. The whole point of hyperlinking is so you don't have to have multiple copies of stuff everywhere. Perhaps you need to upgrade your web browser to one that supports this feature.
Since you apparently don't have one, I'll try to sum up the contents of the linked article: "Shakespeare in the Bush" is an often-reprinted cultural anthropology essay, beginning with a premise much as you propose: that Hamlet's meaning is inherent because it was written by Shakespeare, and not because of anything that actually in the play. However, when she (the author of the essay) tried to tell the story of Hamlet to the elders of the West African tribe she was staying with, they insisted on interpreting everything that happened in the context of their own culture, with the result that the entire meaning of the story was radically changed.
The point was, the meaning of a story depends on who is hearing it; more broadly, any creative work does not exist outside the context of the person observing it... which is precisely why who created it doesn't matter so much.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread now makes me think of the controversial photograph, Piss Christ. It produced quite an uproar, because it was a picture of a crucifix immersed in a vail of the photographer's pee.
The picture itself was interesting, even kinda pretty. A professor of mine, who was a very religious man, said that he found the image and the idea very fitting because Christ chose to make himself the lowest of the low, for our sins. Whether-or-not that was the artist's intent was irrelevant to me after that. The darned profane picture brought tears to my eyes after I learned to see it that way.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think El JT has it right about the meaning of boycott and choice of movies.
Me - I'm never going to protest outside a showing of a Tom Cruise movie. Or try and convince people not to see it.
But for my own personal viewing, the fact that a movie stars Tom Cruise is now more a detraction than a plus. And so unless I have heard really, really good review of the movie, I'll spend my movie money on something else.
Of course, I live in a country where the weekly magazines still blast Tom for "Our Nicole's" heartache, so I may be conditioned.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with not only his views, but the fact he feels he has a right to spout them off at people who already have enough to worry about. His "theories" are dangerous and completely false (yes, I have researched the history and beliefs of Scientology), and I dislike being preached at by someone with limited a intellect just because they have unlimited media access.
I think he asked for a boycott, to be honest, and he deserves what he gets (if not more).
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: lly disagree with not only his views, but the fact he feels he has a right to spout them off at people who already have enough to worry about. His "theories" are dangerous and completely false (yes, I have researched the hsitory and beliefs of Scientology), and I dislike being preached at by someone with limited a intellect just because they have unlimited media access.
I think he asked for a boycott, to be honest, and he deserves what he gets (if not more).
Until I saw the scientology reference, I thought we were talking about Michael Moore. Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I try to be respectful of people's deeply-held beliefs, even when I do not share them, though I confess that Scientology strains that resolve somewhat. *makes Daffy Duck backflip noises*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kind of interesting. Although I'm not sure how reliable of a story it is, it basically says that the people are buying dozens of tickets to Mi-III at a time at the theatre closest to the Scientology branch that Cruise belongs to.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Palliard: [QUOTE] The whole point of hyperlinking is so you don't have to have multiple copies of stuff everywhere. Perhaps you need to upgrade your web browser to one that supports this feature.
I'm afraid a hyperlink can't speak for you. If you have an opinion I'd like to hear your reasons for it, not be referred to your research. Support your own opinions, its more interesting that way. There is nothing wrong with providing a link, however it is also impossible for me to respond to, because it isn't you who wrote that peice.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I disagree with not only his views, but the fact he feels he has a right to spout them off at people who already have enough to worry about. His "theories" are dangerous and completely false (yes, I have researched the history and beliefs of Scientology), and I dislike being preached at by someone with limited a intellect just because they have unlimited media access.
I think he asked for a boycott, to be honest, and he deserves what he gets (if not more).
Until I saw the Scientology reference, I thought we were talking about Michael Moore.
And while I agree with a lot of what Moore says, I dislike his tactics and refused to go see Fahrenheit 9/11 as well. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moore was very promising after Bowling for Columbine, he seemed to be dedicated and intelligent. I think its a shame he started treating his audience like they were stupid. For instance, asking congresmen why they don't "send their sons to war," as if this was at all fair or even relevent. Like you can send your children off to war these days. I don't like feeling manipulated.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you have an opinion I'd like to hear your reasons for it, not be referred to your research.
I'd prefer to be referred to your research, as opposed to hearing your opinions. I suppose we have reached an impasse.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't need to research my own opinions, nor do I need someone else to tell me what to think about something like this. I don't know why you feel the need to insult me, since I had at least enough respect for you to ask you what you actually thought. If you take my prompt as some kind of an afront to you, you shouldn't. This is an opinion forum, we don't need, and I certainly don't want, to read a bunch of outside material which "represents" your viewpoint. The only person who can represent your viewpoint best is you.
The fact that you've been unable to communicate your reasons for thinking anything, leads me to believe that you aren't thinking about much at all. As such, I don't feel particularly bad about having you disagree with me. If you feel like being part of a reasonable discussion, I won't run away.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is my opinion that space ponies DO exist, and any beliefs otherwise are obviously part of the massive NASA coverup of their space pony sweat shops on the moon.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think its a shame he started treating his audience like they were stupid. For instance, asking congresmen why they don't "send their sons to war," as if this was at all fair or even relevent. Like you can send your children off to war these days. I don't like feeling manipulated.
See, THAT part of it was brilliant. It didn't involve lying, or warping the truth, and it raised the point that part of the reason these congressmen are willing to go to war is that their families aren't harmed by it. It is mainly the poor and disinfrancised of all races that enlist and they might be insulated from the direct concenquences or war; namely death.
Most of that movie was buunk, but that question cut right to the heart of the matter, IMO.
They have no problem sending off poor black kids to die for their couuntry, while their Ivy League kids get to party, do drugs, and get elected President.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, THAT part of it was brilliant. It didn't involve lying, or warping the truth
It absolutely did, as it implied that the congressmen got to decide who signed up for the military and who didn't, or that if their sons had signed up for the military, they wouldn't have supported military action.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think it did. I think it raised a very good point about who actually fights the wars they declare.
I was not poor, or black, but still joined the Army, so I am NOT saying it is all or nothing, or that every person who signs up for the armed services is disadvantaged.
I am saying that there is a very real dicotimy between those who make political decisions and those who die because of those decisions, and that that needs to be at least acknowledged and addressed rather than being ignored and denied.
Moore is an idiot, but he at least raised some good points of discussion. Even if he himself is more likely to just shout his version of events to all who are near than actually debate anything.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like seeing Moore get off on asking congressmen questions that don't actually invite answers.
The thing was, he might be right in principle, but that wasn't really an invitation to debate or dialogue, it was just an attack. You don't score any points in my book by being a troll and lobbing unanswerable questions at people.
That part of it really made me resent him, because that is the kind of guy he is, and that isn't a good thing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that you've been unable to communicate your reasons for thinking anything, leads me to believe that you aren't thinking about much at all.
posted
It makes sense to me. If I feel someone can't adequately support an opinion they've made, in their own words, then I have to assume they don't really have a well formed opinion.
You must hear from people like this all the time- its all about who who they've read and who they agree with, but then when it comes to actually articulating anything themselves, they're groping in the dark. There are people, unfortunately, who don't think an opinion is valid until they've seen it in print with a fancy by-line. Such people are often shy with their own opinions, or else they just don't have them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just as reasonable, and much more generous, to assume that they DO have a well-formed opinion and simply haven't been able to express it in a way that convinces you. In fact, it's just as possible that they've expressed their opinion perfectly, but that you just don't get it.
Hence, it does NOT follow that the failure to communicate the reasons for an opinion to you implies they have no such reasons.
Truthfully, I've found that there is very little correlation between the ability to express oneself and being correct. Many people are very good at making wrong things sound reasonable, while many others know exactly what they are talking about but can't seem to convince everyone.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
"Uhm... okay. Here's the loathesome Reader's Digest condensed version."
"That's still teh hard. You suck."
It's like trying to communicate with the Iraqi Information Minister.
"There IS NO Tom Cruise! It is all a Zionist plot to discredit Galactic Overlord Xenu! The infidels who spread these lies should be beaten with shoes! Hail Xenu!"
I yeild to your obstreperousness.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's like trying to communicate with the Iraqi Information Minister.
Oh God forbid I shouldn't like to be buried in an avalanche of your own personal reading choices just so you don't have to actually show that you understand something by trying to express it yourself. Nothing at all fascist about your insistance on everyone doing the same research you've done. I don't tell you what to read, but if I had to make one recommendation, it would be a Churchill history.
My not wanting to take my recommended reading from you doesn't say anything about what I think of reading... only what I think of your reading choices.
If I thought reading was too hard to do- why would I be participating in an author hosted forum? Unlike some people, I didn't stumble across it through a google search for nice rack on which to set my hat. Tante
Ps. "Your idea is invalid. Example over here."
"Reading is teh hard."
Is that how you saw the conversation unfolding? You don't remember me giving any other reasons why I wasn't going to read it? Nothing? No? Alright.
Tresophax
quote: Hence, it does NOT follow that the failure to communicate the reasons for an opinion to you implies they have no such reasons.
I would agree with that if you said "doesn't necessarily follow." In fact it may very well be the reason, but your right if your saying it doesn't HAVE to be. I do think in this case, that it is. And I can't help but be reasured by Palliard's responses, none of which contain anything substantive. (only IMO, of course. If you see something there, have at it.)
Now I too have been drawn from the important part of the discussion. I'll have to go back and think about it some more.
posted
I can't help but wonder if Cruise prefers the current rumors that he's insane to the more long-standing rumors that he's homosexual. (Not that there aren't plenty of people who probably suspect he's both.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't like feeling manipulated.
