fare thee well
Jack Lazariuk
Some times a post would take me a long time to write.
I did my best.
A little favor I asked. A birthday greeting. It let me know what all
the thought and effort was worth. Not much.
I'll go to other avenues and see what happens.
Thank you Barbara, Henning and Sue.
The song "Athem" means a lot to me and I will to say a few words about
it in the future. Other than that I am finished with this newsgroup. I
wish you well.
Jack
Snow
>Five years I have been posting here. Some times a post
would take me a long time to write. I did my best. A little
favor I asked. A birthday greeting. It let me know what all
the thought and effort was worth. Not much. I'll go to other
avenues and see what happens. Thank you Barbara, Henning and
few words about it in the future. Other than that I am
finished with this newsgroup. I
wish you well.
I wish I had sent a greeting. Is it too late now? I could
send just an ordinary letter to your loved one - I would
like to do that if you would allow it. If that's all right
can you give me the address in an e-mail? I did this once
before when Judith Braun had the splendid idea of us sending
greetings to someone she knew in Germany. Such things are a
pleasure to do. Unfortunately I do far too little in this
regard - the intention is always there but actually doing it
is not my strong point. You have a generous and kind heart -
and one which puts me to shame. Few people reveal themselves
so nakedly in their messages as you do. You play no role at
all - you let us know who you are. And the person that you
are is very likeable. How sad it will be if you keep to your
decision and depart from us. Is there any way we can make
you change your mind? You must not take any notice of anyone
who writes negatively about you because their criticism
usually stems from something in their own lives which needs
attending to. Most people understand this, I think. Take
care, Jack - and please forgive me for being ineffective.
Geoffrey
( ak...@online.no )
Liz Madder
seen any of the earlier emails from you, so I'm taking this at its face
value .....
I was surprised, even a little shocked.
I rarely send email greetings except to family and friends. Here on the ng,
apart from the few people I am in touch with all the time, I don't know when
people have birthdays or anniversaries. I don't expect to receive any but
am delighted (more so with each passing year) when friends remember special
occasions in my life. But I wouldn't consider them no longer friends if
they forgot. I have one friend who inevitably turns up in the autumn bearing
my summer birthday gift! I'd prefer none to having to ask for them and if
you think it's a measure of popularity on the ng to receive a string of
greetings you're much mistaken.
Go and enjoy your sulk.
Lizzie
"Jack Lazariuk" <laza...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lazariuk-5A1B2E...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca...
Michael
Jack,
there is a long, and I believe, honourable tradition of regulars
announcing that they are leaving this Group. Thankfully, they normally
return. I hope you do too as I know this place matters a lot to you.
Your request for your mother's birthday was odd.I didn't think it
"appropriate" to make a general plea to send a scripted message about
you doing well. Had you simply asked for greetings on her 80th you may
have got a better response. So before you judge an apparent
indifference take a moment to consider whether I might be right.
Anyway I am sorry that you are hurt.
Michael
(Happy Birthday Dick,btw.)
Jim Rotonda
Being taken for granted sometimes, comes with the territory.
What would LC say:
"If I have been unkind,
I hope that you can just let it go by.
If I have been untrue
I hope you know it was never to you."
Jim
"Jack Lazariuk" <laza...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lazariuk-5A1B2E...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca...
Snow
>Really Jack ... I don't know when people have birthdays or
anniversaries. . . I'd prefer [having no presents than]
having to ask for them, and if you think it's a measure of
popularity on the ng to receive a string of greetings you're
much mistaken. Go and enjoy your sulk.
Jack's request was not for people to send greetings to
himself. He simply asked if anyone possessed enough kindness
to drop a line or two to a family member whom he was unable
to be with on their birthday. One particular poster was
quick to respond with scathing criticism of a highly
offensive nature which tainted the good intention behind his
message - and people may have been negatively influenced by
this unnecessary attack. Bearing this in mind, it sounds
unfair to say "enjoy your sulk" to him, because Jack is a
mature person who cares more about others than he does
himself. He cares more about people than he does money. He
would not agree with me, but he is an extraordinarily fine
human being. There is a difference between sulking and being
saddened - and I cannot imagine Jack enjoying himself in
either case.
g
abigail vines
abigail vines
It ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe
It don't matter anyhow
And it ain't no use to sit and wonder why babe
If you don't know by now
When your rooster crows at the break of dawn
Look out your window and I'll be gone
You're the reason I'm travelin' on
Don't think twice, it's all right
It ain't no use in turnin on your light babe
That light I never knowed
And it ain't no use in turnin on your light babe
I'm on the dark side of the road
Still I wish there was somethin you would do or say
To try and make me change my mind and stay
We never did too much talkin anyway
So don't think twice, it's all right
It ain't no use in callin out my name, gal
Like you never did before
It ain't no use in callin out my name, gal
I can't hear you any more
I'm a-thinkin and a-wonderin walkin down the road
I once loved a woman, a child I'm told
I give her my heart but she wanted my soul
But don't think twice, it's all right
I'm walkin down that long, lonesome road babe
Where I'm bound, I can't tell
But goodbye's too good a word, babe
So I'll just say fare thee well
I ain't sayin you treated me unkind
You could have done better but I don't mind
You just kinda wasted my precious time
But don't think twice, it's all right
Barbara
(since the song itself is imprinted and chemically bonded with numerous illegal
substances on various neurons throughout my addled brain) makes them even more
powerful... but... you knew there would be a but, right?
The fact is:
It *does* matter!
we *should* think twice!
we should turn on our *light* if not for the present stranger, then for the next
person who encounters us!
we should *talk* especially to those on the dark side of the road (and I include
myself among them)!
and the poor wanderer had it wrong... it's got to be 'heart AND soul' but shared
not possessed!
and let's face it: time is an artificial construct, no one else wastes our time,
everyone we encounter is part of our journey, a lesson, a warning, an undeserved
delight (you know who you are) and with persistence, at a certain point, we will
be able to call everyone 'blessed'.
Thank you, Abby.
Barbara, thinking once, twice, three times a lover!
I love you, Jack
"abigail vines" <abigai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42fa571b.01081...@posting.google.com...
Jim Rotonda
I just got home from work, and I'm tired, and I hate transcribing. But you
said you were still thinking about "Anthem", and before you make a hasty
decision, I thought you might enjoy what LC said about the song in the 1988
Future interview.
Jim
"I would say that you're right, that is the background of the whole record,
(The Future). If you had to come up with a philosophical ground - that is,
ring the bells that still can ring. It's no excuse - the dismal situation
and the future - there's no excuse for an abdication of your own personal
responsibilities; toward yourself and your job and your love. Ring the bells
that still can ring, they're few and far between, but you can find them.
Forget your perfect offering; that is the hang-up - that you're going to
work this thing out - because we confuse this idea and we've forgotten the
central myth of our culture, which is the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
This situation does not admit of solution, of perfection, this is not the
place where you make things perfect: neither your marriage, nor your work,
or anything. Nor your love of God, nor your love of family, or country. The
thing is imperfect. And worse, there is a crack in EVERYTHING you can put
together; physical objects, mental objects constructs of any kind, but that'
s where the light gets in, and that's where the resurrection is, and that's
where - the return-- that's where the repentance is. It is with the
confrontation with the brokenness of things."
"Jack Lazariuk" <laza...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lazariuk-5A1B2E...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca...
John Emmons
"in a little while....this hurt will hurt no more..."
john emmons
Jack Lazariuk <laza...@mac.com> wrote in article
<lazariuk-5A1B2E...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca>...
Jose Tomas Dominguez
As Dylan said: "You're gonna make us lonesome when you go"
> Thank you Barbara, Henning and Sue.
Unfortunately Sue can't reply to this thread because she's on
holidays (Perhaps even in France!) but I'm sure she will be sad
when she will read it.
Sincerely
Pp.
sle...@earthlink.net
we all said, "this is all your mother is worth". We often feel much more
hurt for others than we would for ourselves. And especially for our Moms!
I did send something to the monk that Judith Braun befriended in Germany. It
was because he was a lonely monk and all the other monks made fun of him and
all I had to do was send a postcard to cheer him. But I didn't feel right
about telling your mom that you were doing okay, 'cos we've only just sort
of gotten to know each other, and I don't honestly know if you are okay. I
am sorry about it, though.
Also, if you want people to show their appreciation for you in a way which
you have proscribed for them, you're usually setting yourself up for
disappointment. Most people, even if unconsciously, will resist this kind of
offering.
But I hope you'll feel better and come back.
sleep
Mark Barker
are there to do? You're around friends when you are here. Retire to the
lurkatory if you must, but don't bolt. Where is BVD, btw? Wouldn't it be
nice if all the people in the lurkatory would occasionally just speak up,
so the rest of us would be assured they were still here? I know you're
there. You can't hide. Show your face,...or your font, I guess it would be.
Have a great trip, Melia! Bring back some poems for us.
Zimmy for President!!!
Mark Barker
Sleep got plenty brains and heart. I think you might have embarrassed her a bit
with the sweet talk though.
Jewel
understand some of the things you say, so I don't often respond, but you're
always thought-provoking.
Jewel
>
>
>
Jack Lazariuk
I was drunk and feeling very sad last night. My world seemed too
lacking of acts of kindness and wishing others good cheer. I have to
find a way to get there without throwing away my sadness and anger.
Jack
"This too shall pass"
Bob Parkins
---
Parky
"There's no ideas in Time magazine. There's just these facts."
--Dylan, 1965, Don't Look Back
"Mark Barker" <eras...@mindspring.com> wrote in message (snip)
Wouldn't it be nice if all the people in the lurkatory would occasionally
just speak up (rest snipt)
zimmy...@webtv.net
Jack wrote:
Thank you Barbara, Henning and Sue.
Anything more would be greedy
Love Zim
Michael
"Jack Lazariuk" <laza...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lazariuk-889CC3...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca...
When I read this I thought only you Jack would write such a self-centred
reply without bothering even to acknowledge the many kind posts in this
thread.
It may be that trait which sometimes hold backs the sympathy and empathy you
want and makes me feel your attention-seeking is a little calculated.
For all of that I still hold to my own earlier expression that you should
stay because this Group is clearly important to you,
Michael
~greg
Snow: --
> - - -
> quick to respond with scathing criticism of a highly
> offensive nature which tainted the good intention behind his
> message -
That would be Michael S. Connaghan, or S for short.
S has no weaknesses of his own except an addiction
to the taste of the blood of the weaknesses of others.
A scavenger at bottom - you will usually find S to be
the first on the marrow of the carcases of posts that
have wandered too far off the Marlboro trail.
' Faster than a speeding bullet!
More powerful than a locomotive!
Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
S, strange visitor from another planet who came to
Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men!
S, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend
steel in his bare hands, and who, disguised as S,
mild-mannered reporter for a great internet news group, fights
a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way. '
"The American Way" - meaning John Wayne, Ronald Regan,
- Russell Crowe. Whereas Jack is as un-American as it gets
around here - foreign art-movie stuff, slow paced and pointless,
and too few explosions: - just a wimper and a huff of 'good bye
is too good a word so i'll just say fare thee well'. A sissy and a
One-Worlder too. So Jack's got to be attacked by S on principal.
It's been going on for five or ten thousand years. It's tradition.
It wouldn't feel right around here without it.
And Neaderthals vs Cro-Mangons before that.
~greg
~greg
Michael's two response are the most cogent. (qv, the qc).
Also:
People in our real lives know us to be crazy.
Each of them has their own reasons for knowing this,
but they're all agreed that it's the virtual Internet lives
we lead that are proof-positive we're crazy.
And the thing is we can't very well turn to our
fellow denizens of the deep Internet to prove them
wrong, because they just regard those as
make-believe friends - and certainly equally
crazy if real, just proving us even crazier than they'd
originally thought.
~greg
"Michael" <micke...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:3cb370a7.01081...@posting.google.com...
~greg
To those confused by the manor of Jack's writing,
- you should read The Diary of Vaslav Nijinsky.
You should read it anyway.
It's divided into 4 parts:
Life, Death, Feelings, and a brief Epilogue.
I quote here the first paragraph from Life
and the first three from Death.
I am drawing no analogies. Just an overtone.
~greg
Life:
People will say that Nijinsky pretends to be
mad on account of his bad deeds. Bad deeds
are terrible and I hate them, and do not want
to commit any. I made mistakes before because
I did not understand God. I felt Him but did not
understand what everyone was doing. Every
person has "feelings' but they do not understand
what it is. I want to write this book in order to
explain what feeling is. Many will say that these
are my opinions only, but I know that my point
of view is the right one, because it comes from
God. God is in me. I have made mistakes but I
corrected them with my life. I suffered more than
anyone else in the world.
Death:
Death came unexpectedly - for I wanted it to come.
I told myself I did not wish to live. I did not live long.
I was told I was mad. I thought I was alive, but wasn't
given any peace. I lived and was glad but people said
that I was wicked. I decided to write about death. I cry
and am very grieved, for everything around me is empty.
Louise, the maid, will cry tomorrow, for she will be sad,
seeing all this destruction and waste. I have taken down
all the pictures and drawings at which I had been working
for six months. My wife will look for those pictures and will
not find them. I have moved the furniture back to its old place
and put the old lampshade where it was before. I do not want
people to laugh at me and have decided not to do anything.
God tells me not to do anything else, only to write down my
impressions. I will write. I want to understand my wife's mother
and her husband. I know them well, but I want to be sure.
I write about the things I have lived through, and am
not imagining anything. I am sitting at an empty table. In
the drawer are all my paints. They have dried up, for I do not
do any more painting. I have done a lot and made good progress.
I want to paint but not here, as I feel death. I want to go to
Paris, but I am afraid I will be too late. I want to write now about
death. I will call the first part of this book 'Life' and this part
'Death.' I will make people understand life and death and I
hope to be successful. I know that if I publish these books
people will say that I am a bad writer, but I do not want to
be a writer. I want to be a thinker. Mind is life, not death.
I write about philosophy but I am not a philosopher. I do not
like philosophy because it is a whim of spoiled people. I am
not Schopenhauer, I am Nijinsky. I am the one who dies
when he is not loved. I pity myself as I pity God. God loves
me and will give me life in death. I do not want to sleep. I am
writing at night. My wife is not asleep either, she is thinking.
I feel death.
I understand people. They want to enjoy life, loving the
pleasures of life. All pleasures are horrible. I do not want
pleasure. My wife will be frightened when she finds out that
everything I write is the truth. I know she will be sad because
she will think that I do not love her. It is possible she will not
want to live with me any more, because she will not trust me.
I love her and I will suffer without her. But my sufferings are
necessary and I will bear them. I cannot hide the things I
know. I must show the meaning of life and death. I want
to describe death. I love it - I know what it is. Death is
horrible. I have felt death many times.
Snow
>I was drunk and feeling very sad last night.
And you have every right to take a drink if you want.
Everyone is allowed to get a little tipsy once in a while.
Drunk men speak without inhibition, too. What you wrote must
have been on your mind, and you have every right to let it
out. One day I hope you can feel confident enough to tell us
how you feel without getting blind drunk first. Does your
mother know about you hitting the bottle like you do? If I
write I won't mention it - that would be the best thing, I
guess. No need for her to know all that. Where do you get
the money from for the drink? Just asking, that's all. I
won't mention alcohol to her at all. I will say what a joy
it is to be acquainted with someone who's always stone-cold
sober - that should throw her off scent if she suspects
anything. Does she suspect anything? Has she ever hinted
that you should stop going on the piss every day? Has she
actually seen you legless? Just asking, Jack - no need to
get on your high horse - a simple question is my only crime,
you know. You mustn't analyse everything people say all the
time otherwise you're going to end up in the nut-house and
then what? Then your mother will know that you weren't doing
all right when we said you were. Why don't we just tell her
the truth? She has probably smelt your beery breath before
anyway. I bet she knows all about it. Mothers have a knack
of knowing what's going on so I can't see the necessity of
trying to fool her. The very best thing to do - I mean - my
advice to you, Jack - is to lay your cards on the table.
Admit that you have no job and no prospects of getting one.
Explain that no employer will take on anyone incurably
drawn to the booze. Explain that despite your enormous
social failures and personal shortcomings you promise her
that you will learn to resist the temptation of finding
solace in the addictive, liver-destroying, demon drink and
will face up to your huge problems like a man. Just imagine,
Jack - waking up without a hang-over!! Waking up without
bloodshot eyes staring out the mirror. Can you remember the
last time that happened I wonder? A long time ago, wasn't
it! Yes, I know it was. Why do you do it? Why, oh why, oh
why? I know the tears are running down your cheeks as you
read this, Jack - and you are wondering: "How could Snow
possibly know how close he is to the truth - he must have
super powers - he must be sent from God!" But you flatter me
with such thoughts, Jack. I am simply an observer weighing
up the facts as they are presented - that's all. I merely
arrive at the only conclusion available. I see a slave to
the bottle. I see a drunkard. I see an inebriated man
hanging by the neck from the devil's grapevine. A stinking,
intoxicated, hiccupping, gin-soaked miserable excuse for a
man. A come-what-may, pickled to the gills, glassy-eyed,
flush-cheeked wino. Because let's face facts, Jack: this was
not the first time - now was it? You have to say it: My name
is Jack and I am an alcoholic! And you know what the worst
thing about it is? You drink alone! Oh yes you do! And the
time has come to do something about it - am I right? No more
"hair of the dog" as soon as you stagger out of bed in the
morning. The time has come to shoot those blurry pink
elephants floating in your liquor-sodden vision, Jack, to
reject the need for Dutch courage, to stop drinking yourself
under the table. The time has come to turn your red sundial
nose, so perfectly shaped for grinding grapefruit halves
onto, away from the bitter harvest of hop and get a grip of
your sorry stupified self. You are Jack, Jack, the
dipsomaniac - drowning your sorrows like there are no
tomorrows. Insobriety leads to delirium tremens - the
D.t.'s - and your mind becomes a befuddled and unstable
producer of slurred speech, you talk incoherently, you don't
make one iota of sense. I can't abide a man of no willpower.
I can't stand a woozy weakling staring at me through the
bottom of a glass and getting as drunk as a lord. And
neither can your mother, if the truth was known. Does she
know what you use your state hand-out money on? Am I getting
close? Am I not getting just a little too close, maybe? How
long have you had this problem? What started it off? What is
it that makes you drink like a fish?
Your friend -
g
Jack Lazariuk
wrote:
> To those confused by the manor of Jack's writing,
There are many rooms in this manor.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
"Snow" <ak...@0nline.no> wrote:
> I see a drunkard. I see an inebriated man
> hanging by the neck from the devil's grapevine. A stinking,
> intoxicated, hiccupping, gin-soaked miserable excuse for a
> man. A come-what-may, pickled to the gills, glassy-eyed,
> flush-cheeked wino. Because let's face facts, Jack: this was
> not the first time - now was it? You have to say it: My name
> is Jack and I am an alcoholic!
I never said those words at any of the AA meetings that I attended
because they were missing the mark a little bit but I enjoyed the
meetings anyways.
I am getting to understand the point of taking one day at a time.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
"Michael" <micke...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> When I read this I thought only you Jack would write such a self-centred
> reply without bothering even to acknowledge the many kind posts in this
> thread.
That must be because there is no one else you know as self-centered as I
am.
Jack
Jack
> Jack Lazariuk wrote:
> >I was drunk and feeling very sad last night.
>
> And you have every right to take a drink if you want.
did you have an enormous hard-on as you wrote this?
Jack
Public <Anonymous_Account>
Yes!! But even when the soooper-droooper magnifying stoooper-snoooper was forced into service, it wasn't visible to the naked eye so let this be a warming to you: it's dickless is as dickless does. That's why you're called trollcunt, isn't it?
Well?
ISN'T IT??!!
Thought so. <g>
---
This post was anonymized at http://www.xganon.com
Come visit the newest xganon server http://www.xganon.org providing
rights and freedom related news.
---
Michael
Phew, you are such a foolish fool full of folly. You just don't get
it. So let me help you. Good news, Jack, you, like anyone else, are
allowed to change your script. You are not condemned to keep making
the most hopelessly wrong responses.
The next time you send out the invitations to people to beat you up, I
hope no-one accepts. And then you can carry on beating yourself up
(and preferably in private.)
Michael
~greg
"Jack Lazariuk" <laza...@mac.com> wrote in message news:lazariuk-86CAB3...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca...
In my father's mansion are many louses.
~greg
Valerie Shertzman
Valerie
"Bob Parkins" <par...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ol1d7.36598$Ok5.6...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Snow
>did you have an enormous hard-on as you wrote this?
Excuse me, Jack, but that filthy remark was totally uncalled
for, now wasn't it! What gets into you? There was no sexual
connotations anywhere in the concerned little message I
wrote. I meant only well and had your best interests at
heart and you respond by hurling a brusque reply making a
digusting reference to the state of my penis. I have to say,
here and now, that I do not like this side of you which I am
seeing. You have a malicious side to you that is most
hurtful and unbecoming. But what I would like to know is
where you picked up this foulness of tongue and complete
disregard for other people's feelings? If you think back,
can you recall any particular event which may have shaped
your personality into the socially crippled character that
you are today - or were you, perhaps, were born this way?
Because, for your own sake, such a beastly reaction as the
one you display above should not be allowed to pass without
examining its mental source. That you are unable to welcome
advice is one thing, but to shun it by employing abuse of a
phallic nature is quite another. Not only does it betray you
as having a desire to humiliate, but also that you allow
visions of genitalia to form in your mind at inappropriate
times. In other words, Jack, and I'm sorry to have to say
this - you are sick. Very sick, in fact. Take it from me,
you need counselling. Listen to a friend, Jack. The obscene
fantasies in your mind are uncontrollably manifesting
themselselves as offensive attacks upon friends offering
sympathy and unconditional assistance. You are a disturbed
person, Jack. A man who has slipped deep down into sewer, a
dark and dirty cesspit where revolting language of the type
you use eminates from. And I certainly did not appreciate
being the recipient of this gutter talk which belongs in a
toilet! Now, what do you have to say for yourself? A little
apology would be too much to ask, perhaps?
g
Jack Lazariuk
zimmy...@webtv.net wrote:
That is so true Zimmy. The depth, grace and quality ws astounding.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
wrote:
> > > To those confused by the manor of Jack's writing,
> >
> > There are many rooms in this manor.
> >
> > Jack
>
>
> In my father's mansion are many louses.
>
I was glad to see you write that Greg. When you wrote about Michael
feeding off others I thought you were completely unaware of how you do
the same.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
Mark Barker <eras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Come on, Jackson (may I call you Jackson?). Hang out.
No you can't call me Jackson. Thanks for showing some interest in my
continued presense. I actrually thought that you more than most would
prefer that I not be around.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
Jewel <joanjl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jewel when you wrote the things that you wrote to this group it came
very timely for me. It was heart provoking. I may never be able to
explain why but it will be a long time befor I ever forget you.
Jack
Mark Barker
If I have been unkind, I hope you'll let it pass by. If I have been
untrue, I hope you know it was never to you.
Peace,
Mark
Jack Lazariuk
>You are Jack, Jack, the
> dipsomaniac - drowning your sorrows like there are no
> tomorrows. Insobriety leads to delirium tremens - the
> D.t.'s - and your mind becomes a befuddled and unstable
> producer of slurred speech, you talk incoherently, you don't
> make one iota of sense. I can't abide a man of no willpower.
> I can't stand a woozy weakling staring at me through the
> bottom of a glass and getting as drunk as a lord. And
> neither can your mother, if the truth was known. Does she
> know what you use your state hand-out money on? Am I getting
> close? Am I not getting just a little too close, maybe? How
> long have you had this problem? What started it off? What is
> it that makes you drink like a fish?
>
> Your friend -
> g
Hi Geffory my friend
Thanks for running my situation through the always very interesting
fields of your imagination.
During the course of my life I did drink too much. Reading your words
cheered me with the thought "well I'm not that bad!" . I would like to
respond to your question that you presented at the end because it's a
good question to be applied to a lot of reality.
I did too much of a lot of things. I drank too much, worked too much,
worried too much, smoked too much, jerked off too much, gambled too
much, ate too much, talked too much and even worse, I have sometimes
travelled too much clear across town just to say something mean to the
very people who meant the most to me.
But to answer your question about why I drink and the other things that
I do, so you don't ever have to wonder again why I do and have done
these things, I will tell you and maybe it will even help someone else
figure out why they do too much of what they do too much of. I don't
think I am that unique.
It all stems from my love life. Not so much the one I am having but
rather from the one that I am not having. The thought comes that if I
was man enough, poet enough, smart enough, lover enough, or handsome or
rich enough then I would be living a life full of the love that it is in
the human capacity to experience. Sometimes there is just nothing. I
get scared by those moments and feel pressured to fill them with
something and that led to my doing too much of what I did too much of. I
have gotten over a lot of that and have less anxiety being in moments
where there is nothing. I'm not too hard on myself for having behaved
that way nor am I very critical when I see others doing so. There is in
our society an enormous amount of pressure being put on people to make
them feel that they can earn what has never been earned, win what has
never been won, create what has never been created.
The drinking I do now is a bit different and I enjoy it. I have a lot
of emotions that are now very close to the surface that used to be
buried very deep and with a few drinks they flow pretty freely. The
other night that led to this post I went to the bar and had three pints
of beer and I got hit by a flood of sadness. I made sure that I didn't
stop it and was soon sitting on my barstool with a quanity of tears
going across my face. I usually have problems with sore eyes and
sinuses but I found that these problems get greatly relieved when I cry
and so crying comes as relief that I don't deprieve myself of.
The three pints was plenty to do the trick but when the bartender came
over and told me that he wouldn't be able to serve me any more beer I
decided to have another and went a little further than I needed to. I
didn't like the idea of being told when to stop and so I informed the
bartender that he had the unique distinction of having been the only
bartender in my 51 years to have ever cut me off. The way I must have
said it seemed to quickly relieve his concerns that my tears meant that
I was overly distressed or overly drunk and he happily served me another.
I later came to this newsgroup and the effects of the beer and sadness
came out a little awkward but I didn't mind it all that much and don't
find it too embarrasing.
Something similar happened a while ago and I wrote while under the
influence of beer combined with a flood of emotion and that led to my
posting of "but if you stay" . The emotion of that evening was
affection and I had such an incredible warm feeling for everyone in the
group.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
"Snow" <ak...@0nline.no> wrote:
> Jack wrote:
> >did you have an enormous hard-on as you wrote this?
Snow surely you must have noticed that the above was not my style and
came from an email address that has never been associated with me. It
could lead to some interesting speculations as to who or why someone
would want to present me as someone who would ever try to insult you.
Jack
Constance B. Kuriyama
ideas in _Time_, most of them bad.
Connie K.
Jack Lazariuk
micke...@btinternet.com (Michael) wrote:
> Phew, you are such a foolish fool full of folly. You just don't get
> it. So let me help you. Good news, Jack, you, like anyone else, are
> allowed to change your script. You are not condemned to keep making
> the most hopelessly wrong responses.
>
> The next time you send out the invitations to people to beat you up, I
> hope no-one accepts. And then you can carry on beating yourself up
> (and preferably in private.)
People don't beat me up. The people in this newsgroup have been
exordinarily kind to me and I will be forever grateful. You are a
little correct about the invitations that I send out in that I am
encouraging of people to be critical. As a matter of fact I once posted
here under the subject header "Take your best shot" where I openly
requested that people say things about me as nasty and as mean as they
like. As an accompanyment to that I have supplied everyone with a lot
of material to work with and haven't been too stingy with telling things
about myself that revealed weaknesses and mistakes. Anyone taking my
offer soon learned that I wouldn't return in kind and that they could
say things about me without fear that I would retaliate.
The few times that you responded to things that I have written was
mostly to comment that you didn't think that I was being appropiate. I
can think of thousands of things that I have written here that in some
way wasn't appropiate but often I was trying to write about thoughts and
feelings that I didn't have well rehersed and I felt ok being
inappropiate.
I needed to do these things. I needed to be sure that I could trust
myself not to cause others hurt automatically when placed in a position
where I had to deal with very personal matters in a public place with
someone that has been convinced that our relationship needs to be an
adversarial one, someone I care for deeply. It might come as no
surprise to you to learn that it was a lawyer that did the convincing.
Getting some experience with this was necessary for me because in the
past I had behaved in a way that I deplored. I had said some things
that caused people a lot of pain. I knew how to be very hurtful with
words and sometimes felt that I couldn't stop myself from doing so and
came to appreciate that that was so because it had been done to me at an
earlier time. It was a chain of events that I had to break. I am
getting satisfied that I can be trusted not to repeat what occured in
the past.
Because my situation can lead to having to deal with issues that not
many people are comfortable dealing with a Leonard Cohen newsgroup has
been a good place to be. You might have noticed that a lot of his work
is confessional and points to many mistakes he has made along with the
success he has enjoyed. Exploring his work doesn't greatly distract one
from exploring their own depths.
That it should be very important to me to be sure that I will not become
adversarial when placed in an adversarial position that may touch on
very personal issues is something that you as a lawyer might not
understand the need for. I imagine, but I could be wrong, that your
profession's strength is in it's being adversarial. On the other hand
you probably do get to experience on a regular basis how people handle
the pressure of being under public scrutiny and the effect that has on
how capable they become in responding to the fullness of their intent.
If you so choose, and I would like it if you do, you could give your
opinion that is seasoned in experience of how you think I would fare
under such pressures? Do you think I could hold my own without being
forced to automatically react?
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
wrote:
> >"This too shall pass"
>
> Good ! I was just going to come out of lurking long enough to tell you
> exactly that and that I will be waiting for your future posts here (not that
> what "I" say should matter very much).
>
I will tell you how it matters. There are things that I write here some
times and what you have written about in the past is in my thought while
I write and influence what I am saying. I like knowing that you are
still reading what gets posted.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
<sle...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Also, if you want people to show their appreciation for you in a way which
> you have proscribed for them, you're usually setting yourself up for
> disappointment. Most people, even if unconsciously, will resist this kind of
> offering.
>
> But I hope you'll feel better and come back.
Thanks Sleep, I feel fine and I usually see fairly quickly when I am
being foolish.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
"Jose Tomas Dominguez" <jtom...@club.idecnet.com> wrote:
> Please Jack don't leave us.
> As Dylan said: "You're gonna make us lonesome when you go"
I hope we are both around long enough to have the kind of conversations
that you make me think would be possible with you.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
"Jim Rotonda" <jamesr...@home.com> wrote:
> Hi Jack,
> I just got home from work, and I'm tired, and I hate transcribing. But you
> said you were still thinking about "Anthem", and before you make a hasty
> decision, I thought you might enjoy what LC said about the song in the 1988
> Future interview.
> Jim
>
> "I would say that you're right, that is the background of the whole record,
> (The Future). If you had to come up with a philosophical ground - that is,
> ring the bells that still can ring. It's no excuse - the dismal situation
> and the future - there's no excuse for an abdication of your own personal
> responsibilities; toward yourself and your job and your love. Ring the bells
> that still can ring, they're few and far between, but you can find them.
> Forget your perfect offering; that is the hang-up - that you're going to
> work this thing out - because we confuse this idea and we've forgotten the
> central myth of our culture, which is the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
> This situation does not admit of solution, of perfection, this is not the
> place where you make things perfect: neither your marriage, nor your work,
> or anything. Nor your love of God, nor your love of family, or country. The
> thing is imperfect. And worse, there is a crack in EVERYTHING you can put
> together; physical objects, mental objects constructs of any kind, but that'
> s where the light gets in, and that's where the resurrection is, and that's
> where - the return-- that's where the repentance is. It is with the
> confrontation with the brokenness of things."
I didn't really need to read that to know that these were some of the
things that Leonard was putting into this song. It is about as full a
song as I have ever seen.
It's funny that no matter how many times that Leonard mentions
repentance nor how many times the word repent is sung in the song "The
Future" that it seems that nobody wants to consider that it plays a
major part in what Leonard is singing about,
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
abigai...@hotmail.com (abigail vines) wrote:
> I think this is what Jack had in mind...
I only had three of the words in mind, but you were accurate in where I
got them.
Jack
> It ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe
> It don't matter anyhow
> And it ain't no use to sit and wonder why babe
> If you don't know by now
> When your rooster crows at the break of dawn
> Look out your window and I'll be gone
> You're the reason I'm travelin' on
> Don't think twice, it's all right
>
> It ain't no use in turnin on your light babe
> That light I never knowed
> And it ain't no use in turnin on your light babe
> I'm on the dark side of the road
> Still I wish there was somethin you would do or say
> To try and make me change my mind and stay
> We never did too much talkin anyway
> So don't think twice, it's all right
>
> It ain't no use in callin out my name, gal
> Like you never did before
> It ain't no use in callin out my name, gal
> I can't hear you any more
> I'm a-thinkin and a-wonderin walkin down the road
> I once loved a woman, a child I'm told
> I give her my heart but she wanted my soul
> But don't think twice, it's all right
>
> I'm walkin down that long, lonesome road babe
> Where I'm bound, I can't tell
> But goodbye's too good a word, babe
> So I'll just say fare thee well
> I ain't sayin you treated me unkind
> You could have done better but I don't mind
> You just kinda wasted my precious time
> But don't think twice, it's all right
Jack Lazariuk
"Barbara" <ba...@worldpath.net> wrote:
>
> Barbara, thinking once, twice, three times a lover!
> I love you, Jack
and you make me love you too Barbara.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
"Snow" <ak...@0nline.no> wrote:
> I wish I had sent a greeting. Is it too late now? I could
> send just an ordinary letter to your loved one - I would
> like to do that if you would allow it. If that's all right
> can you give me the address in an e-mail? I did this once
> before when Judith Braun had the splendid idea of us sending
> greetings to someone she knew in Germany. Such things are a
> pleasure to do. Unfortunately I do far too little in this
> regard - the intention is always there but actually doing it
> is not my strong point. You have a generous and kind heart -
> and one which puts me to shame. Few people reveal themselves
> so nakedly in their messages as you do. You play no role at
> all - you let us know who you are. And the person that you
> are is very likeable. How sad it will be if you keep to your
> decision and depart from us. Is there any way we can make
> you change your mind? You must not take any notice of anyone
> who writes negatively about you because their criticism
> usually stems from something in their own lives which needs
> attending to. Most people understand this, I think. Take
> care, Jack - and please forgive me for being ineffective.
>
> Geoffrey
You are never ineffective. You always touch some place in me that makes
what you write so addictive.
Jack
Michael
Jack,
did Greg really mention me! Wow, why doesn't anyone tell me this things
earlier. I thought Greg had stopped caring for me,
Mike
ania
> did Greg really mention me! Wow, why doesn't anyone tell me this things
> earlier. I thought Greg had stopped caring for me,
>
> Mike
why do you do this?
michael s. connaghan
me. Jack's a drunk. What's your excuse for never making
sense? I stand by my earlier criticism, however harsh,
of Jack's behavior. It was a preposterous request as is
evidenced by the response it elicited. This thread is further
evidence that Jack cares about nothing but himself.
Snow claims to have been highly offended by my earlier post
yet, by his own admission, he didn't honor Jack's request and
when Jack didn't respond to him in a manner he thought
appropriate he slammed Jack a lot better than I did.
As far as all the other crap about "a taste for the blood...."
Your entitled to your opinion, but it don't mean shit to me
Mike
"~greg" <g...@magpage.com> wrote in message news:9l393l$onc$2...@216.155.33.48...
>
> Snow: --
> > - - -
> > One particular poster was
> > quick to respond with scathing criticism of a highly
> > offensive nature which tainted the good intention behind his
> > message -
>
>
> That would be Michael S. Connaghan, or S for short.
> S has no weaknesses of his own except an addiction
> to the taste of the blood of the weaknesses of others.
> A scavenger at bottom - you will usually find S to be
> the first on the marrow of the carcases of posts that
> have wandered too far off the Marlboro trail.
>
> ' Faster than a speeding bullet!
> More powerful than a locomotive!
> Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
> S, strange visitor from another planet who came to
> Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men!
> S, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend
> steel in his bare hands, and who, disguised as S,
> mild-mannered reporter for a great internet news group, fights
> a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way. '
>
> "The American Way" - meaning John Wayne, Ronald Regan,
> - Russell Crowe. Whereas Jack is as un-American as it gets
> around here - foreign art-movie stuff, slow paced and pointless,
> and too few explosions: - just a wimper and a huff of 'good bye
> is too good a word so i'll just say fare thee well'. A sissy and a
> One-Worlder too. So Jack's got to be attacked by S on principal.
> It's been going on for five or ten thousand years. It's tradition.
> It wouldn't feel right around here without it.
>
> And Neaderthals vs Cro-Mangons before that.
>
>
> ~greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Emmons
Would you please stop posting messages to this newsgroup?
John Emmons
Mark Barker
here is big enough to take care of him or herself. I enjoy Mike's
posts,.... just as I enjoy some of Jack's, Snow's, Ania's, and many
other's. The posts that I don't enjoy, I don't read (and I sure to hell
don't respond to). However, I don't want these people to leave.
Actually, I love the diverse membership. (All of us conservatives love
diversity.) It's what makes this place like none other.
It seems that everyone has to jump into the fray when bombs are
thrown. Hell, I think a few bombs now and then keep the place
interesting. Course I would never hurl one myself,....(that's a joke,
BVD).
Stay Mike, and post all that you will! That's my request. Same goes
for Jack, Melia, Barbara, Greg and all the rest,..even you, John. I
personally wish Stella would come back. Looks to me like we all need to
be able to handle the heat, or either get out of the kitchen. Jack is a
perfect example of being able to handle the heat. I can respect that.
Rodney King and I would rather we all just get along,...but I'm not for
censoring those who don't.
Just my opinion.
Mark
Bill Van Dyk
womanizing. That would make him such a bore. Or is he repenting of all the pain
he caused women over the years because of the broken relationships he has been
in? Even so, I can see that he is sometimes sorry for causing that sort of grief,
but I can't think of anything he says about it that sounds like repentence to me.
Maybe I haven't thought enough about that line in "The Future" (a song I have
consistently admired while disagreeing with), but it struck me as suggestive of
the view that our society is declining morally and needs to repent from its sinful
ways. Of course, we don't engage in mass homicide much anymore (sometimes
euphemistically called "war"), so you sort of think of sexual sins, which the
church constantly reminds us of, and which it seems to think is a greater threat
to humanity than indifference, selfishness, consumerism, greed, corporatism, or
environmental destruction. Whatever. I just got back from watching Francis Ford
Coppolla's new version of "The Future". It is so long they have renamed it
"Apocalypse Later".
Bill Van Dyk
Michael
"ania" <an...@unite.com.au> wrote in message
news:99deb949.01081...@posting.google.com...
Oh, come off it Ania. That was light-hearted affection towards Greg. And I
*had* missed the post Jack referred to. Relax,
Mike
michael s. connaghan
asked me to. The big shot buddhist. Ho Ho...I
think he's in love with Jack. He always leaps to his
defense. I'll post here as long as I feel like it. I was
here before that twerp emmons showed up and I'll
still be here long after he's gone. If he don't like it,
he can killfile me. That goes for anybody else who can't
handle the truth. Personally, I'll never stop posting as
long as I can piss off people like emmons. It's too much
fun.
Thanks Mark! Good to hear from you. Hey, the Rams
play the Titans Friday. Who do you like in the game?
Mikenews:3B79F792...@mindspring.com...
michael s. connaghan
"John Emmons" <JOH...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:01c12536$29a7a980$a90a500c@default...
Constance Kuriyama
> Does it? How? What is it that Leonard is repenting of? I hope it's not all the
> womanizing. That would make him such a bore. Or is he repenting of all the pain
> he caused women over the years because of the broken relationships he has been
> in? Even so, I can see that he is sometimes sorry for causing that sort of grief,
> but I can't think of anything he says about it that sounds like repentence to me.
Being sorry for doing wrong is pretty much what repentence is, no? And that
feeling of regret does run through some of his songs, and it's something most
people can respond to. All of us at some time or other have treated another
person badly, by intention or default.
But I don't think "The Future" is specifically about Leonard Cohen. It's partly
about a cheapening of and disregard for human life. There's plenty of that
going around, and the people who have this attitude certainly don't see
anything wrong with it. Hence, the future "is murder."
There's also a general decline in respect for others--for their privacy,
for their right to live according to their lights, for their individual
dignity and wisdom. That's why the term "diss" has become current, and why
it's sometimes offered as an excuse for murder, when joined with a
cheapening of the value of life. Oddly enough this seems to be intensified
by a tendency to pump up people's egos to the bursting point, so that even a
small slight, even an imaginary one, may enrage them.
I don't consider these to be healthy developments, and perhaps people
*should* see something wrong with them. Maybe repentance wouldn't be a
bad idea, but try to imagine the entire world putting on sackcloth and
ashes. Not likely. We seem to be stuck indefinitely with "Me first; screw
you," and needless to say, when people take this approach someone is
always going to be disaffected and enraged.
> Maybe I haven't thought enough about that line in "The Future" (a song I have
> consistently admired while disagreeing with), but it struck me as suggestive of
> the view that our society is declining morally and needs to repent from its sinful
> ways. Of course, we don't engage in mass homicide much anymore (sometimes
> euphemistically called "war"), so you sort of think of sexual sins, which the
> church constantly reminds us of, and which it seems to think is a greater threat
> to humanity than indifference, selfishness, consumerism, greed, corporatism, or
> environmental destruction. Whatever. I just got back from watching Francis Ford
> Coppolla's new version of "The Future". It is so long they have renamed it
> "Apocalypse Later".
Is it any good?
Connie K.
--
"Everybody knows the boat is leaking/Everybody knows the Captain lied." L.Cohen
ania
oh im so sorry, forgive me if im not accustomed to such displays of
*affection* from you towards certain people. but youre right, its none
of my fucking business.
Bill Van Dyk
> Being sorry for doing wrong is pretty much what repentence is, no?
Definitely not. Feeling sorry by itself is not repentence. If you are a greedy robber
baron and then you start thinking about your life and "repent" and go build a bunch of
public libraries with your name on them-- that is not repentence. Giving the money back
is repentence. Repentence requires a change of behavior, as well as the sorry bit.
> But I don't think "The Future" is specifically about Leonard Cohen. It's partly
> about a cheapening of and disregard for human life. There's plenty of that
> going around, and the people who have this attitude certainly don't see
> anything wrong with it. Hence, the future "is murder."
Well, I know this is an unpopular view (for ambiguous reasons) but I doubt that human
life has ever been valued as highly as it is today, and was never valued lower than
(look out Mark!) the moment the bomb was released over Hiroshima. The history of
mankind is one long epic of slaughter and atrocity-- until the last half of the
twentieth century. Certainly statistically, you could never demonstrate that we value
life so little today that we allow it to be taken indescriminately, compared to any
previous era in history.
Another irony. For all the awful destruction of the Viet Nam war, what was truely
unusual about it was that the world had a front-line view of the entire event, and,
confronted with the evil that was war, began to turn against it. The fact that the
United Nations is now actually trying to hold leaders accountable for war crimes is also
astounding. We are appalled at the evil they did, but nobody, until now, ever thought,
"hell, let's arrest them and put them on trial."
> There's also a general decline in respect for others--for their privacy,
> for their right to live according to their lights, for their individual
> dignity and wisdom.
I would suggest that it seems like it only because, for the first time in history, there
is a realistic possibility of privacy and dignity. The McCarthy era??!! The
witch-hunts? The Inquisition? As for wisdom, the "wisest" lights of the renaissance
still didn't object to the use of torture or execution for heretics. The Russians
didn't oppose the bomb-- they wanted their own.
"Geez, I wish we had one of those doomsday devices..."
- Dr. Strangelove
> That's why the term "diss" has become current, and why
> it's sometimes offered as an excuse for murder,
The murder rate is actually in decline.
> Is it any good?
I personally don't think the additional scenes add to the strength of the movie but,
unlike the Exorcist, at least they don't degrade it. In fact, the additional scenes
with the playmates in the jungle are quite rich and interesting. The French Plantation
scene should have been left on the cutting room floor, especially the gratuitious
romance between Willard and a young widow.
But I got to see it in an Imax theatre and that was stupendous. You are IN the
helicopters! And when the projector broke down briefly at the start, they played "The
Weight" through the sound system, which was almost like hearing it live and I will
remember that for a long, long time.
I then rushed up to the Cumberland to see "Ghost City" which was quirky and fun but not
as good as I had hoped.
Mark Barker
the game (as I'm not sure who is even QB for the Rams this year), but I'm
pulling for the Titans. Who are you picking? You bet on these games, or just
watch for the pure enjoyment? I will root for your Cards if you want, since my
Reds are so pathetic?
Regards,
Mark
Jack Lazariuk
"michael s. connaghan" <mcba...@socket.net> wrote:
> Please... Do you think I'd leave because that idiot
> asked me to. The big shot buddhist. Ho Ho...I
> think he's in love with Jack. He always leaps to his
> defense.
In your world Mike is it an insult to say that someone is in love with
someone else?
Jack
michael s. connaghan
Here's one for you: When you love someone, what
is more important, the person being loved or your love
for them?
Mikenews:lazariuk-F82F61...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca...
Jack Lazariuk
"michael s. connaghan" <mcba...@socket.net> wrote:
> Not at all, Jack. It is the highest compliment.
I'm happy to hear that we live in the same world. :-)
> Here's one for you: When you love someone, what
> is more important, the person being loved or your love
> for them?
That's a peculiar question but I will try to answer it. When I use the
word love I am meaning being exquisitely attuned with infinite
tenderness to other than self. Without the other there is no love.
Love makes the other infinitely important. To imagine a state where I
was so divided that I would think in terms of placing greater importance
on one or the other would be my idea of hell.
Jack
K.D.
> Uncle Mike,.. we owe you one for that Superbowl loss. I don't care to
wager on
> the game (as I'm not sure who is even QB for the Rams this year), but I'm
> pulling for the Titans.
I agree. Go, Titans!
-KD
Sue Winterbottom
news:9le5l8$4so$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Bill Van Dyk (bvand...@home.com) writes:
> > Does it? How? What is it that Leonard is repenting of? I hope
it's not all the
> > womanizing. That would make him such a bore. Or is he repenting of
all the pain
> > he caused women over the years because of the broken relationships
he has been
> > in? Even so, I can see that he is sometimes sorry for causing that
sort of grief,
> > but I can't think of anything he says about it that sounds like
repentence to me.
>
> Being sorry for doing wrong is pretty much what repentence is, no?
If you are a college lady Connie, why can't you spell 'repentance'? (and
why can't Bill?)
Sue (back from holiday - but maybe something else was needed)
Mark Barker
around the capital, K.D.? I have absolutely bombarded Sundquist with scathing
emails. I told him he must be insane. That was one of the kinder things I said,
actually. I better be careful. You might be on the opposite side of this issue.
If so,.... never mind.
Regards,
Mark
Snow
>Being sorry for doing wrong is pretty much what repentence
is, no?
Sue Winterbottom wrote:
>. . . why can't you spell 'repentance'? (and why can't
Bill?)
Careful those living in glass houses.
Only one "e" in "lovable".
g
"It seems to be his childhood experiences - particularly the
attachments formed then to particular areas of knowledge and
aesthetic pleasure which now serve to distinguish for him
what is loveable and true from what is arid and spurious."
[see: Sue Winterbottom, Re: But thats how the light gets in
15 August 2001]
Michael
You are forgiven, Child. We have all grown since Montreal, haven't we.
I think Greg is charming and fun. But as I don't read all his posts, I
think he should mail me the excerpts that refer to me
(micke...@ego.com). And, never forget, I *am* your business so don't
be shy ever to comment,
Mike
xxx
Constance Kuriyama
Yes, I can spell it. I was being nice to Bill, and let him
influence me. ;-) And, frankly, a bit lazy. Check my next post.
Constance Kuriyama
>
>> Being sorry for doing wrong is pretty much what repentence is, no?
>
> Definitely not. Feeling sorry by itself is not repentence
According to my dictionary (and my sense of the word) it is. Heartfelt
sorrow and regret, in response to the recognition that you've done
something wrong, *is* repentance.
. If you are a greedy robber
> baron and then you start thinking about your life and "repent" and go build a bunch of
> public libraries with your name on them-- that is not repentence.
Yes, insincere attempts to "do good" (for one's own benefit) are not
repentance.
Giving the money back
> is repentence.
To nitpick, that's restitution, which is different from repentance, but
should accompany it if possible. If you've spent all the money, you have
to think of some alternate means of atonement. This might be penance,
like a penitential whipping, for example.
> Repentence requires a change of behavior, as well as the sorry bit.
If the outcome is completely successful, and if it is possible to change.
Sometimes, what's done cannot be undone. LC, for example, may sincerely
repent for tearing everyone who reached out to him and try to make it up
to these people ("Bird on a Wire"). If he failed in the attempt, that
doesn't mean that his repentance wasn't sincere.
>> But I don't think "The Future" is specifically about Leonard Cohen. It's partly
>> about a cheapening of and disregard for human life. There's plenty of that
>> going around, and the people who have this attitude certainly don't see
>> anything wrong with it. Hence, the future "is murder."
>
> Well, I know this is an unpopular view (for ambiguous reasons) but I doubt that human
> life has ever been valued as highly as it is today, and was never valued lower than
> (look out Mark!) the moment the bomb was released over Hiroshima. The history of
> mankind is one long epic of slaughter and atrocity-- until the last half of the
> twentieth century. Certainly statistically, you could never demonstrate that we value
> life so little today that we allow it to be taken indescriminately, compared to any
> previous era in history.
A lot could be said in response to this, but I'll pass except to say that when
the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, people respected the lives of those in their
group but dehumanized outsiders. Now anyone is a potential target if they are
vulnerable or annoying enough, or just happen to be in the way.
> Another irony. For all the awful destruction of the Viet Nam war, what was truely
> unusual about it was that the world had a front-line view of the entire event, and,
> confronted with the evil that was war, began to turn against it. The fact that the
> United Nations is now actually trying to hold leaders accountable for war crimes is also
> astounding. We are appalled at the evil they did, but nobody, until now, ever thought,
> "hell, let's arrest them and put them on trial."
War crimes trials began at the end of WW2, no?
>> There's also a general decline in respect for others--for their privacy,
>> for their right to live according to their lights, for their individual
>> dignity and wisdom.
>
> I would suggest that it seems like it only because, for the first time in history, there
> is a realistic possibility of privacy and dignity. The McCarthy era??!! The
> witch-hunts? The Inquisition? As for wisdom, the "wisest" lights of the renaissance
> still didn't object to the use of torture or execution for heretics. The Russians
> didn't oppose the bomb-- they wanted their own.
> "Geez, I wish we had one of those doomsday devices..."
> - Dr. Strangelove
One could argue just the reverse. The fact that people were intolerant in
the past doesn't mean that there was no privacy, though there was certainly
no free speech in the instances you mention.
>> That's why the term "diss" has become current, and why
>> it's sometimes offered as an excuse for murder,
>
> The murder rate is actually in decline.
Debatable. But not actually what I'm getting at. It isn't the number of
deaths but the rationale or lack of one for killing that is changing. Killing
in wartime always has a rationale, though not necessarily a good one.
Killing at random, for fun, on impulse, to satisfy some personal itch,
seems to be increasing.
>> Is it any good?
>
> I personally don't think the additional scenes add to the strength of the movie but,
> unlike the Exorcist, at least they don't degrade it. In fact, the additional scenes
> with the playmates in the jungle are quite rich and interesting. The French Plantation
> scene should have been left on the cutting room floor, especially the gratuitious
> romance between Willard and a young widow.
I sometimes think "director's cuts," besides being money-making schemes,
are mostly exercises in self-indulgence. The Coen brothers boasted that their
re-release of _Blood Simple_ was actually *shorter* than the original, and
that was certainly a rarity worth crowing about.
Bill Van Dyk
> Bill Van Dyk (bvand...@home.com) writes:
> > Constance Kuriyama wrote:
> >
> >> Being sorry for doing wrong is pretty much what repentence is, no?
> >
> > Definitely not. Feeling sorry by itself is not repentence
>
> According to my dictionary (and my sense of the word) it is. Heartfelt
> sorrow and regret, in response to the recognition that you've done
> something wrong, *is* repentance.
You need a new dictionary. That is a very anorexic definition of repentence. Just as nowadays
the definition of "forgive" is very anorexic. Jerry Falwell said he could forgive Clinton as
a Christian, but Clinton still had to pay for the sins with the cigar. But that is not what
Christ meant. When Christ demanded that people forgive each other, he meant that the debt was
paid in full. Since there was no such thing as a prison sentence in 1st century AD, when a
man had bad debts, or had stolen something, or killed an animal that didn't belong to him, he
went to prison until he had "made it right". If someone forgave him, as Christ demanded, that
man was free to go. His debt was cancelled. There is no such thing as, "I forgive you but
you still have to pay" in a Christian sense.
But maybe Cohen did repent in that sense.... he went into a monastery. But then there was
Rebecca... ah well....
> A lot could be said in response to this, but I'll pass except to say that when
> the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, people respected the lives of those in their
> group but dehumanized outsiders. Now anyone is a potential target if they are
> vulnerable or annoying enough, or just happen to be in the way.
>
> > Another irony. For all the awful destruction of the Viet Nam war, what was truely
> > unusual about it was that the world had a front-line view of the entire event, and,
> > confronted with the evil that was war, began to turn against it. The fact that the
> > United Nations is now actually trying to hold leaders accountable for war crimes is also
> > astounding. We are appalled at the evil they did, but nobody, until now, ever thought,
> > "hell, let's arrest them and put them on trial."
>
> War crimes trials began at the end of WW2, no?
Yes, by the victors. Amazingly, not a single ally committed a war crime! Not even in Dresden
or Ngasaki! Truly remarkable.
Today's tribunals are different. They are an attempt by third parties, the worldwide
community, to set standards for the governments of sovereign nations. The U.S. refuses to
sign on to the system because they are afraid Henry Kissinger might finally have to answer for
Cambodia.
> > The murder rate is actually in decline.
How can that be debatable? They keep very good records. And there is no such thing as a
"half-murder" or "part murder". If there is a debatable statistic, it is the increase in
sexual and other assaults. We continually redefine such crimes to make a wider and wider
swath through unacceptable social behavior. Surely that is the luxury of a society that is
actually quite law-abiding. Especially when we can send five-year-olds home for pointing a
chicken finger at a teacher.
> Debatable. But not actually what I'm getting at. It isn't the number of
> deaths but the rationale or lack of one for killing that is changing. Killing
> in wartime always has a rationale, though not necessarily a good one.
> Killing at random, for fun, on impulse, to satisfy some personal itch,
> seems to be increasing.
I'll bet no one can substantiate such an assertion. How on earth does anyone today know how
many murders committed in the 17th century were on "impulse" or to satisfy a personal itch?
How could you tell with the constant warfare and executions? The bands of brigands roaming
the countryside? The crusades? The heresy trials? The ethnic,k religious, and racial wars?
The civil wars?
And what is so exculpatory about a "rationale" for wartime killing? That is what we are
getting away from today, aren't we? That because it was a war and we happen to wear a
uniform, the evil we do is less unacceptable than if we just happen to want to steal someone's
BMW. In some ways, warfare is worse: it is the corporate embodiment of a depraved society's
violent impulse. We are holy and good but those godless Huns! The yellow peril! The
infidel!
> I sometimes think "director's cuts," besides being money-making schemes,
> are mostly exercises in self-indulgence. The Coen brothers boasted that their
> re-release of _Blood Simple_ was actually *shorter* than the original, and
> that was certainly a rarity worth crowing about.
I like that. It's become obligatory, like the tribute album.
BigAl
news:SIAe7.2337$Y53....@news1.oke.nextra.no...
Sorry Snow but, in English (can't say for Norwegian), *both* ways of
spelling of lov(e)able are completely acceptable.
BigAl
still pedant to the stars.
Mark Barker
>> In some ways, warfare is worse: it is the corporate embodiment >>of a depraved society's
>>violent impulse.
OR the response to such an impulse!!! Don't get me started, Bill. Please. Still, one question, if
you don't mind? So if another country decides to bomb your country and take it over for no reason
other than that is how humanity has always been(the conqueror and conquered),.... then you lay
down your weapons and let them have your country? Knowing that they are murderers, rapists,
thieves and despots, you lay down your weapons? Is that what you are saying? BTW, answer me (or
not) and that will be fine, cause I'm not going down that road any further for many reasons.
Christ says to do that very thing at one point,.....to "turn the other cheek". Course a
Christian might argue that the very same Christ was Jehovah, and we all know what He commanded be
done to enemies, as far as warfare is concerned. Makes for interesting conversation, but
personally, now is not a good time for me.
However, you and Connie feel free to continue. Excuse me for interrupting.
Peace,
Mark
Bill Van Dyk
your argument is that you are framing the issue in such way that the answer is self-evident. You
always assume that one side is right and good and noble and the other side is wicked and godless and
evil. Nice world, if you can find one like that. For example, some people like to point out that
the Nazis were murdering Jews and therefore deserved the full brunt of allied force. The trouble is,
that is NOT why the allies entered the war against Germany. It was absolutely not the reason.
That's just the way we like to think of ourselves today-- rushing to the rescue of those victims of
the Holocaust on our white horses!
[For the record, Mark, I am not dissing America here. Rooseveldt himself, I believe, wanted to enter
the war on moral reasons. But he couldn't. It was not until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour
that he could be assured of Congressional support for a war against Japan and it's allies, including
Germany.]
The real question is how do you break the cycle of violence and destruction? There are always
people like you on both sides: they hit us first. They deserve to be punished and we don't. We're
right and they're wrong. The problem is, a wise and sensitive third party can't always see as
clearly as you that one side is completely right and one side is completely wrong. All they see is a
massive waste of life and destruction of property. Does Ireland or Palestine make any sense to
anyone but the fanatics on either side?
It takes the bigger guy, the side with more moral rectitude, the side with grace and beauty on its
side, to say we will be first to take the steps necessary to bring peace. And those steps never
include retribution or revenge or a self-serving definition of justice. Every lawyer knows that the
first step towards resolving a conflict is to bring the two parties together to sit down and talk,
communicate, share their feelings. Quite often, things can be worked out amicably.
That's why lawyers never encourage their clients to sit down and talk, communicate, and share their
feelings. How the hell do you make any money off that? (Sorry Geoff no rey).
Nazi German could not have existed without the historical and cultural forces that included the
routine use of military options to "solve" issues. Hitler did not emerge from nowhere. He came from
a culture that worshipped the military, power, might, force. He embodied those values. That's why
the rest of Europe had to arm itself-- because it had built a thousand monuments to armour.
One day, Mark, we'll be facing each other over a battlefield. My side will have done something you
think is horribly wrong, like insult your flag, or establish socialized medicine, or hurl a tomato at
Willie Nelson.
We will come out in our tutus with roses in our teeth to the music of "Dance of the Valkyries". Go
ahead and shoot us.
Ha ha! Just kidding. I think.
K.D.
> Spoken like a true Nashville lady! You been in on any of that tax revolt
> around the capital, K.D.? I have absolutely bombarded Sundquist with
scathing
> emails. I told him he must be insane. That was one of the kinder things I
said,
> actually. I better be careful. You might be on the opposite side of this
issue.
> If so,.... never mind.
I'm against the state income tax. I'm against the lottery. I'm against
government growing any more than it already has. I dislike and distrust
Sundquist, Purcell, and just about every politician in this state.
Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for president in the last election,
who is now living in Williamson County, hasn't pissed me off yet.
Does that answer your question?
-KD
Jack Lazariuk
an...@unite.com.au (ania) wrote in message
> why do you do this?
Why do you think he does it Ania?
He might not tell the truth if you ask him.
Jack
Mark Barker
>>My side will have done something
you
think is horribly wrong, like insult your flag, or establish socialized medicine, or hurl a tomato at
Willie Nelson.
Hey, I might let you off for the first two, but you hurl a tomato at Willie Nelson and you are one dead
dude. If for some reason not by me, then by Big Dick Straub. Big Dick says DON'T MESS WITH WILLIE!!! Huh,
Dick?
As far as all the other things you said, I suspect some of the conclusions you draw are open to
debate. But,...hey, you got a right to your opinions too.
Something is strange with my reader. I'm not sure how to fix this?
Mark Barker
Peace,
Mark
zim frank
>In article <8919-3B7...@storefull-247.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> zimmy...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>
>> Jack wrote:
>> Thank you Barbara, Henning and Sue.
>> -----------------------
>>
>> Anything more would be greedy
>> Love Zim
>
>That is so true Zimmy.
-----------------
The depth, grace and quality was astounding.
>
>Jack
------------------
A mirror image of yourself for you and your mother ...
Zim
K.D.
> A good Libertarian. I can respect that. Cool.
Well, I'm not a card-carrying member. Probably more correctly libertarian
with a small "L".
-KD
Jack Lazariuk
zim frank <zi...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> >> Thank you Barbara, Henning and Sue.
> >> Anything more would be greedy
> >> Love Zim
> >
> >That is so true Zimmy.
>
> The depth, grace and quality was astounding.
> >
> >Jack
> ------------------
>
> A mirror image of yourself for you and your mother ...
>
> Zim
Thank you for your smilingly received words.
Jack
~greg
"Jack Lazariuk" <laza...@mac.com> wrote in message news:lazariuk-B26DAE...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca...
> In article <9l5el0$m4g$0...@216.155.32.168>, "~greg" <g...@magpage.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > > To those confused by the manor of Jack's writing,
> > >
> > > There are many rooms in this manor.
> > >
> > > Jack
> >
> >
> > In my father's mansion are many louses.
> >
>
> I was glad to see you write that Greg. When you wrote about Michael
> feeding off others I thought you were completely unaware of how you do
> the same.
>
> Jack
** A story from my childhood:
When I was a kid knee high to a bucket
(or vice versa to be sure)
- we visited friends one summer at Cape Cod,
and went claming in the morning.
This meant jumping up and down on the hard dark rim of
the shore, over which either one wave or another has just
retreated. What one is looking for are jet spits, which show
where a clam is trying to escape by burrowing down.
You have to dig quick.
It's a skill.
So there're these buckets with more or less clams in them
all down the beach, each one guarded by someone trying
to split his attention between watching for spits in his little
patch of mud, and sidelong glances at his bucket,
in case of clam thieves.
At first I tried to free them...
I turned one bucket over, but they wouldn't run.
They just lay there on top of each other, confused.
They wouldn't run...
And I got in trouble for it.
So then I run up to another bucket,
pick the prettiest clam in it,
and run away with it as fast as I can.
And I took good care of it for the rest of the day.
In the evening I threw it in the water.
It wasn't so pretty anymore (if ever it really was).
It was dry and dead and smelt funny,
and not clammy at all.
I still wake up in the dark a lot, like in a shell,
thinking if I only I could have saved that one clam,
then it would all have stopped,
- this horrible Silence of the Clams.
~
So anyway that's where I acquired my taste for exotic sea-salts
-- in that summer's place. And now whenever I'm invited to an orgy,
after suppressing an initial impulse to throw one back in the water,
- it's true, - I do allow full reign to my acquired taste for rubbing food
on, and then feeding off of, the sweaty bodies of others
(- or the kindness of others, as I think of it as.)
But how ever did you know?
~greg
ania
> "Michael" wrote in message news:<9ld79t$e2f$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
> > "ania" wrote in message
> > news:99deb949.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Michael" wrote in message news
> > >
> > >
> > > > did Greg really mention me! Wow, why doesn't anyone tell me this things
> > > > earlier. I thought Greg had stopped caring for me,
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > *had* missed the post Jack referred to. Relax,
> >
> > Mike
>
>
>
> oh im so sorry, forgive me if im not accustomed to such displays of
> *affection* from you towards certain people. but youre right, its none
> of my fucking business.
You are forgiven, Child. We have all grown since Montreal, haven't we.
I think Greg is charming and fun. But as I don't read all his posts, I
think he should mail me the excerpts that refer to me
(micke...@ego.com). And, never forget, I *am* your business so don't
be shy ever to comment,
Mike
xxx
~~~~~~~~
tell me, DOES your EGO ever rest?
Snow
>Sorry Snow but, in English (can't say for Norwegian),
*both* ways of spelling of lov(e)able are completely
acceptable.
I don't remember asking you to chime in with your two cents.
I had that woman by the short and curlies until you had to
bulldoze right in and spoil everything. Next time 'think'
before you open that great big gate of yours.
Respectfully -
Geoffrey
michael s. connaghan
seem to deal with you and your feelings. Are you in love
with yourself? I don't mean "do you love yourself?". I
mean, are you "In love" with yourself.
I think you love and hate yourself with equal intensity.
What happens when the immovable object meets the
irresistible force?
Sounds like trouble to me.news:lazariuk-BB00B6...@nw1nr.wp.wave.shaw.ca...
Dick
But Mark's right
Don't mess with WILLIE!!!!!!!
MEAN BIGDICK
"Mark Barker" <eras...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3B7B1B56...@mindspring.com...
Bill Van Dyk
with shotguns and pipe bombs, singing "Bird on the Wire"....
Mark Barker
So this girl walks into to this tattoo parlor. The man walks up and says,
"Yes, Ma'am, what can I do for you today?". The girl says,"I want a tattoo of
Elvis, and I want you to put it up high on my inner thigh." He says that should be
no problem. Then he tells her to totally disrobe and to hop up on this table and
he will be right with her. She does this and he proceeds to put her a tattoo of
Elvis up very high on her left inner thigh. When he's done with it, she glances at
the tattoo and says,"Well this doesn't even faintly resemble Elvis and I'm not
going to pay for it." He says,"Miss, that is the spit image of Elvis. How can you
say it doesn't look like Elvis? That's Elvis, if I ever saw Elvis". Again she
says, "Look,..I ask for a tattoo of Elvis,..this doesn't look like Elvis, and I'm
not paying for it."
By this time the fellow is very frustrated. He says, "Okay lady. Here's what
I'm willing to do. I'll put you another Elvis on the other inner thigh. If you
don't think it looks like Elvis either, then we will ask the first innocent
bystander who is out on the street. We'll leave it up to him or her. If he/she
says it looks like Elvis, you pay me for both of them. If he/she thinks it doesn't
look like Elvis, you don't have to pay me for either one. How's that for fair?"
The girl ponders it for a minute and says,"That sounds fair. Have at it." So
the guy does her another Elvis on the other inner thigh. As soon as he has
finished, she looks down and says,"Sorry, but that still doesn't look like Elvis".
The fellow says,"Okay, we agreed we would ask the first person I see on the
street. Right?" She says ,"Right".
The man walks to the door of the tattoo parlor and looks out. The first thing
he sees is this very drunk man staggering down the street. He says, "Excuse me,
Sir. I have done a customer two tattoos of Elvis. I think they look exactly like
Elvis and she disagrees and says they look nothing like Elvis. If you don't mind,
we would like you opinion." The drunk says "Sure" as he staggers into to the
tattoo parlor. He walks right up to the lady who is lying buck naked on the table
with her legs spread. The fellow is having trouble focusing anyway, so he gets his
head right down within a foot of the Elvises,..closes one eye and glances back and
forth at the two for several long seconds. Finally he looks up and says,"You
know,...I don't know who those twins are,.... but that one in the middle looks
like Willie Nelson".
Michael
Ooh, you enigmatic chap, you.
Michael
"ania" <an...@unite.com.au> wrote in message
At what age did you realise that you don't understand when you are being
teased?
Jack Lazariuk
"michael s. connaghan" <mcba...@socket.net> wrote:
> Really, Jack? The reason I ask is that most of your posts
> seem to deal with you and your feelings. Are you in love
> with yourself? I don't mean "do you love yourself?". I
> mean, are you "In love" with yourself.
It sounds like you are not too sure if you know what you mean. As I
pointed out earlier when I use the word love I am meaning being
exquisitely attuned with infinite tenderness to other than self. So by
definition I can't love myself. But your question brought to mind an
interesting experience that I had that I enjoyed being reminded of.
I sometimes wake in the morning to very interesting, to me, thoughts.
One morning I awoke thinking that I had no proof that I was the same
person who went to sleep the night before. It's a hard experience to
describe and so i ran it by someone who is sitting in this room as I
write and we decided that it would be worth mentioning that it involved
feeling free of baggage.
So, convinced that I had no proof that I was the same person who went to
sleep the night before, I decided to evaluate the situation that I was
in. I considered the body that I was using to to make myself visible,
the memories that I had of the world around me, the kinds of
relationships that I had opened the door to, the specific living
conditions that I had control of, the obligations that I had to fulfill
and I got around to deciding if I had in my possession the makings of a
good day.
It was at that moment that I came to appreciate myself. I didn't
appreciate everything but enough to feel that I wasn't interested in
wanting to trade places with anyone else. The list is long of all the
things that I appreciated and I don't want to bore you with it but I
think it might be worth pointing out that what I appreciated most was
having gone through some experiences that were very painful to me at the
time. The only reason I could give for whoever it was that went through
those experiences was that he must have believed very strongly in a very
great love, and that love believed in him.
Does that answer your question Michael?
> I think you love and hate yourself with equal intensity.
> What happens when the immovable object meets the
> irresistible force?
> Sounds like trouble to me.
There is no such thing as an immovable object. Everything is in motion
and so the irresistible force will have it's way as I think you will
come to see very clearly.
Jack
Jack Lazariuk
micke...@btinternet.com (Michael) wrote:
Oh you want me to be less enigmatic regarding you Michael?
Jack
Constance Kuriyama
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
>> Bill Van Dyk (bvand...@home.com) writes:
>> > Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>> >
>> >> Being sorry for doing wrong is pretty much what repentence is, no?
>> >
>> > Definitely not. Feeling sorry by itself is not repentence
>>
>> According to my dictionary (and my sense of the word) it is. Heartfelt
>> sorrow and regret, in response to the recognition that you've done
>> something wrong, *is* repentance.
>
> You need a new dictionary. That is a very anorexic definition of repentence.
We'll just have to disagree on that--if we do. Repentance often mandates
additional steps, but not necessarily.
> Just as nowadays
> the definition of "forgive" is very anorexic. Jerry Falwell said he could forgive Clinton as
> a Christian, but Clinton still had to pay for the sins with the cigar. But that is not what
> Christ meant. When Christ demanded that people forgive each other, he meant that the debt was
> paid in full. Since there was no such thing as a prison sentence in 1st century AD, when a
> man had bad debts, or had stolen something, or killed an animal that didn't belong to him, he
> went to prison until he had "made it right". If someone forgave him, as Christ demanded, that
> man was free to go. His debt was cancelled. There is no such thing as, "I forgive you but
> you still have to pay" in a Christian sense.
>
> But maybe Cohen did repent in that sense.... he went into a monastery. But then there was
> Rebecca... ah well....
Well, he claimed that he "really tried" with that one, and that Rebecca knew it,
so perhaps there was a change in behavior, which is the condition you
stipulate, if not in outcome. And the monastary stint had its aescetic
features--not quite a penitential whipping, but no picnic, either. :-)
>> War crimes trials began at the end of WW2, no?
>
> Yes, by the victors. Amazingly, not a single ally committed a war crime! Not even in Dresden
> or Ngasaki! Truly remarkable.
I've always been amazed at this purity myself. ;-)
> Today's tribunals are different. They are an attempt by third parties, the worldwide
> community, to set standards for the governments of sovereign nations. The U.S. refuses to
> sign on to the system because they are afraid Henry Kissinger might finally have to answer for
> Cambodia.
Yes, I agree that's an improvement. The prospects for international law
seem to be increasing.
>> > The murder rate is actually in decline.
>
> How can that be debatable? They keep very good records. And there is no such thing as a
> "half-murder" or "part murder".
Actually, there are a number of cases which can't be clearly classified as
homicide. They might or might not be. The Levy case is a current example
of such ambiguity. Lots of missing persons cases are actually homicides,
but can't be officially classified as such.
If there is a debatable statistic, it is the increase in
> sexual and other assaults. We continually redefine such crimes to make a wider and wider
> swath through unacceptable social behavior. Surely that is the luxury of a society that is
> actually quite law-abiding. Especially when we can send five-year-olds home for pointing a
> chicken finger at a teacher.
>
>> Debatable. But not actually what I'm getting at. It isn't the number of
>> deaths but the rationale or lack of one for killing that is changing. Killing
>> in wartime always has a rationale, though not necessarily a good one.
>> Killing at random, for fun, on impulse, to satisfy some personal itch,
>> seems to be increasing.
>
> I'll bet no one can substantiate such an assertion. How on earth does anyone today know how
> many murders committed in the 17th century were on "impulse" or to satisfy a personal itch?
> How could you tell with the constant warfare and executions? The bands of brigands roaming
> the countryside? The crusades? The heresy trials? The ethnic,k religious, and racial wars?
> The civil wars?
I think one can substantiate it, but probably not in an internet post to any
great degree. However, take the case of school and workplace shootings.
These were unheard of when I was growing up. Now they are almost commonplace.
They often seem to be a result of someone having his tender little ego
punctured by teasing, being passed over for promotion, or some other survivable
irritant that people used to take in stride. Now it's a mass killing matter.
In the seventeenth centure, some of that same egocentric attitude also came
into play, but I can't think of a single case of someone going on a mass-murderous
rampage in Elizabethan or Stuart England simply because he felt slighted,
frustrated, or bored.
> And what is so exculpatory about a "rationale" for wartime killing?
It isn't exculpatory. But it's a societal rather than an individual
phenomenon. Cohen is interested in the random acts of isolated and
possibly demented individuals, which are ominous because they're
impossible to predict and hard to control.
That is what we are
> getting away from today, aren't we? That because it was a war and we happen to wear a
> uniform, the evil we do is less unacceptable than if we just happen to want to steal someone's
> BMW. In some ways, warfare is worse: it is the corporate embodiment of a depraved society's
> violent impulse. We are holy and good but those godless Huns! The yellow peril! The
> infidel!
I don't think war is worse than serial killing, or other random acts of
mass destruction. One can prevent or end war by attacking its rationale, which
finally happened to the Viet Nam War.
How does one reason with a serial killer or a unibomber?
>> I sometimes think "director's cuts," besides being money-making schemes,
>> are mostly exercises in self-indulgence. The Coen brothers boasted that their
>> re-release of _Blood Simple_ was actually *shorter* than the original, and
>> that was certainly a rarity worth crowing about.
>
> I like that. It's become obligatory, like the tribute album.
Both versions of _The Wild Bunch_ are good, but I don't think the material
restored in the director's cut was in any way essential. Too bad Peckinpah
wasn't able to fix _Straw Dogs_, which is a very good film with a very
bad lacuna in it.
~greg
"Mark Barker"
> Finally he looks up and says,"You
> know,...I don't know who those twins are,.... but that one in the middle looks
> like Willie Nelson".
"Never lie.
Lie to your friends?, - you spoil it.
Lie to your enemies? - who the hell are they to lie to? "
- Willie Nelson in THIEF,
with James Caan, James Belushi, Robert Prosky,
Tuesday Weld, ...
"Tuesday Weld was the real thing."
- BVD
Michael
> > it. So let me help you. Good news, Jack, you, like anyone else, are
> > allowed to change your script. You are not condemned to keep making
> > the most hopelessly wrong responses.
> >
> > The next time you send out the invitations to people to beat you up, I
> > hope no-one accepts. And then you can carry on beating yourself up
> > (and preferably in private.)
>
> People don't beat me up. The people in this newsgroup have been
> exordinarily kind to me and I will be forever grateful.
I am glad you have finally acknowledged that. I seriously disliked
your lack of grace when many had responded so generously. Sometimes
when a person is as self-obsesed as you they can forget simple manners
and kindness.
You are a
> little correct about the invitations that I send out in that I am
> encouraging of people to be critical. As a matter of fact I once posted
> here under the subject header "Take your best shot" where I openly
> requested that people say things about me as nasty and as mean as they
> like. As an accompanyment to that I have supplied everyone with a lot
> of material to work with and haven't been too stingy with telling things
> about myself that revealed weaknesses and mistakes. Anyone taking my
> offer soon learned that I wouldn't return in kind and that they could
> say things about me without fear that I would retaliate.
>
> The few times that you responded to things that I have written was
> mostly to comment that you didn't think that I was being appropiate. I
> can think of thousands of things that I have written here that in some
> way wasn't appropiate but often I was trying to write about thoughts and
> feelings that I didn't have well rehersed and I felt ok being
> inappropiate.
Jack, it would never occur to me to suggest you stop posting what you
like. I don't have any problem about skipping a particular thread that
doesn't interest me. I recall "debates" in the past about people
posting poems here, and the objections all seemed very anal to me.
>
> I needed to do these things. I needed to be sure that I could trust
> myself not to cause others hurt automatically when placed in a position
> where I had to deal with very personal matters in a public place with
> someone that has been convinced that our relationship needs to be an
> adversarial one, someone I care for deeply.
An everyday problem indeed. Which lucky one of us can say we haven't
pondered long and hard over that very issue.
It might come as no
> surprise to you to learn that it was a lawyer that did the convincing.
I don't do sterotypes.
>
> Getting some experience with this was necessary for me because in the
> past I had behaved in a way that I deplored. I had said some things
> that caused people a lot of pain. I knew how to be very hurtful with
> words and sometimes felt that I couldn't stop myself from doing so and
> came to appreciate that that was so because it had been done to me at an
> earlier time. It was a chain of events that I had to break. I am
> getting satisfied that I can be trusted not to repeat what occured in
> the past.
I feel safer already!
>
> Because my situation can lead to having to deal with issues that not
> many people are comfortable dealing with a Leonard Cohen newsgroup has
> been a good place to be. You might have noticed that a lot of his work
> is confessional and points to many mistakes he has made along with the
> success he has enjoyed.
I just like the stories. I am not clever enough to analyse his words.
The last post I made of any substance was in 1999.
Exploring his work doesn't greatly distract one
> from exploring their own depths.
>
> That it should be very important to me to be sure that I will not become
> adversarial when placed in an adversarial position that may touch on
> very personal issues is something that you as a lawyer might not
> understand the need for.
I don't take my work home with me, (which probably explains why I
never know what's happening the next day in Court).
I imagine, but I could be wrong, that your
> profession's strength is in it's being adversarial.
I don't think you mean that. The system is adversarial and one needs
to act accordingly. But its "strength"?
On the other hand
> you probably do get to experience on a regular basis how people handle
> the pressure of being under public scrutiny and the effect that has on
> how capable they become in responding to the fullness of their intent.
The Courtroom is a special environment. Like IQ tests it is only
self-referring. Unless you are thinking of becoming a professional
witness, I suggest you ignore it as a testing ground for your
concerns.
> If you so choose, and I would like it if you do, you could give your
> opinion that is seasoned in experience of how you think I would fare
> under such pressures?
I don't know you well enough. But I certainly doubt that you have the
strength to "survive" if you were subject to a hostile
cross-examination by a top advocate.
Do you think I could hold my own without being
> forced to automatically react?
I am sure you wouldn't automatically retract. Few witnesses do. If it
happened then a jury would simply realise that the person had such
weaknesses that any apparent admissions were of doubtful value.
BTW, and on a different point- you have recently made 2 little sneaky
references to me lieing. Unlike The Sopranos where I am left panting
for the next episode, I am not particularly excited by your unfinished
story- but if you do ever find the courage to explain what you are
talking about then you are quite safe. Please don't fear that I will
be offended by any suggestion that you could make,
Michael
Sue Winterbottom
Sue
Snow <ak...@0nline.no> wrote in message
news:SIAe7.2337$Y53....@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
> >Being sorry for doing wrong is pretty much what repentence
> is, no?
>
Sue Winterbottom
time in that same post. Just petulance on my part (shows I must be a
woman after all?)
S.
Constance Kuriyama <do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9leru8$7v5$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> Yes, I can spell it. I was being nice to Bill, and let him
> influence me. ;-) And, frankly, a bit lazy. Check my next post.