MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
You know what's frightening? Poor sonans actually believes he's making cogent arguments.
Taking your wife-beating example, for instance, he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy. And of course he insists on seeing the past through the present, and just can't get beyond that.
You're right, his own posts are the best argument against his argument.
Yes, the nerd market came after. And I'm not sure that Tolkien would have been entirely pleased with their approach to his work, to put it mildly. He was a scholar, an intellectual, a devout Catholic; all of those things are reflected in & shape his work. I think of him as being quite similar to William Blake in creating a personal mythology, drawn from deep within his psyche & life experience, that worked with universal archetypal material that appeals to countless readers around the world.
Understood. He's not the only such poster here, as I'm sure you've already noticed. My response to one of them just below garnered the same sort of "thinking" — either unwilling or enable to engage in intelligent, adult discussion. I'd shake my head sadly, but they're an ominous trend for society.
The protesters were native-born American citizens exercising their rights as American citizens. And since they didn't come from Russia, how could they be "sent back" there?
user111, just look at sonans' posting history, as I just did, and you'll see how limited & inch-deep his worldview is. I almost feel sorry for him now. Almost.
"Incoherent" is being generous, I fear.
An eloquent & factual response, presenting history as it happened, not as some might wish it to have happened. Well done!
Apparently he ONLY listens to himself & to his limited reading of the past.
There never was any evidence of Clark having lied in this case. You can go on believing whatever you want, but it won't change the truth.
End of discussion.
Ramsey Clark was noted for his integrity, even by his political enemies. You obviously weren't alive then, and so you can have no conception of the zeitgeist then.
Thank you for your accurate post. As I wrote earlier, I was alive then & following everything on the news, and it was just as you describe it.
Shakespeare is ruined for many students by being taught as text from a book. The best way to appreciate his plays is to see them performed, preferably a live performance, but at least a good filmed one. When I was in high school—class of 1971, the "olden days" now—a company of actors would perform a Shakespeare play live for the English classes in the auditorium once a year. Even if the language was complex, it didn't take long for the story to engage us, enabling us to naturally begin to understand the richness of the language. Don't know if anyone does that today, but I'd say that any play is best appreciated by being performed first. The reading of a text can come after that.
I absolutely agree with you here. The first two seasons were genuinely ABOUT the 50s, as you say, making good use of the period culture from that time. Fonzie wasn't always as cool as he made himself out to be, something that Richie recognized & made him like Fonzie all the more. But once the studio audience came in, the jokes were louder, broader, and often snarky. Richie even began making cheap jokes about his own parents, whereas in the first two seasons, he clearly loved & respected them, even if he disagreed with them on occasion. That Richie would never have made nasty "jokes" about them.
I'm not saying that it justifies those actions, merely that it helps to explain them. An explanation is not the same thing as an excuse; I want to be quite clear about that. My point is that Lennon was able to confront his inner demons & attempted to make himself a better person, rather than simply continuing as he was.
He said in 1980:
"I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically — any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn’t express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace. Everything’s the opposite. But I sincerely believe in love and peace. I am not violent man who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence.
"I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster."
He recognized & admitted what he had done & what he had been. And he was striving to grow beyond that.
I'd also note that children who have been physically and/or emotionally abused often act out violently as they grow up. Again, not an excuse, but an explanation.
And how many of us have lived a morally impeccable life, without any words or acts of meanness of spite when we were younger? Haven't we all done things we're now ashamed of? If those things are recognized, acknowledged, and lead to real growth, are we still to be judged by what we were at our worst, rather than what we've become since then? And again, I'm not saying that we should ignore or brush aside those things. I'm just saying that it's possible to grow into a better person. Not everyone does, but credit to those who make the effort & accept personal responsibility for what they did. And try to atone for it.
That depends on one's perspective. For me, he (among others) opened doors to otherwise unimagined possibilities, something that made my inner life richer & more whole over the decades. I didn't hang on his every word, but I'm grateful for his emotionally powerful body of work & the positive influence I got from him.
John's now been dead for as long as he was alive, which is a little difficult for me to wrap my head around. I'll be playing a lot of his songs today.
Lennon was a damaged boy, and why not, with his father abandoning him early on & his mother being killed by a drunken driver just when he had reconnected with her. Credit to him for recognizing his youthful anger & violence as he got older. Not just recognizing it, but being ashamed of it & striving to do better going forward.
That Quora answer is mean-spirited garbage.
There are people today (transhumanists) who have had tech embedded in their bodies. Work is being done for smartphone & internet connections embedded in the skull. And plenty of people would eagerly pay plenty of money for that sort of technological enhancement, too. Is our digital world the untold origin story of the Borg?
I didn't find 2001 boring when I first saw it in 1968, at the age of 14, and I don't find it boring now. I consider it a masterpiece, not just as a science-fiction film, but simply as a film, period.
2010 is a more mainstream film. As a sequel to 2001 (the film), it can't compare; as a sequel to 2001 (the novel), it works very well indeed, and I thoroughly enjoy it on its own terms.