for $Z: iPhone activation problems cause lots of headaches
Towse
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
$Zero
> What a gem: <http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291>
a gem, indeed.
i think my favorite was the iFlop characterization.
hilarious!
still, i'll bet Jobs has the last laugh.
especially once iPhone 2.0 comes out.
i mean, just remember what happened when AOL got overbooked.
spin, spin, spin...
sung to "turn, turn, turn..."
-$Zero...
not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
Alan Hope
>not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
>http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
Why are you running a so-called blog as a Google Group? Does that
offer you advantages the numerous blogging outfits (including Google's
own) don't?
And secondly, don't you think advice on dealing with a lack of readers
would be better coming from someone who does have some readers? Is
there any sign of anyone but me just now reading that "blog" of yours
at all?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
> >http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
>
> Why are you running a so-called blog as a Google Group?
it's not a blog, it's a megablog.
> Does that offer you advantages the numerous blogging
> outfits (including Google's own) don't?
nicely threaded comments.
easy google searches of the megablog
(including any and all comments).
plus all of the other advantages of a google group thinger.
have you ever started one and checked out all that you can do with it?
pretty cool stuff.
> And secondly, don't you think advice on dealing
> with a lack of readers would be better coming from
> someone who does have some readers?
you seriously think i don't have readers?
or that i'm somehow wrong about my advice in that regard?
yikes.
> Is there any sign of anyone but me just now reading
> that "blog" of yours at all?
not much, no.
which i find amusing.
but then, i've got a great sense of humor.
otherwise, i would have thrown in the towel YEARS ago.
-$Zero...
not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
Kurt Ullman
Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
> http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291
Three years ago it took me 36 hours just to get my number
transferred from Verizon to Sprint. It looks like this is nothing all
that unusual.
$Zero
> In article <GtKdnTIpvp0V2BrbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdn...@comcast.com>,
>
> Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> >http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291
>
> Three years ago it took me 36 hours just to get my number
> transferred from Verizon to Sprint. It looks like this is nothing all
> that unusual.
yeah.
they kinda buried that claim in the article, but optimistic pro-iPhone
people could hardly have missed it.
it's kinda like the Sopranos ending.
everyone writes their own.
$Zero
> On Jul 1, 9:18 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291
>
> > Three years ago it took me 36 hours just to get my number
> > transferred from Verizon to Sprint. It looks like this is nothing all
> > that unusual.
>
> yeah.
>
> they kinda buried that claim in the article, but optimistic
> pro-iPhone people could hardly have missed it.
not to mention the fact that it wouldn't be surprising at all that the
other providers might increase delays in that regard, just for the
bad press value.
> it's kinda like the Sopranos ending.
>
> everyone writes their own.
i read somewhere that Apple's choice of AT&T had (at least partly)
something to do with the iPhone's battery depletion issue and how
AT&T's Edge network could help in that regard.
Josh Hill
>On Jul 1, 9:18?am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <GtKdnTIpvp0V2BrbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdn...@comcast.com>,
>>
>> Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291
>>
>> Three years ago it took me 36 hours just to get my number
>> transferred from Verizon to Sprint. It looks like this is nothing all
>> that unusual.
>
>yeah.
>
>they kinda buried that claim in the article, but optimistic pro-iPhone
>people could hardly have missed it.
>
>it's kinda like the Sopranos ending.
>
>everyone writes their own.
Only if they don't get it.
--
Josh
"Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want
to rush to Redmond, Washington and rip somebody's liver out."
- Stephen Manes
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291
>
> >> Three years ago it took me 36 hours just to get my number
> >> transferred from Verizon to Sprint. It looks like this is nothing all
> >> that unusual.
>
> >yeah.
>
> >they kinda buried that claim in the article, but optimistic pro-iPhone
> >people could hardly have missed it.
>
> >it's kinda like the Sopranos ending.
>
> >everyone writes their own.
>
> Only if they don't get it.
you act as though you get it.
not even David Chase can say what the ending is anymore. *
unless he does a sequel.
* which he probably wouldn't even want to.
hence, a true work of art.
-$Zero...
Money -- wikipedia find of the day
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/8f6f0c049da1943a
Josh Hill
>On Jul 1, 10:28?am, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>> >> >http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291
>>
>> >> Three years ago it took me 36 hours just to get my number
>> >> transferred from Verizon to Sprint. It looks like this is nothing all
>> >> that unusual.
>>
>> >yeah.
>>
>> >they kinda buried that claim in the article, but optimistic pro-iPhone
>> >people could hardly have missed it.
>>
>> >it's kinda like the Sopranos ending.
>>
>> >everyone writes their own.
>>
>> Only if they don't get it.
>
>you act as though you get it.
>
>not even David Chase can say what the ending is anymore. *
>
>unless he does a sequel.
>
>* which he probably wouldn't even want to.
>
>hence, a true work of art.
Except that Chase was quoted as saying that everything you need to
establish the outcome is in the episode. After I read that, I gave the
ending a second look, and it was clear that Tony dies. Check it out.
You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
looking at. So the black is from his POV. It's literal. He's gone.
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> >> >> >http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291
>
> >> >> Three years ago it took me 36 hours just to get my number
> >> >> transferred from Verizon to Sprint. It looks like this is nothing all
> >> >> that unusual.
>
> >> >yeah.
>
> >> >they kinda buried that claim in the article, but optimistic pro-iPhone
> >> >people could hardly have missed it.
>
> >> >it's kinda like the Sopranos ending.
>
> >> >everyone writes their own.
>
> >> Only if they don't get it.
>
> >you act as though you get it.
>
> >not even David Chase can say what the ending is anymore. *
>
> >unless he does a sequel.
>
> >* which he probably wouldn't even want to.
>
> >hence, a true work of art.
potential S P O I L E R S ahead.
> Except that Chase was quoted as saying that everything you need to
> establish the outcome is in the episode.
i think he said something more like "it's all there"
nothing about the last episode in particular, not that it would matter
much.
because, even _it_ can be interpretted in many different ways.
> After I read that, I gave the
> ending a second look, and it was clear that Tony dies.
not necessarily.
though a good case can be made for it given all the symbolism, etc.,
used.
but just as easily, a good case can be made for several other endings.
using other symbolism, etc..
so...
"it's all there"
like the B side of Journey's "Don't Stop Believing"
"Any way you want it"
http://tinypic.com/4pd4ei1.jpg
> Check it out.
i have.
"it's all there"
http://tinypic.com/4pd4ei1.jpg
"enjoy the music"
-- Tony Soprano
[in the Series Finale]
> You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
> Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
> looking at.
that doesn't explain Meadow parking, does it?
> So the black is from his POV.
nope.
it could have been Meadow's point of view just as well.
> It's literal. He's gone.
if that's the way you want it...
"it's all there"
http://tinypic.com/4pd4ei1.jpg
but... if you're so sure about the ending,
did Carmella get taken out?
AJ? Meadow? others?
how can you be sure it was Tony?
maybe it was the audience.
see?
"it's all there"
like: the B side of "Don't Stop Believing"
"Any way you want it"
http://tinypic.com/4pd4ei1.jpg
case closed.
anyway, no matter which way you go, there's a lot to think about
there.
and appreciate.
whichever ending you choose, it's a work of art.
and it makes powerful statements about life.
and death.
and everything inbetween.
"it's an entry level job... so, buck up!
-- Tony Soprano
"alright...
focus on the good times"
-- AJ Soprano
"don't be sarcastic."
-- Tony Soprano
"isn't that what you said one time?
try to remember the times that were good?"
-- AJ Soprano
"i did?"
-- Tony Soprano
"yeah."
-- AJ Soprano
"well, it's true, i guess."
-- Tony Soprano
The Sopranos Final Scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnT7nYbCSvM
it's not a book.
it's not TV.
it's HBO.
-$Zero...
The Fat Lady Sang (but she was a Soprano)
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/76bd4c318ebe15fb
Kurt Ullman
$Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
> > Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
> > looking at.
>
> that doesn't explain Meadow parking, does it?
>
About the only thing I have been to come up with for Meadow's
parking is "Damn it! We're two minutes short, Mr. Chase!" (g)
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
> > > Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
> > > looking at.
>
> > that doesn't explain Meadow parking, does it?
>
> About the only thing I have been to come up with for Meadow's
> parking is "Damn it! We're two minutes short, Mr. Chase!" (g)
LOL.
except that it was perfectly timed with the lyrics:
"street light... people..."
anyway, the blackness could have also been another of Tony's panic
attack black outs, given all of the possible hitmen in the diner whom
Tony suspected throughout the scene -- just another paranoid day in
the life of a mob boss.
of course, then there's the onion rings as communion wafers symbolism.
"it goes on and on and on and on..."
-- Don't Stop Believing
[by Journey]
Alan Hope
>On Jul 1, 4:36?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
>> Why are you running a so-called blog as a Google Group?
>it's not a blog, it's a megablog.
It's a Google group with nobody but you in it.
>> Does that offer you advantages the numerous blogging
>> outfits (including Google's own) don't?
>nicely threaded comments.
You haven't had a single comment yet.
>easy google searches of the megablog
>(including any and all comments).
Of which there are none.
>plus all of the other advantages of a google group thinger.
Which are?
>have you ever started one and checked out all that you can do with it?
Of course not. When I decided to blog I investigated blogging tools.
Not Usenet tools.
>pretty cool stuff.
Clearly not. Your blog is a joke.
>> And secondly, don't you think advice on dealing
>> with a lack of readers would be better coming from
>> someone who does have some readers?
>you seriously think i don't have readers?
Yes.
>or that i'm somehow wrong about my advice in that regard?
Your advice was lifted right out of the Encyclopedia of Duh.
>yikes.
>> Is there any sign of anyone but me just now reading
>> that "blog" of yours at all?
>not much, no.
>which i find amusing.
>but then, i've got a great sense of humor.
You'd need one.
>otherwise, i would have thrown in the towel YEARS ago.
Or changed your ways.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
> >> Why are you running a so-called blog as a Google Group?
> >
> >it's not a blog, it's a megablog.
>
> It's a Google group with nobody but you in it.
not true.
> >> Does that offer you advantages the numerous blogging
> >> outfits (including Google's own) don't?
> >
> >nicely threaded comments.
>
> You haven't had a single comment yet.
actually, there was one comment.
but only one.
(out of more than 130 or so entries).
didn't see it?
learn how to use google.
duh.
it ain't rocket science.
> >easy google searches of the megablog
> >(including any and all comments).
>
> Of which there are none.
of which so far there is only one.
so far.
duh.
> >plus all of the other advantages of a google group thinger.
>
> Which are?
numerous.
start one up and you'll see them all, if you haven't already.
> >have you ever started one and checked out all that you can do with it?
>
> Of course not. When I decided to blog I investigated blogging tools.
> Not Usenet tools.
google groups is not Usenet, genius.
and i'm not "looking to blog", i'm looking to *megablog*.
it's a creative genius thing.
> >pretty cool stuff.
>
> Clearly not. Your blog is a joke.
it's not a blog.
and it's not a joke.
i haven't even begun to build any readership yet.
i've just posted a few sig posts in good old mw -- home of the comment
cowards, apparently.
and i've included a link whenever i've left comments in your mega-read
blog, and Zen's.
that's it.
just leaving a link (to my comment posting name) during a few of my
usual daily reading tangents whenever i find something worth
commenting on -- no real effort.
i just copy and paste the URL into the URL box option while
commenting, and voila.
sorry that it's so mind-blowing for you.
i didn't realize that i must fall so deeply in line with "the blog
protocols" when blogging around.
would you prefer i stop reading your Sour Grapes?
am i lowering the rents in your part of THE blogosphere?
just let me know, and i'll keep my comments to myself from now on.
i created megablog to enhance the blogging experience, not to freak-
out blog-protocol-pedants like yourself.
who knew you were such a tight ass about such things?
> >> And secondly, don't you think advice on dealing
> >> with a lack of readers would be better coming from
> >> someone who does have some readers?
> >
> >you seriously think i don't have readers?
>
> Yes.
why is that?
because you get a couple comments every once in awhile -- one of them
often from moi?
people from mw aren't commenting in megablog for obvious reasons.
> >or that i'm somehow wrong about my advice in that regard?
>
> Your advice was lifted right out of the Encyclopedia of Duh.
well, duh.
point mine.
so you haven't found anything of interest in any of my megablogs?
if so, so sorry to disappoint you.
i'm not as stingy as you in that regard.
> >yikes.
> >
> >> Is there any sign of anyone but me just now reading
> >> that "blog" of yours at all?
> >
> >not much, no.
> >
> >which i find amusing.
> >
> >but then, i've got a great sense of humor.
>
> You'd need one.
no shit.
> >otherwise, i would have thrown in the towel YEARS ago.
>
> Or changed your ways.
what ways would those be, Alan?
start kissing idiotic ass like you?
for what?
cash?
yikes.
i'll get me over to blogspot right soon!
Alan Hope
>On Jul 1, 2:57?pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
>> >> Why are you running a so-called blog as a Google Group?
>> >it's not a blog, it's a megablog.
>> It's a Google group with nobody but you in it.
>not true.
>> >> Does that offer you advantages the numerous blogging
>> >> outfits (including Google's own) don't?
>> >nicely threaded comments.
>> You haven't had a single comment yet.
>actually, there was one comment.
>but only one.
Well, good thing you have comment-threading going on. Wouldn't want to
lose track, would you?
Tosser.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>i read somewhere that Apple's choice of AT&T had (at least partly)
>something to do with the iPhone's battery depletion issue and how
>AT&T's Edge network could help in that regard.
What battery depletion issue? That's the iPod. The iPhone hasn't been
around long enough for the battery to deplete.
And how would your phone provider help with your battery issues,
exactly?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Jul 1, 10:28?am, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>> >> >http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291
>> >> Three years ago it took me 36 hours just to get my number
>> >> transferred from Verizon to Sprint. It looks like this is nothing all
>> >> that unusual.
>> >yeah.
>> >they kinda buried that claim in the article, but optimistic pro-iPhone
>> >people could hardly have missed it.
>> >it's kinda like the Sopranos ending.
>> >everyone writes their own.
>> Only if they don't get it.
>you act as though you get it.
>not even David Chase can say what the ending is anymore. *
>unless he does a sequel.
>* which he probably wouldn't even want to.
That's not true. He certainly claims to get it, though he won't give
details.
>hence, a true work of art.
Again with the subjects you don't understand.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>i think he said something more like "it's all there"
Read what he actually said.
>nothing about the last episode in particular, not that it would matter
>much.
>because, even _it_ can be interpretted in many different ways.
Try reading what he said. Break the habit of a lifetime.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>Except that Chase was quoted as saying that everything you need to
>establish the outcome is in the episode. After I read that, I gave the
>ending a second look, and it was clear that Tony dies. Check it out.
>You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
>Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
>looking at.
No, they don't.
That's a standard field-reverse field montage. It's been around
forever. It's not the law, though. And they don't always shoot Tony as
you suggest. In the episode I watched this evening they showed his
face in tight then the back of his head in a medium-long shot.
>So the black is from his POV. It's literal. He's gone.
That's what the Judean People's Liberation Front say. The Front for
the Liberation of the Judean People think differently.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill goes:
>
>>Except that Chase was quoted as saying that everything you need to
>>establish the outcome is in the episode. After I read that, I gave the
>>ending a second look, and it was clear that Tony dies. Check it out.
>>You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
>>Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
>>looking at.
>
>No, they don't.
>
>That's a standard field-reverse field montage. It's been around
>forever. It's not the law, though. And they don't always shoot Tony as
>you suggest. In the episode I watched this evening they showed his
>face in tight then the back of his head in a medium-long shot.
But it's consistent throughout this scene, and the final moment is
clearly from Tony's POV: zoom in and pan a bit, he looks up, the
screen goes black. It can't be from anyone else's.
>>So the black is from his POV. It's literal. He's gone.
>
>That's what the Judean People's Liberation Front say. The Front for
>the Liberation of the Judean People think differently.
The Front for the Liberation of the Judean People /thought/
differently. That's one less iPhone for you -- we go first class.
Josh Hill
>On Jul 1, 12:53?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>nope.
>
>it could have been Meadow's point of view just as well.
No, they never establish Meadow's POV.
Thomas Armagost
"It's like I got a Teddy Ruxpin and had to wait a day for the battery
delivery," [whined] one user on the www.engadget.com web site. "It's
annoying that everything is crippled until activation is complete."
Grow up, lady.
"I'm sure
It's like really nauseating
Like BARF OUT
GAG ME WITH A SPOON"
- Moon Zappa, Valley Girl
http://www.science.uva.nl/~robbert/zappa/albums/Strictly_Commercial
I hope that her husband swaps the tape cassette in Teddy Ruxpin's
belly with a recording of Zappa's "The Torture Never Stops." Teddy
Ruxpin speaks with the voice of Frank Zappa.
--
http://www.well.com/user/silly/blog.html
"Are you ready to take your place
in the modern museum of mistakes?" - Elvis Costello
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >i think he said something more like "it's all there"
>
> Read what he actually said.
i did once, somewhere.
but i really don't care what he said.
(reread the gist of what you snipped)
Chase's post-airing comments have no bearing whatsoever on his
completed work.
"everything comes to an end"
-- Carmella Soprano
[last season trailer commercial tagline]
The Sopranos Final 9 Episodes Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8lHGw4arsM
whatever Chase said after filming was in the can (and editting
completed, and episode aired) could just as easily have been a "lie"
meant to throw people off the track -- just as much as what Paulie
told Tony on the yacht when Tony was asking him whether he was the one
who told Johnny "Sac" about Ralphie's Ginny joke.
> >nothing about the last episode in particular, not that it would
> >matter much.
> >
> >because, even _it_ can be interpretted in many different ways.
>
> Try reading what he said.
Alan, it doesn't matter what Chase said. duh.
what "matters" is what aired.
but even if you're talking about whatever he said about not "fucking
with people's heads", that doesn't rule out that he left the
interpretation up to each audience member to ponder.
that's not fucking with people's minds.
that's an ending that's all there.
what one makes of the ambiguity is up to them.
because the show is over.
"everything comes to an end"
-- Carmella Soprano
[last season trailer commercial tagline]
> Break the habit of a lifetime.
you think that a brief interview with Shakespeare on opening night
puts to rest all of the rich layers and thought-provoking metaphors of
his play?
Gawd.
how shallow of you.
"Break the habit of a lifetime."
indeed.
i mean, look how shallow you are about megablog.
"it's a google group, not a blog!"
obviously, your kneejerk insights need quite a bit of tweaking.
but unlike Chase, i'm more than willing to hold your hand thru the
process of thinking about it.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >>
> >> >> >not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
> >> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are you running a so-called blog as a Google Group?
> >> >
> >> >it's not a blog, it's a megablog.
> >>
> >> It's a Google group with nobody but you in it.
> >
> >not true.
> >
> >> >> Does that offer you advantages the numerous blogging
> >> >> outfits (including Google's own) don't?
> >>
> >> >nicely threaded comments.
> >>
> >> You haven't had a single comment yet.
> >
> >actually, there was one comment.
> >but only one.
>
> Well, good thing you have comment-threading going on.
it's the default configuration of Google Groups.
and it's one of the best features about it, megablog-wise.
it provides very useful options whether there's a hundred other
commentors or none.
see, people like yourself look at a blank piece of paper and think:
"there's a blank piece of paper to write on. ho hum."
whereas creative geniuses like myself say:
"hey, there's a blank piece of paper to write on!
AND it could be folded into a paper airplane,
OR an oragami, OR a beer coaster, OR i can wipe
my butt with it in a pinch, OR i can poke a hole
in the center and use it to safely view an eclipse
on another blank piece of paper, OR i can use it as
a mini movie screen, OR i can fold it into one of
those four-leaf finger-snapper thingers AND write
funny questions on each panel, OR i can roll it
into the shape of a funnel and use it to get sugar
into a narrow bottle opening without spilling sugar
all over the bottle (and counter) thus not having
to take twenty minutes to spoon the sugar in, OR
i can roll it up lengthwise and use it to swat flies,
OR i can tape it to the window to extend the area
of protection when i paint the walls, OR i can do
a zillion other things with it..."
but someone like you comes along and says:
"it's not a blog, it's a Google Group, dummy!"
> Wouldn't want to lose track, would you?
of course i wouldn't.
what gain is there in that?
> Tosser.
you're the one who carelessly throws away a piece of paper after
you've writen a note on it, because you're too creatively impaired to
see that although it may have been originally designed to be written
on, you can also put it to many other worthwhile uses.
IOW: you're the tosser, not moi.
i'm the creative genius.
i'm someone who sees things for what they are, not for what some
salesmen have convinced me they are -- just so they can keep selling
you the same old crap over and over -- and then charge you extra for
hauling away all of your carelessly wasted opportunities.
"it's not a blog, it's a Google Group, dummy!"
oh.
thanks for clearing that up for moi, Alan.
yikes.
so, in summary, where you saw:
"a $500 dollar phone -- it's a status symbol"
i saw:
"an elaborately new-featured phone,
an ipod, a dictaphone, a media-player,
an email device, a web-browser, etc."
and where IBM once thought:
"you want the rights to the fricken' software?
sure, have at it. it's useless without our machines."
Bill Gates saw:
"cha' ching!"
duh.
...
now you'll tell me i'm an anal retentive loon, right?
of course.
because that's exactly how you view things.
$Zero
> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >Josh Hill goes:
>
> >>Except that Chase was quoted as saying that everything you need to
> >>establish the outcome is in the episode. After I read that, I gave the
> >>ending a second look, and it was clear that Tony dies. Check it out.
> >>You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
> >>Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
> >>looking at.
>
> >No, they don't.
>
> >That's a standard field-reverse field montage. It's been around
> >forever. It's not the law, though. And they don't always shoot Tony as
> >you suggest. In the episode I watched this evening they showed his
> >face in tight then the back of his head in a medium-long shot.
>
> But it's consistent throughout this scene,
no it isn't.
there's plenty of audience-only points of view.
(whatever you call that, technically).
plus other characters' points of view, as well.
not to mention the Kubrick Dave Bowman thinger when Tony first arrives
at the diner.
which you're fixated on, to the exclusion of everything else,
apparently.
> and the final moment is clearly from Tony's POV:
no, it isn't.
it could be, but not exclusively.
there are many other possibilities.
though Tony getting whacked is certainly one of the two or three most
thought-provoking of those possibilities.
the way it suggests how brutal violence is, and how final killing is
(which was often otherwise glorified and "entertaining" through out
the series).
not to mention the roll of karma and whatnot.
but that's only one view of things.
> zoom in and pan a bit, he looks up, the
> screen goes black. It can't be from anyone else's.
yes it can.
it could be Meadow's, Carmella's, AJ's, the Soprano fans, or Chase's.
not to mention that it could just be a panic attack black-out.
thus showing how Tony is condemned to live the rest of his life, day
in, day out -- suspicious and stressed, at at every turn.
or it might not be a black-out at all.
just the ultimate cliff-hanger.
the best part about it is how so many don't want it to be the end.
THAT's the most effective and thought-provoking metaphor there is, no
matter which ending one chooses.
so many of the fans have come to quickly forgive many of these
obnoxious characters for all of their brutal sins -- note how so many
reacted to Tony's taxi calling service for Christophuh.
at first, there's a deep disgust towards Tony for what he did to
Christophuh, but it's like we all kinda "forgot" what Christophuh did
to the innocent screen writer at the end of the previous episode --
though Tony didn't "know" that -- and it wasn't his way of dealing out
justice for that -- he was just covering his own ass.
all of these characters are soon forgiven by the audience because of
their respective underlying humanities.
(both the character's and the audience's).
the ambiguous blank silent screen ending might represent "payback" for
all of those selfish yet generous rationalizations -- "viewers, you've
been fuckin' whacked! (and you didn't see it comin', neither!) -- see
how that feels? -- not so fucking funny and entertaining, is it?"
but the overall message is a hopeful one -- on some spiritual "we-are-
all-sinners" level.
"Don't Stop Believing"
Journey
"Any way you want it"
-- Jukebox title card
"enjoy the music"
-- Tony Soprano
http://tinypic.com/4pd4ei1.jpg
...
unless you're an atheist, of course.
then the message is:
stay the fuck out of trouble, idiot.
and...
be nice!
and...
"enjoy the music"
-- Tony Soprano
or simply:
reconsider your atheisim, idiot, because:
"everything comes to an end"
-- Carmella Soprano
[last season trailer commercial tagline]
The Sopranos Final 9 Episodes Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8lHGw4arsM
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >i read somewhere that Apple's choice of AT&T had (at least partly)
> >something to do with the iPhone's battery depletion issue and how
> >AT&T's Edge network could help in that regard.
>
> What battery depletion issue? That's the iPod. The iPhone hasn't been
> around long enough for the battery to deplete.
the battery that Apple is using in the iPhone is known by Apple to not
be able to last long while doing high-end web browsing.
> And how would your phone provider help with your battery issues,
> exactly?
that's a bit fuzzy to me, but it was something about the lower level
of high-end cellular service that AT&T had -- combined with their fall-
back Edge network -- which would allow the iPhone to operate more
efficiently battery-wise.
and since AT&T is behind in that way, they were more eager to invest
in upgrading their cellular service to accomodate some of the new
features of the iPhone.
it's very complicated mutually benefitial deal-making stuff of some
sort.
anyway, why do you ask?
what's your theory, Alan?
Jobs chose last place AT&T because he's a tosser?
$Zero
> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> >> >> >http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291
> >> >> Three years ago it took me 36 hours just to get my number
> >> >> transferred from Verizon to Sprint. It looks like this is nothing all
> >> >> that unusual.
> >> >yeah.
> >> >they kinda buried that claim in the article, but optimistic pro-iPhone
> >> >people could hardly have missed it.
> >> >it's kinda like the Sopranos ending.
> >> >everyone writes their own.
> >> Only if they don't get it.
> >you act as though you get it.
> >not even David Chase can say what the ending is anymore. *
> >unless he does a sequel.
> >* which he probably wouldn't even want to.
>
> That's not true.
yes it is.
> He certainly claims to get it, though he won't give details.
why not, Alan?
duh.
> >hence, a true work of art.
>
> Again with the subjects you don't understand.
i think you lost the artistic thread of logic somewhere along the
line.
try blowing your whistle and see if it will come charging back to you.
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >nope.
>
> >it could have been Meadow's point of view just as well.
>
> No, they never establish Meadow's POV.
define: "establish"
cripes.
and then explain her parallel parking POV escapade from "Tony's POV".
actually, if you get stumped, i could make an argument for you in that
regard.
however, i can counter it just as well.
$Zero
> Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> >
> > <http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291>
>
> "It's like I got a Teddy Ruxpin and had to wait a day for the battery
> delivery," [whined] one user on thewww.engadget.comweb site. "It's
> annoying that everything is crippled until activation is complete."
was that funny, or what?
> Grow up, lady.
>
> "I'm sure
> It's like really nauseating
> Like BARF OUT
> GAG ME WITH A SPOON"
> - Moon Zappa, Valley Girl
http://www.science.uva.nl/~robbert/zappa/albums/Strictly_Commercial
> I hope that her husband swaps the tape cassette in Teddy Ruxpin's
> belly with a recording of Zappa's "The Torture Never Stops." Teddy
> Ruxpin speaks with the voice of Frank Zappa.
LOL.
what imagery!
> --http://www.well.com/user/silly/blog.html
> "Are you ready to take your place
> in the modern museum of mistakes?" - Elvis Costello
"spin, spin, spin..."
i'm sure the iPhone will continue to be an interesting product
adventure.
with all the competition pulling its hair out to get a piece of the
Apple pie.
also from the mercurynews.com article:
[one man on the engadget.com site reported:]
"So I have the latest and greatest in paper weights."
[A Sacramento user isn't so sure. Venting about the
product on Apple's web site at 3:27 a.m. Saturday,
he lamented switching over from Sprint.]
"I stand in line for 2 hours, spend $700 for the phone,
car charger and misc accessories, and now I have been
waiting 7 hours, 10 minutes for this `useless brick'
to activate."
so, have there been any glowing reviews out there in Cali?
or is EVERYONE disappointed?
besides the Apple reps and whatnot, that is.
Alan Hope
>On Jul 1, 8:44?pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >> >not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
>> >> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
>> >> >> Why are you running a so-called blog as a Google Group?
>> >> >it's not a blog, it's a megablog.
>> >> It's a Google group with nobody but you in it.
>> >not true.
>> >> >> Does that offer you advantages the numerous blogging
>> >> >> outfits (including Google's own) don't?
>> >> >nicely threaded comments.
>> >> You haven't had a single comment yet.
>> >actually, there was one comment.
>> >but only one.
>> Well, good thing you have comment-threading going on.
>it's the default configuration of Google Groups.
>and it's one of the best features about it, megablog-wise.
You can keep track of your single comment.
>it provides very useful options whether there's a hundred other
>commentors or none.
>see, people like yourself look at a blank piece of paper and think:
> "there's a blank piece of paper to write on. ho hum."
That's because I'm a writer.
>whereas creative geniuses like myself say:
> "hey, there's a blank piece of paper to write on!
> AND it could be folded into a paper airplane,
> OR an oragami, OR a beer coaster, OR i can wipe
> my butt with it in a pinch, OR i can poke a hole
> in the center and use it to safely view an eclipse
> on another blank piece of paper, OR i can use it as
> a mini movie screen, OR i can fold it into one of
> those four-leaf finger-snapper thingers AND write
> funny questions on each panel, OR i can roll it
> into the shape of a funnel and use it to get sugar
> into a narrow bottle opening without spilling sugar
> all over the bottle (and counter) thus not having
> to take twenty minutes to spoon the sugar in, OR
> i can roll it up lengthwise and use it to swat flies,
> OR i can tape it to the window to extend the area
> of protection when i paint the walls, OR i can do
> a zillion other things with it..."
And then in the end you do fuck-all with it. And blame someone else
for sabotaging it through the phone-wires or something. None of those
ideas was even remotely creative, by the way.
>but someone like you comes along and says:
> "it's not a blog, it's a Google Group, dummy!"
Which is indeed the case. See I'm not deluded like you.
>> Wouldn't want to lose track, would you?
>of course i wouldn't.
>what gain is there in that?
>> Tosser.
>you're the one who carelessly throws away a piece of paper after
>you've writen a note on it, because you're too creatively impaired to
>see that although it may have been originally designed to be written
>on, you can also put it to many other worthwhile uses.
I can buy beer coasters and movie screens with the money I make from
my notes.
>IOW: you're the tosser, not moi.
>i'm the creative genius.
You're a wacko.
>i'm someone who sees things for what they are, not for what some
>salesmen have convinced me they are -- just so they can keep selling
>you the same old crap over and over -- and then charge you extra for
>hauling away all of your carelessly wasted opportunities.
Oh dear.
> "it's not a blog, it's a Google Group, dummy!"
>oh.
>thanks for clearing that up for moi, Alan.
>yikes.
>so, in summary,
Nothing new from this point on. You're a very boring writer, you know.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>what's your theory, Alan?
>
>Jobs chose last place AT&T because he's a tosser?
I was talking about the battery.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Jul 1, 8:53?pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >i think he said something more like "it's all there"
>> Read what he actually said.
>i did once, somewhere.
>but i really don't care what he said.
Obviously.
>(reread the gist of what you snipped)
>Chase's post-airing comments have no bearing whatsoever on his
>completed work.
What a nitwit comment.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >what's your theory, Alan?
>
> >Jobs chose last place AT&T because he's a tosser?
>
> I was talking about the battery.
well, are you at least up to speed on the facts of the battery
depletion?
and how a product doesn't need to have been on the market for years
before the manufacturer has a clue about its performance?
one sure hopes so.
but i still have my doubts about you.
-$Zero...
not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >i think he said something more like "it's all there"
> >> Read what he actually said.
BTW: i just looked it up and that is exactly what he said.
> >i did once, somewhere.
> >but i really don't care what he said.
>
> Obviously.
and for good reason.
duh.
besides that, Chase himself said the work speaks for itself.
(as of course it should, like duh -- my whole point)
so either way i'm covered, both logically and artistically, and
otherwise.
whereas yourself?
yikes.
you haven't even ventured out to make your own "brilliant" assessment.
oh my.
i wonder why.
> >(reread the gist of what you snipped)
> >Chase's post-airing comments have no bearing whatsoever on his
> >completed work.
>
> What a nitwit comment.
not at all.
but go ahead, make your case.
let's see your interpretation.
and here's a link to some cheat notes, i suppose.
"Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there,"
-- David Chase
"I have no interest in explaining, defending, reinterpreting,
or adding to what is there. No one was trying to be audacious,
honest to God. We did what we thought we had to do. No one was
trying to blow people's minds, or thinking, 'Wow, this'll (tick)
them off.' People get the impression that you're trying to (mess)
with them and it's not true. You're trying to entertain them."
-- David Chase
http://blog.nj.com/alltv/2007/06/david_chase_speaks.html#more
so when can we expect your first draft?
a couple months perhaps?
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >> >> >not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
> >> >> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
> >> >> >> Why are you running a so-called blog as a Google Group?
> >> >> >it's not a blog, it's a megablog.
> >> >> It's a Google group with nobody but you in it.
> >> >not true.
> >> >> >> Does that offer you advantages the numerous blogging
> >> >> >> outfits (including Google's own) don't?
> >> >> >nicely threaded comments.
> >> >> You haven't had a single comment yet.
> >> >actually, there was one comment.
> >> >but only one.
> >> Well, good thing you have comment-threading going on.
> >it's the default configuration of Google Groups.
> >and it's one of the best features about it, megablog-wise.
>
> You can keep track of your single comment.
and all others that follow it.
plus all of my own comments.
all nicely threaded and easily and quickly google-searchable by
keywords.
it's a great way to organize a megablog.
yes it is.
> >it provides very useful options whether there's a hundred other
> >commentors or none.
> >see, people like yourself look at a blank piece of paper and think:
> > "there's a blank piece of paper to write on. ho hum."
>
> That's because I'm a writer.
so am i, but i mostly use a keyboard these days.
thanks to people like Steve Jobs and other such creative geniuses like
myself.
> > whereas creative geniuses like myself say:
> >
> > "hey, there's a blank piece of paper to write on!
> > AND it could be folded into a paper airplane,
> > OR an oragami, OR a beer coaster, OR i can wipe
> > my butt with it in a pinch, OR i can poke a hole
> > in the center and use it to safely view an eclipse
> > on another blank piece of paper, OR i can use it as
> > a mini movie screen, OR i can fold it into one of
> > those four-leaf finger-snapper thingers AND write
> > funny questions on each panel, OR i can roll it
> > into the shape of a funnel and use it to get sugar
> > into a narrow bottle opening without spilling sugar
> > all over the bottle (and counter) thus not having
> > to take twenty minutes to spoon the sugar in, OR
> > i can roll it up lengthwise and use it to swat flies,
> > OR i can tape it to the window to extend the area
> > of protection when i paint the walls, OR i can do
> > a zillion other things with it..."
>
> And then in the end you do fuck-all with it.
not true.
> And blame someone else
> for sabotaging it through the phone-wires or something.
only because such stuff like that is true.
would you prefer i lie?
not very journalistic of you, is it?
> None of those
> ideas was even remotely creative, by the way.
it was a metaphor, Alan, not a patent application for things one can
do with a piece of fucking paper.
LOL
> >but someone like you comes along and says:
> >
> > "it's not a blog, it's a Google Group, dummy!"
>
> Which is indeed the case. See I'm not deluded like you.
you are indeed deluded, just in the opposite direction that you
wrongfully suppose that i am.
> >> Wouldn't want to lose track, would you?
> >of course i wouldn't.
> >what gain is there in that?
> >> Tosser.
> >you're the one who carelessly throws away a piece of paper after
> >you've writen a note on it, because you're too creatively impaired to
> >see that although it may have been originally designed to be written
> >on, you can also put it to many other worthwhile uses.
>
> I can buy beer coasters and movie screens with the money I make from
> my notes.
so could i, were i willing to make all of the compromises that you've
made.
> >IOW: you're the tosser, not moi.
> >i'm the creative genius.
>
> You're a wacko.
us creative genius "wackos" are quite used to being considered such by
blinded people of your ilk.
> >i'm someone who sees things for what they are, not for what some
> >salesmen have convinced me they are -- just so they can keep selling
> >you the same old crap over and over -- and then charge you extra for
> >hauling away all of your carelessly wasted opportunities.
>
> Oh dear.
metaphor remorse?
> > "it's not a blog, it's a Google Group, dummy!"
> >oh.
> >thanks for clearing that up for moi, Alan.
> >yikes.
> >so, in summary,
>
> Nothing new from this point on.
sure.
kinda makes one want to do a quick upthread peek, no?
> You're a very boring writer, you know.
oh yes, i've noticed that.
quite dull.
and totally non-insightful, to boot.
what a combo.
-$Zero...
Money -- wikipedia find of the day
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/8f6f0c049da1943a
not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
Alan Hope
>> You can keep track of your single comment.
>and all others that follow it.
<cue tumbleweed>
>plus all of my own comments.
>all nicely threaded and easily and quickly google-searchable by
>keywords.
Searching your own comments to yourself.
>it's a great way to organize a megablog.
>yes it is.
What's "mega" about it?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Jul 2, 4:48?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >what's your theory, Alan?
>> >Jobs chose last place AT&T because he's a tosser?
>> I was talking about the battery.
>well, are you at least up to speed on the facts of the battery
>depletion?
Why don't you point me to the evidence for your claim that there's a
problem?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Jul 2, 4:49?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >i think he said something more like "it's all there"
>> >> Read what he actually said.
>BTW: i just looked it up and that is exactly what he said.
Read all of what he said.
>> >i did once, somewhere.
>> >but i really don't care what he said.
>> Obviously.
>and for good reason.
>duh.
>besides that, Chase himself said the work speaks for itself.
>(as of course it should, like duh -- my whole point)
Art should speak for itself? Really? So what are the paintings of
Poussin saying to you?
>so either way i'm covered, both logically and artistically, and
>otherwise.
You haven't the faintest idea about either logic or art, you red-nosed
clown.
>whereas yourself?
>yikes.
>you haven't even ventured out to make your own "brilliant" assessment.
I haven't seen the episode yet.
>oh my.
>i wonder why.
Because it hasn't been on. Unlike you, I don't pronounce on things I
know nothing about.
>> >(reread the gist of what you snipped)
>> >Chase's post-airing comments have no bearing whatsoever on his
>> >completed work.
>> What a nitwit comment.
>not at all.
Yes.
>but go ahead, make your case.
The work is his, therefore his comments have an obvious bearing on it.
>let's see your interpretation.
Let's see you claim TS Eliot's opinions on poetry have nothing to do
with how we should view his poems.
>and here's a link to some cheat notes, i suppose.
> "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there,"
> -- David Chase
> "I have no interest in explaining, defending, reinterpreting,
> or adding to what is there. No one was trying to be audacious,
> honest to God. We did what we thought we had to do. No one was
> trying to blow people's minds, or thinking, 'Wow, this'll (tick)
> them off.' People get the impression that you're trying to (mess)
> with them and it's not true. You're trying to entertain them."
> -- David Chase
>http://blog.nj.com/alltv/2007/06/david_chase_speaks.html#more
>so when can we expect your first draft?
When I've seen the episode. What the fuck is wrong with you? Did you
think all this time I'm an American?
>a couple months perhaps?
Certainly. The first episode of Season Six Part Two aired last night.
How many weeks does that leave? And if I miss one, I'll wait for the
DVDs.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:56:55 +0200, Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com>
>wrote:
>>Josh Hill goes:
>>>Except that Chase was quoted as saying that everything you need to
>>>establish the outcome is in the episode. After I read that, I gave the
>>>ending a second look, and it was clear that Tony dies. Check it out.
>>>You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
>>>Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
>>>looking at.
>>No, they don't.
>>That's a standard field-reverse field montage. It's been around
>>forever. It's not the law, though. And they don't always shoot Tony as
>>you suggest. In the episode I watched this evening they showed his
>>face in tight then the back of his head in a medium-long shot.
>But it's consistent throughout this scene, and the final moment is
>clearly from Tony's POV: zoom in and pan a bit, he looks up, the
>screen goes black. It can't be from anyone else's.
It could be that it's not a POV at all. It could be it's just a
blackout.
>>>So the black is from his POV. It's literal. He's gone.
>>That's what the Judean People's Liberation Front say. The Front for
>>the Liberation of the Judean People think differently.
>The Front for the Liberation of the Judean People /thought/
>differently. That's one less iPhone for you -- we go first class.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Jul 1, 8:52?pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291
>> >> >> Three years ago it took me 36 hours just to get my number
>> >> >> transferred from Verizon to Sprint. It looks like this is nothing all
>> >> >> that unusual.
>> >> >yeah.
>> >> >they kinda buried that claim in the article, but optimistic pro-iPhone
>> >> >people could hardly have missed it.
>> >> >it's kinda like the Sopranos ending.
>> >> >everyone writes their own.
>> >> Only if they don't get it.
>> >you act as though you get it.
>> >not even David Chase can say what the ending is anymore. *
>> >unless he does a sequel.
>> >* which he probably wouldn't even want to.
>> That's not true.
>yes it is.
He can't say what the ending is? Whatever gave you that idea?
>> He certainly claims to get it, though he won't give details.
>why not, Alan?
>duh.
Duh yourself. He chooses not to. You think the guy who created the
series and wrote the final episode doesn't know what it's about?
You're judging other, really creative people, by the standards of your
own "creativity".
>> >hence, a true work of art.
>> Again with the subjects you don't understand.
>i think you lost the artistic thread of logic somewhere along the
>line.
Prove it.
>try blowing your whistle and see if it will come charging back to you.
Stealing my lines. What a genius.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >> You can keep track of your single comment.
> >and all others that follow it.
>
> <cue tumbleweed>
but why, Alan?
what's your theory?
let's hear it.
150+ blog entries and only one comment so far.
why?
> >plus all of my own comments.
> >all nicely threaded and easily and quickly google-searchable by
> >keywords.
>
> Searching your own comments to yourself.
yep.
like for instance, i type in: jukebox
and... voila!
i can quickly grab a hotlink to a youtube video that i've previously
found in order to use it to help make some other commentary.
see how that worrks?
of course, i can check the whole megablog archive for any other kind
of stuff in just the same way.
like, if i was looking for links to something that i noted in a
previous article, same thing.
when there are more comment leavers, _their_ interesting contributions
will also be in the archive.
i mean, you know how google works, don't you?
> >it's a great way to organize a megablog.
> >yes it is.
>
> What's "mega" about it?
well, mostly right now, it's a mega-mystery innit.
any insightful or comic theories as to why, Alan?
it's certainly not because i don't write interesting and entertaining
stuff here and there.
so what's your theory?
-$Zero...
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >On Jul 2, 4:48?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >what's your theory, Alan?
> >> >Jobs chose last place AT&T because he's a tosser?
> >> I was talking about the battery.
> >well, are you at least up to speed on the facts of the battery
> >depletion?
>
> Why don't you point me to the evidence for your claim that
> there's a problem?
google is your friend.
and it's free!
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >> >i think he said something more like "it's all there"
> >> >> Read what he actually said.
> >BTW: i just looked it up and that is exactly what he said.
>
> Read all of what he said.
i did.
now reread what i said above and what your reply was.
> >> >i did once, somewhere.
> >> >but i really don't care what he said.
> >> Obviously.
> >and for good reason.
> >duh.
> >besides that, Chase himself said the work speaks for itself.
> >(as of course it should, like duh -- my whole point)
>
> Art should speak for itself? Really?
certainly an 86 episode cable series ought to, no?
or do we need to consult with all the writers, directors, actors, and
keygrips as well?
> So what are the paintings of Poussin saying to you?
i don't know, i'm unfamiliar with that.
perhaps i'll look up a few Poussin paintings and get back to you on
it.
> >so either way i'm covered, both logically and artistically, and
> >otherwise.
>
> You haven't the faintest idea about either logic or art, you red-nosed
> clown.
i have a gazillion times more logic than you, Alan.
and my ideas about Art are my own.
by my own choice.
> >whereas yourself?
> >yikes.
> >you haven't even ventured out to make your own "brilliant" assessment.
>
> I haven't seen the episode yet.
you were claiming otherwise elsewhere.
in this very thread.
i think it was when you were arguing with Josh about something you now
claim you haven't even seen yet.
anyway...
> >you haven't even ventured out to make your own "brilliant" assessment.
>
> I haven't seen the episode yet.
yet you have postured that you know what was meant by the final scene
-- far more than Josh or myself -- whom have both actually watched it
at least twice.
fascinating.
> >oh my.
> >i wonder why.
>
> Because it hasn't been on. Unlike you, I don't pronounce on things I
> know nothing about.
hence your pontifications on it in this thread.
marvelous.
> >> >(reread the gist of what you snipped)
> >> >Chase's post-airing comments have no bearing whatsoever on his
> >> >completed work.
> >> What a nitwit comment.
> >not at all.
>
> Yes.
no.
but anyway, he said nothing about it that contradicted anything i've
said.
unless you'd like to make a comparison of something that proves you
theory in that regard.
> >but go ahead, make your case.
>
> The work is his, therefore his comments have an obvious bearing on it.
maybe, maybe not.
depends on whether he's bullshiting or not.
Dyan's famous for that sort of thing.
and Chase is a big fan of Dylan -- more cheat notes for you.
but the final product is in a form that should speak for itself,
unless it's not done yet, right?
see also the recent controversy about Fahrenheit 451 and Ray
Bradbury.
i guess it's a good thing that he didn't die years ago right after he
finished the book, huh?
then we'd never know what it was REALLY about.
> >let's see your interpretation.
>
> Let's see you claim TS Eliot's opinions on poetry have nothing to do
> with how we should view his poems.
his comments can present a context which favors a certain
interpretation, sure, but his poetry ought to stand on its own,
assuming that is the way he wrote it, no?
so were Eliot's poems written that way, or in a way that needed
further explanation?
> >and here's a link to some cheat notes, i suppose.
> > "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there,"
> > -- David Chase
> > "I have no interest in explaining, defending, reinterpreting,
> > or adding to what is there. No one was trying to be audacious,
> > honest to God. We did what we thought we had to do. No one was
> > trying to blow people's minds, or thinking, 'Wow, this'll (tick)
> > them off.' People get the impression that you're trying to (mess)
> > with them and it's not true. You're trying to entertain them."
> > -- David Chase
> >http://blog.nj.com/alltv/2007/06/david_chase_speaks.html#more
> >so when can we expect your first draft?
>
> When I've seen the episode. What the fuck is wrong with you?
> Did you think all this time I'm an American?
you've said elsewhere in this thread that you watched it a few nights
ago.
and i don't mean the episode you mentioned in your mega-reader blog.
(which obviously whooshed you, if you thought it was dull).
watch it again and then read my megablog about it.
or perhaps vice versa.
> >a couple months perhaps?
>
> Certainly. The first episode of Season Six Part Two aired last night.
> How many weeks does that leave?
eight or so.
> And if I miss one, I'll wait for the DVDs.
so more like a couple years then, aye?
that should give you plenty of time to come up with something that i
kinda did weeks before i, or anyone else, ever saw the thing.
check the megablog for confirmation using keyword: Sopranos
or some such.
enjoy.
$Zero
well, Alan, first of all, that is not how it was presented, was it?
secondly, how will we ever know what he really meant?
what prevented Chase from artfully incorporating two or more
completely plausible endings into the story and then waiting for some
future date to choose which one he wants to claim was his ONLY intent?
see how that works?
it's called logic.
now, we can never ever know what his intent really was.
the only way he can EVER have any say so in the matter is to continue
with a follow-up.
but even then, we're only left dealing with the new development -- not
necessarily his original intent.
again, it's logic.
irrefutable logic at that.
hope you enjoyed your free lesson.
i know i enjoyed teaching it to you.
> >> He certainly claims to get it, though he won't give details.
> >why not, Alan?
> >duh.
>
> Duh yourself. He chooses not to.
but why, Alan?
you avoided that aspect of the question.
> You think the guy who created the
> series and wrote the final episode
> doesn't know what it's about?
he may know, but we never will.
he can do his damnedest to try to convince us, by citing various
things he placed in the story, however, he may have placed many
possible plausible proofs.
see that?
besides, he's flat out said that he does not want to tell us in any
other way than having us watch the thing ourselves -- he's told us to
figure it out for ourselves.
now you're coming along and claiming that there can only be one valid
conclusion in that matter.
how in the world did you formulate THAT wild idea?
> You're judging other, really creative people, by the standards of your
> own "creativity".
yes. and by clearly demonstratable logic.
> >> >hence, a true work of art.
> >> Again with the subjects you don't understand.
> >i think you lost the artistic thread of logic somewhere along the
> >line.
>
> Prove it.
scroll up.
> >try blowing your whistle and see if it will come charging back to you.
>
> Stealing my lines. What a genius.
why not just be flattered?
you're certainly more creative than most.
$Zero
> Josh Hill goes:
> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>Josh Hill goes:
> >>
> >>>Except that Chase was quoted as saying that everything you need to
> >>>establish the outcome is in the episode. After I read that, I gave the
> >>>ending a second look, and it was clear that Tony dies. Check it out.
> >>>You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
> >>>Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
> >>>looking at.
> >>No, they don't.
> >>That's a standard field-reverse field montage. It's been around
> >>forever. It's not the law, though. And they don't always shoot Tony as
> >>you suggest. In the episode I watched this evening they showed his
> >>face in tight then the back of his head in a medium-long shot.
> >But it's consistent throughout this scene, and the final moment is
> >clearly from Tony's POV: zoom in and pan a bit, he looks up, the
> >screen goes black. It can't be from anyone else's.
>
> It could be that it's not a POV at all. It could be it's just a
> blackout.
yep.
that's certainly one of the several completely plausible
possibilities.
> >>>So the black is from his POV. It's literal. He's gone.
> >>That's what the Judean People's Liberation Front say. The Front for
> >>the Liberation of the Judean People think differently.
> >The Front for the Liberation of the Judean People /thought/
> >differently.
Life of Brian, right?
> >That's one less iPhone for you -- we go first class.
iPhone envy.
Alan Hope
That doesn't stop him saying. My French doesn't stop being perfect
just because you don't understand it.
>what prevented Chase from artfully incorporating two or more
>completely plausible endings into the story and then waiting for some
>future date to choose which one he wants to claim was his ONLY intent?
How do you know he didn't?
>see how that works?
How what works? You asked a question.
>it's called logic.
I see you know as much about logic as you do about most other things:
i.e. fuck-all.
>now, we can never ever know what his intent really was.
>the only way he can EVER have any say so in the matter is to continue
>with a follow-up.
But he did have an intent. Whether it's apparent to you is immaterial.
>but even then, we're only left dealing with the new development -- not
>necessarily his original intent.
>again, it's logic.
There's no logic within a mile of your posting.
>irrefutable logic at that.
>hope you enjoyed your free lesson.
It's irrefutable because it isn't logic. You haven't said anything.
>i know i enjoyed teaching it to you.
>> >> He certainly claims to get it, though he won't give details.
>> >why not, Alan?
>> >duh.
>> Duh yourself. He chooses not to.
>but why, Alan?
What difference does it make? The fact that he doesn't say is no
indication that he can't say, which was your original stupid claim.
>you avoided that aspect of the question.
It's not an aspect of the question. It's of no consequence at all.
>> You think the guy who created the
>> series and wrote the final episode
>> doesn't know what it's about?
>he may know, but we never will.
>he can do his damnedest to try to convince us, by citing various
>things he placed in the story, however, he may have placed many
>possible plausible proofs.
>see that?
See what? You're stating the obvious.
>besides, he's flat out said that he does not want to tell us in any
>other way than having us watch the thing ourselves -- he's told us to
>figure it out for ourselves.
And?
>now you're coming along and claiming that there can only be one valid
>conclusion in that matter.
There is only one true ending. Others may be valid, but only one is
the correct ending.
>how in the world did you formulate THAT wild idea?
It's quite simple. He created it with one meaning in mind, and then
went about the business of disguising his intent. We may never guess
right, or we may guess and be right, without knowing so. There's
absolutely no reason why people couldn't guess and be correct. It's
just not possible to say.
>> You're judging other, really creative people, by the standards of your
>> own "creativity".
>yes. and by clearly demonstratable logic.
Detail your logic, then. Lay it out in a schema. If it's really
logical, you should have no trouble.
>> >> >hence, a true work of art.
>> >> Again with the subjects you don't understand.
>> >i think you lost the artistic thread of logic somewhere along the
>> >line.
>> Prove it.
>scroll up.
No answer, then.
>> >try blowing your whistle and see if it will come charging back to you.
>> Stealing my lines. What a genius.
>why not just be flattered?
>you're certainly more creative than most.
More than you, anyway.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Jul 2, 8:41?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >> You can keep track of your single comment.
>> >and all others that follow it.
>> <cue tumbleweed>
>but why, Alan?
>what's your theory?
>let's hear it.
>150+ blog entries and only one comment so far.
>why?
Because the only people likely to go to your "megablog" are people who
have come across you already, here. And so they have no desire to
subject themselves to yet more of your tired delusional wittering.
>> >plus all of my own comments.
>> >all nicely threaded and easily and quickly google-searchable by
>> >keywords.
>> Searching your own comments to yourself.
>yep.
>like for instance, i type in: jukebox
>and... voila!
>i can quickly grab a hotlink to a youtube video that i've previously
>found in order to use it to help make some other commentary.
Fantastic. You could also search YouTube. Or just not repeat yourself
to yourself.
You can do the same thing in Blogger, only faster, by using tags.
>see how that worrks?
>of course, i can check the whole megablog archive for any other kind
>of stuff in just the same way.
So what? Where's the advantage in that?
>like, if i was looking for links to something that i noted in a
>previous article, same thing.
I heard you the first time. This is not another advantage, it's the
same one all over again. So you can find things you posted earlier.
BFD.
>when there are more comment leavers, _their_ interesting contributions
>will also be in the archive.
If, not when.
>i mean, you know how google works, don't you?
Google owns Blogger. Are you stupid?
>> >it's a great way to organize a megablog.
>> >yes it is.
>> What's "mega" about it?
>well, mostly right now, it's a mega-mystery innit.
So it's not mega at all. It's actually uncommonly puny.
>any insightful or comic theories as to why, Alan?
>it's certainly not because i don't write interesting and entertaining
>stuff here and there.
It's exactly because of that.
>so what's your theory?
That's my theory. You're full of wacko shit and nobody's interested.
Sorry if that doesn't flatter you as much as your nutball conspiracy
theories would.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Jul 2, 8:42?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >On Jul 2, 4:48?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >what's your theory, Alan?
>> >> >Jobs chose last place AT&T because he's a tosser?
>> >> I was talking about the battery.
>> >well, are you at least up to speed on the facts of the battery
>> >depletion?
>> Why don't you point me to the evidence for your claim that
>> there's a problem?
>google is your friend.
>and it's free!
So you have no evidence, then. Got it.
yikes.
duh.
hic.
rowrrowr spots.
ker-ching!
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>150+ blog entries and only one comment so far.
>
>why?
I wonder. Give us your theory, Xero.
>like for instance, i type in: jukebox
>
>and... voila!
>
>i can quickly grab a hotlink to a youtube video that i've previously
>found in order to use it to help make some other commentary.
Hey, genius. It's called HTML and it's been around a while. Maybe
you should go to the unicornian HTML page:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
--
Ray
Alan Hope
>On Jul 2, 8:47?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >> >i think he said something more like "it's all there"
>> >> >> Read what he actually said.
>> >BTW: i just looked it up and that is exactly what he said.
>> Read all of what he said.
>i did.
>now reread what i said above and what your reply was.
>> >> >i did once, somewhere.
>> >> >but i really don't care what he said.
>> >> Obviously.
>> >and for good reason.
>> >duh.
>> >besides that, Chase himself said the work speaks for itself.
>> >(as of course it should, like duh -- my whole point)
>> Art should speak for itself? Really?
>certainly an 86 episode cable series ought to, no?
No.
>or do we need to consult with all the writers, directors, actors, and
>keygrips as well?
No. We need to know where the art was made, and from what. Context.
>> So what are the paintings of Poussin saying to you?
>i don't know, i'm unfamiliar with that.
Get out, really?
>perhaps i'll look up a few Poussin paintings and get back to you on
>it.
Don't bother.
>> >so either way i'm covered, both logically and artistically, and
>> >otherwise.
>> You haven't the faintest idea about either logic or art, you red-nosed
>> clown.
>i have a gazillion times more logic than you, Alan.
That's proof.
>and my ideas about Art are my own.
Indeed.
>by my own choice.
By necessity. Your psychosis is not something you can put on and take
off.
>> >whereas yourself?
>> >yikes.
>> >you haven't even ventured out to make your own "brilliant" assessment.
>> I haven't seen the episode yet.
>you were claiming otherwise elsewhere.
No, I was claiming no such thing.
>in this very thread.
Nope.
>i think it was when you were arguing with Josh about something you now
>claim you haven't even seen yet.
Read my comments again. Josh was making claims about what they "always
do" in The Sopranos in "establishing" POVs. I pointed out with a
counter-example from another episode (Sopranos Home Movies, if you
must know). As you know as a logic buff, a thing can be proved to be
not universal with a single counter-example.
>anyway...
>> >you haven't even ventured out to make your own "brilliant" assessment.
>> I haven't seen the episode yet.
>yet you have postured that you know what was meant by the final scene
Not at all.
>-- far more than Josh or myself -- whom have both actually watched it
>at least twice.
I've given no opinion. I've pointed out you're both fools to think it
must be this or must be that.
>fascinating.
>> >oh my.
>> >i wonder why.
>> Because it hasn't been on. Unlike you, I don't pronounce on things I
>> know nothing about.
>hence your pontifications on it in this thread.
I haven't said anything about it. You simply can't read intelligently.
You're dumb.
>marvelous.
>> >> >(reread the gist of what you snipped)
>> >> >Chase's post-airing comments have no bearing whatsoever on his
>> >> >completed work.
>> >> What a nitwit comment.
>> >not at all.
>> Yes.
>no.
>but anyway, he said nothing about it that contradicted anything i've
>said.
All the more reason to condemn him.
>unless you'd like to make a comparison of something that proves you
>theory in that regard.
What theory?
>> >but go ahead, make your case.
>> The work is his, therefore his comments have an obvious bearing on it.
>maybe, maybe not.
No maybe about it.
>depends on whether he's bullshiting or not.
What he chooses to bullshit about, and why, would still be germane.
>Dyan's famous for that sort of thing.
Dyan?
>and Chase is a big fan of Dylan -- more cheat notes for you.
So what? He's not writing songs.
>but the final product is in a form that should speak for itself,
>unless it's not done yet, right?
How could you ever know if it were speaking for itself?
>see also the recent controversy about Fahrenheit 451 and Ray
>Bradbury.
>i guess it's a good thing that he didn't die years ago right after he
>finished the book, huh?
>then we'd never know what it was REALLY about.
What are you drivelling about?
>> >let's see your interpretation.
>> Let's see you claim TS Eliot's opinions on poetry have nothing to do
>> with how we should view his poems.
>his comments can present a context which favors a certain
>interpretation, sure, but his poetry ought to stand on its own,
>assuming that is the way he wrote it, no?
What does that even mean? Do you know? What does "his poetry ought to
stand on its own" mean? How do you know when it's happening?
>so were Eliot's poems written that way, or in a way that needed
>further explanation?
What do you think when you read one?
>> >and here's a link to some cheat notes, i suppose.
>> > "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there,"
>> > -- David Chase
>> > "I have no interest in explaining, defending, reinterpreting,
>> > or adding to what is there. No one was trying to be audacious,
>> > honest to God. We did what we thought we had to do. No one was
>> > trying to blow people's minds, or thinking, 'Wow, this'll (tick)
>> > them off.' People get the impression that you're trying to (mess)
>> > with them and it's not true. You're trying to entertain them."
>> > -- David Chase
>> >http://blog.nj.com/alltv/2007/06/david_chase_speaks.html#more
>> >so when can we expect your first draft?
>> When I've seen the episode. What the fuck is wrong with you?
>> Did you think all this time I'm an American?
>you've said elsewhere in this thread that you watched it a few nights
>ago.
I did not say any such thing. You're a fucking retard, you know that?
>and i don't mean the episode you mentioned in your mega-reader blog.
>(which obviously whooshed you, if you thought it was dull).
>watch it again and then read my megablog about it.
>or perhaps vice versa.
Thick as a brick.
>> >a couple months perhaps?
>> Certainly. The first episode of Season Six Part Two aired last night.
>> How many weeks does that leave?
>eight or so.
>> And if I miss one, I'll wait for the DVDs.
>so more like a couple years then, aye?
Who knows.
>that should give you plenty of time to come up with something that i
>kinda did weeks before i, or anyone else, ever saw the thing.
Are you proud of it? You gave an opinion before you saw the work in
question? Does that mean you're a creative genius, or a shit-spouting
moron?
>check the megablog for confirmation using keyword: Sopranos
>or some such.
>enjoy.
Let's not, and pretend we did.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >> You can keep track of your single comment.
> >> >and all others that follow it.
> >> <cue tumbleweed>
> >but why, Alan?
> >what's your theory?
> >let's hear it.
> >150+ blog entries and only one comment so far.
> >why?
>
> Because the only people likely to go to your "megablog" are people who
> have come across you already, here. And so they have no desire to
> subject themselves to yet more of your tired delusional wittering.
total bullshit.
anyway, that certainly wouldn't explain how my other blogs, with far
fewer of my "tired delusional witterings", received far more comments
-- hundreds of comments actually, and only linked to a couple dozen
entries.
1/~150 does not compare to ~200/~24
(not very well anyway).
something is drastically different, innit.
> >> >plus all of my own comments.
> >> >all nicely threaded and easily and quickly google-searchable by
> >> >keywords.
> >> Searching your own comments to yourself.
> >yep.
> >like for instance, i type in: jukebox
> >and... voila!
> >i can quickly grab a hotlink to a youtube video that i've previously
> >found in order to use it to help make some other commentary.
>
> Fantastic. You could also search YouTube.
but my megablog jukebox, for instance, contains a list of dozens of
already found and formatted names and links, therefore a zillion times
more efficient and fatster.
> Or just not repeat yourself to yourself.
sorry that you don't grok the quote/music/whatevers enhancement
delights of modern communication.
many people pepper their sigs with same.
Zen has a random generator on his blog.
as do you, sort of -- a collection of them, anyway.
of course, i often relate them to articles directly.
i go the extra mile for my non-mega/zero readers.
kinda like, say, providing a relevant soundtrack of sorts.
but now the options have expanded greatly in that regard.
> You can do the same thing in Blogger, only faster, by using tags.
one would have to create tags for every word in an "article" which
would be rather stupid.
using google is much better for that.
and one can create tag posts to mimic that limited blogger feature.
> >see how that worrks?
> >of course, i can check the whole megablog archive for any other kind
> >of stuff in just the same way.
>
> So what? Where's the advantage in that?
if you can't see it intuitively, it would take far too long to explain
it.
> >like, if i was looking for links to something that i noted in a
> >previous article, same thing.
>
> I heard you the first time. This is not another advantage, it's the
> same one all over again. So you can find things you posted earlier.
> BFD.
and expand upon them, by adding to the thread.
> >when there are more comment leavers, _their_ interesting contributions
> >will also be in the archive.
>
> If, not when.
well, yes.
it's somewhat hacker contingent, as always.
> >i mean, you know how google works, don't you?
>
> Google owns Blogger. Are you stupid?
is google stupid?
they don't provide google quality threading/quoting/searching for
blogger comments.
which is utterly idiotioc.
> >> >it's a great way to organize a megablog.
> >> >yes it is.
> >> What's "mega" about it?
> >well, mostly right now, it's a mega-mystery innit.
>
> So it's not mega at all. It's actually uncommonly puny.
but why?
there's rarely a post i make here that goes unresponded to.
> >any insightful or comic theories as to why, Alan?
> >it's certainly not because i don't write interesting and entertaining
> >stuff here and there.
>
> It's exactly because of that.
complete bullshit.
> >so what's your theory?
>
> That's my theory. You're full of wacko shit and nobody's interested.
wrong.
QED.
> Sorry if that doesn't flatter you as much as your nutball conspiracy
> theories would.
whaaaaaatever.
and thanks.
...
anyway, you're competing with Ray for utter dishonesty.
that's gotta suck.
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>
> >150+ blog entries and only one comment so far.
>
> >why?
>
> I wonder. Give us your theory, Xero.
screw you, scumbag.
but do feel free to give _your_ utterly dishonest theory.
presto!
> >like for instance, i type in: jukebox
>
> >and... voila!
>
> >i can quickly grab a hotlink to a youtube video that i've previously
> >found in order to use it to help make some other commentary.
>
> Hey, genius. It's called HTML and it's been around a while.
and google groups makes it even far more useful and flexible, dummy.
> Maybe you should go to the unicornian HTML page:
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
maybe you should GFY.
dry.
you dishonest time-wasting line-crossing grief-causing anti-social
twerp.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >> >what's your theory, Alan?
> >> >> >Jobs chose last place AT&T because he's a tosser?
> >> >> I was talking about the battery.
> >> >well, are you at least up to speed on the facts of the battery
> >> >depletion?
> >> Why don't you point me to the evidence for your claim that
> >> there's a problem?
> >google is your friend.
> >and it's free!
>
> So you have no evidence, then. Got it.
try slate.com
i think that's where i read it.
i've also heard it reported on CNN or somesuch.
so you might check those cable news websites as well.
that is, if you're really all that interested in the iPhone battery
thing you got so wrong upthread.
> yikes.
>
> duh.
>
> hic.
>
> rowrrowr spots.
>
> ker-ching!
meltdown alert.
Towse
> $Zero goes:
>> see also the recent controversy about Fahrenheit 451 and Ray
>> Bradbury.
>
>> i guess it's a good thing that he didn't die years ago right after he
>> finished the book, huh?
>
>> then we'd never know what it was REALLY about.
>
> What are you drivelling about?
Bradbury spoke out more than five years ago (and again recently) to say
that Fahrenheit 451 wasn't written as a slam against government and
censorship but as a cautionary that television was an opiate that would
suck people's brains dry and destroy interest in reading literature and
other good stuff.
Bradbury worried that television would lead to a short attention span
which would lead to condensed books and then to book bites and from
there to people who distrusted both books and those culture-wonk people
who read them.
Of course, if we were talking ducks and chickens here, Bradbury would've
come out when he wrote the book and explained all about it a la Chase
and the Sopranos, but Bradbury didn't. He wrote his story and never
explained, until he realized that people were projecting their own spin
onto his story and mucking up his intent -- he had not written a screed
against censorship but against television and television-induced
attention span deficit.
Chase, however, has said what he has to say about his intent with regard
to the Sopranos, so $Zero's conflation of Chase intentions and Bradbury
intentions and people misconstruing one or both or all three errs on the
side of nonsense.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
$Zero
yikes.
so can you paraphrase what that intent was for us, Sal?
since you claim that he's laid it on the line and all.
should be a snap.
> so $Zero's conflation of Chase intentions and Bradbury
> intentions and people misconstruing one or both or all
> three errs on the side of nonsense.
oh, come on, now.
you see no metaphoric relevance to the discussion that Alan and i are
having?
comparing the two errs on the side of nonsense, FFS?
how utterly preposterous.
i'd say it's one of the most intuitive comparisons that we've had here
in many years.
especially in light of the Sopranos being a tv show.
the sublime irony of the analogy i'm proposing here is quite
delicious.
i only wish Pastorio was around to help Alan out with his cultural
elitism.
though Alan IS doing quite a bang up job of it, quite reminiscent of
Bob.
it's times like these that i really miss Pastorio's pissed off wit.
though Alan is certainly subbing up a storm.
-$Zero...
Sopranos Finale Essays (Greatest Hits -- Part II)
Thread-drift from misc.writing -- featuring Kurt, Josh, & Hope
(was: Re: for $Z: iPhone activation problems cause lots of headaches)
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/42d2f71b0e60d9da
Josh Hill
>On Jul 1, 8:51?pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>>
>> >i read somewhere that Apple's choice of AT&T had (at least partly)
>> >something to do with the iPhone's battery depletion issue and how
>> >AT&T's Edge network could help in that regard.
>>
>> What battery depletion issue? That's the iPod. The iPhone hasn't been
>> around long enough for the battery to deplete.
>
>the battery that Apple is using in the iPhone is known by Apple to not
>be able to last long while doing high-end web browsing.
Also known by Apple to be soldered in like the iPod batteries so when
it's time to replace it you have to pay them lots of money.
--
Josh
"Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want
to rush to Redmond, Washington and rip somebody's liver out."
- Stephen Manes
Towse
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:16:55 -0700, $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 1, 8:51?pm, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> $Zero goes:
>>>
>>>> i read somewhere that Apple's choice of AT&T had (at least partly)
>>>> something to do with the iPhone's battery depletion issue and how
>>>> AT&T's Edge network could help in that regard.
>>> What battery depletion issue? That's the iPod. The iPhone hasn't been
>>> around long enough for the battery to deplete.
>> the battery that Apple is using in the iPhone is known by Apple to not
>> be able to last long while doing high-end web browsing.
>
> Also known by Apple to be soldered in like the iPod batteries so when
> it's time to replace it you have to pay them lots of money.
$85.95 to replace the battery. Send your iPhone to Apple (and be without
it while they work on the battery). Apple replaces the battery, wipes
the memory, sends you back the iPhone.
Be sure to back up all your data before you send the iPhone in for a new
battery.
(and further note: you can't buy iTunes directly from your iPhone. Yah,
I was sunk in a slough of despond about that too.)
Josh Hill
>On Jul 1, 9:21?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >Josh Hill goes:
>>
>> >>Except that Chase was quoted as saying that everything you need to
>> >>establish the outcome is in the episode. After I read that, I gave the
>> >>ending a second look, and it was clear that Tony dies. Check it out.
>> >>You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
>> >>Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
>> >>looking at.
>>
>> >No, they don't.
>>
>> >That's a standard field-reverse field montage. It's been around
>> >forever. It's not the law, though. And they don't always shoot Tony as
>> >you suggest. In the episode I watched this evening they showed his
>> >face in tight then the back of his head in a medium-long shot.
>>
>> But it's consistent throughout this scene,
>
>no it isn't.
>
>there's plenty of audience-only points of view.
>
>(whatever you call that, technically).
>
>plus other characters' points of view, as well.
Of course. But you'll note that they're absolutely consistent as to
how they establish Tony's point of view. Not only that, Chase uses
parallelism, creates a sequence of similar events, each handled the
same way. Tony faces the door. Each time a family member enters,
there's a close up of Tony's face as he raises his eyes to look at
them, then we cut to the family member, seen from T's point of view..
Carmella. AJ. Then Meadow. Except that this time, the scene goes
black. He left no room for doubt.
>not to mention the Kubrick Dave Bowman thinger when Tony first arrives
>at the diner.
>
>which you're fixated on, to the exclusion of everything else,
>apparently.
>
>> and the final moment is clearly from Tony's POV:
>
>no, it isn't.
>
>it could be, but not exclusively.
>
>there are many other possibilities.
>
>though Tony getting whacked is certainly one of the two or three most
>thought-provoking of those possibilities.
>
>the way it suggests how brutal violence is, and how final killing is
>(which was often otherwise glorified and "entertaining" through out
>the series).
More than that. It says there is no God. No hell hotel. Just nothing.
Don't stop (believing) x.
>not to mention the roll of karma and whatnot.
>
>but that's only one view of things.
>
>> zoom in and pan a bit, he looks up, the
>> screen goes black. It can't be from anyone else's.
>
>yes it can.
>
>it could be Meadow's, Carmella's, AJ's, the Soprano fans, or Chase's.
You don't seem to have a sense for how they establish POV in a film.
We moves from Meadow's viewpoint as she parks the car, to an
omniscient viewpoint showing Carmella, AJ, and then Tony, and then to
Tony's viewpoint at the moment Meadow enters.
Kind of interesting, actually -- I've never consciously analyzed a
film this way. The viewpoint shifts work much as they would in a
novel.
>not to mention that it could just be a panic attack black-out.
>thus showing how Tony is condemned to live the rest of his life, day
>in, day out -- suspicious and stressed, at at every turn.
You're reaching.
>or it might not be a black-out at all.
>
>just the ultimate cliff-hanger.
>
>the best part about it is how so many don't want it to be the end.
>
>THAT's the most effective and thought-provoking metaphor there is, no
>matter which ending one chooses.
>
>so many of the fans have come to quickly forgive many of these
>obnoxious characters for all of their brutal sins -- note how so many
>reacted to Tony's taxi calling service for Christophuh.
>
>at first, there's a deep disgust towards Tony for what he did to
>Christophuh, but it's like we all kinda "forgot" what Christophuh did
>to the innocent screen writer at the end of the previous episode --
>though Tony didn't "know" that -- and it wasn't his way of dealing out
>justice for that -- he was just covering his own ass.
>
>all of these characters are soon forgiven by the audience because of
>their respective underlying humanities.
>
>(both the character's and the audience's).
Sure. I was one of them. Didn't want Tony to die. It's like a
newsgroup in which people join forces with the friends they've met in
real life. Evil if they're Gekko's friends. Nice if they're mine.
>the ambiguous blank silent screen ending might represent "payback" for
>all of those selfish yet generous rationalizations -- "viewers, you've
>been fuckin' whacked! (and you didn't see it comin', neither!) -- see
>how that feels? -- not so fucking funny and entertaining, is it?"
Nah, you're reaching again. The key to the final scene, I think
[honesty caveat: inserted to feign a humility I don't feel], is that
it's exactly what it appears to be. Chase sets up Tony to get whacked
and he sets up Meadow to get whacked or shot. All the Hitchcock stuff
is there, everything he would have done had he completed the scene.
And then he plays that lovely trick by going to Tony's viewpoint at
the moment he's shot. It's audacious and brilliant. Anyone else would
have shown Tony lying in a puddle of blood, or leaving the restaurant
merrily. Or perhaps he would have faded things out. Chase did that
rarity in art as in life, something new.
>but the overall message is a hopeful one -- on some spiritual "we-are-
>all-sinners" level.
>
> "Don't Stop Believing"
> Journey
> "Any way you want it"
>
> -- Jukebox title card
>
>
> "enjoy the music"
> -- Tony Soprano
>
>http://tinypic.com/4pd4ei1.jpg
>
>...
>
>unless you're an atheist, of course.
>
>then the message is:
>
> stay the fuck out of trouble, idiot.
>
>and...
>
> be nice!
>
>and...
>
> "enjoy the music"
> -- Tony Soprano
>
>or simply:
>
>reconsider your atheisim, idiot, because:
>
> "everything comes to an end"
> -- Carmella Soprano
> [last season trailer commercial tagline]
>
>The Sopranos Final 9 Episodes Trailer
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8lHGw4arsM
Actually, the message is there is no God, which is in keeping with the
sophistication, pessimism, and honesty of the series.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill goes:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:56:55 +0200, Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Josh Hill goes:
>
>>>>Except that Chase was quoted as saying that everything you need to
>>>>establish the outcome is in the episode. After I read that, I gave the
>>>>ending a second look, and it was clear that Tony dies. Check it out.
>>>>You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
>>>>Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
>>>>looking at.
>
>>>No, they don't.
>
>>>That's a standard field-reverse field montage. It's been around
>>>forever. It's not the law, though. And they don't always shoot Tony as
>>>you suggest. In the episode I watched this evening they showed his
>>>face in tight then the back of his head in a medium-long shot.
>
>>But it's consistent throughout this scene, and the final moment is
>>clearly from Tony's POV: zoom in and pan a bit, he looks up, the
>>screen goes black. It can't be from anyone else's.
>
>It could be that it's not a POV at all. It could be it's just a
>blackout.
I thought so at first, before I took a second look. But Chase goes out
of his way to establish a clear pattern. Twice, we see a close-up of
Tony's face as a family member enters. He looks up, cut to Carmella
from his POV. Later, he looks up, cut to AJ from his POV. Finally
Meadow enters. Exact same sequence: close-up of Tony's face, he looks
up -- except that just as we would expect to see Meadow from Tony's
POV, the screen goes black.
This on top of the obvious signs that there's going to be a hit -- the
guy drinking coffee and looking over his shoulder at him, then heading
to the bathroom in a Godfather joke. The Hitchcock-style buildup as
Meadow parks -- she'll be shot, possibly killed as the guy flees.
Josh Hill
>> You think the guy who created the
>> series and wrote the final episode
>> doesn't know what it's about?
>
>he may know, but we never will.
>
>he can do his damnedest to try to convince us, by citing various
>things he placed in the story, however, he may have placed many
>possible plausible proofs.
>
>see that?
Over-reaching again. "God is subtle, but He is never malicious." --
Einstein
>besides, he's flat out said that he does not want to tell us in any
>other way than having us watch the thing ourselves -- he's told us to
>figure it out for ourselves.
>
>now you're coming along and claiming that there can only be one valid
>conclusion in that matter.
How is that different from so many other works of art? Artists don't
usually make their intentions explicit. That doesn't mean they don't
have intentions, or that we can't fathom them if we're up to the job,
or that all explanations are equally valid.
Josh Hill
>iPhone envy.
I don't even have a cell phone. Something about not wanting to cook my
brain, innit.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>In article <1183310554....@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> > You'll see that from the beginning of the scene, they always establish
>> > Tony's POV by showing his face and then cutting to whatever it is he's
>> > looking at.
>>
>> that doesn't explain Meadow parking, does it?
>>
>
> About the only thing I have been to come up with for Meadow's
>parking is "Damn it! We're two minutes short, Mr. Chase!" (g)
It sets up a little B plot. Builds suspense Hitchcock-style, which by
film-logic tells us that something bad is going to happen to her when
she enters the restaurant. Tony is shot just as she comes in. So
Meadow's between the shooter and the door. Chase has already
established what happens to innocent bystanders in that situation.
Ergo, she's toast.
Steve Pritchard
news:GtKdnTIpvp0V2Brb...@comcast.com...
> What a gem: <http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6271291>
An underplayed reaction.
Had Microsoft launched this device, there would have been a fatwah on
Billie by now.
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You think the guy who created the
> >> series and wrote the final episode
> >> doesn't know what it's about?
>
> >he may know, but we never will.
>
> >he can do his damnedest to try to convince us, by citing various
> >things he placed in the story, however, he may have placed many
> >possible plausible proofs.
>
> >see that?
>
> Over-reaching again.
hardly.
in this case, there was clearly a major effort to make multiple
possible interpretations completely plausible.
> "God is subtle, but He is never malicious." -- Einstein
but David Chase isn't God.
> >besides, he's flat out said that he does not want to tell us in any
> >other way than having us watch the thing ourselves -- he's told us to
> >figure it out for ourselves.
>
> >now you're coming along and claiming that there can only be one valid
> >conclusion in that matter.
>
> How is that different from so many other works of art? Artists don't
> usually make their intentions explicit. That doesn't mean they don't
> have intentions, or that we can't fathom them if we're up to the job,
> or that all explanations are equally valid.
you've been over-reaching in your other posts with your anal-retentive
obsession with the POV sequence consistency thinger.
to show you just how much you're over-reaching with that POV thinger,
consider this:
the black-out could just as easily have signified that the terrorists
whom Tony was giving info about to the FBI took out Newark at that
very moment they were in the diner.
the episode was riddled with that whole looming Arab threat thinger.
AJ considers joining the army, his obsessive focus on how everyone was
oblivious to world events during Bobby's wake banquet, surfing the web
about it with his new girlfriend, Tony's conversation with Agent
Harris at their secret meeting at the airport, etc..
there's simply no way to distinguish that black-out from the one
you're over-reaching on.
so there's at least two possibilities that cannot both coexist but
which are both completely plausible, storyline-wise and symbolic-wise.
and that same dynamic applies to the "life goes on" scenario, with the
blackout signifying nothing more than the Finale having abrubtly ended
in a highly suspenseful circumstance but which, like it always
eventually did throughout the entire series, turns out to be
absolutely nothing more threatening than a fish-fry with the family --
albeit with Tony not able to fully enjoy his meal, as usual.
remember the way he always nervously fork-fiddled with his food in
almost every scene where he's eating dinner?
so the potential Tony POV at the last moment is apropos simply because
the whole show was basically from his POV anyway.
and the "don't stop" click-out lyrics was just the audience's echoed
plea for more.
anyway, the existence of three possible whackings, from Tony's
conscious POV (the trucker; the black dudes; and the members only
guy), actually tends to discount the possibility of an actual hit,
more than anything.
because it demonstrates acute paranoia far more than a real threat.
it's overkill, so to speak.
so you see, there is no definitive ending possible.
though clearly, using only what i presented above, the first two
possibilities are more plausible symbolic-wise than the third "life
goes on" fantasy.
however, the upbeat music and lyrical selections certainly enhance the
symbolism in favor of the "life goes on" scenario.
but it would be easy to argue that the music and lyrics were
indicating otherwise as well, in both an ironic sense and/or a literal
sense.
one thing is certain though, they were all thoroughly enjoying those
juicy onion rings.
especially Tony.
the way he accentuated his satisfaction with his nodding expression
was classic Tony.
that James Gandolfini is a brilliant performer.
i'm certainly voting for a movie follow-up.
there'd be any number of ways of doing so without even going near the
finale mystery.
though that would be great to see as well.
particularly if it was the "life goes on" scenario.
or maybe Tony pleading his way into heaven, trying to use symbolic
dream-like flashback arguments.
and just when things start favoring T, Christophuh shows up at the
proceeding, arms folded, with a cleaver sticking out of his back-
pocket.
and the white clouds dissolve into dark red walls.
Josh Hill
>On Jul 2, 2:27?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> You think the guy who created the
>> >> series and wrote the final episode
>> >> doesn't know what it's about?
>>
>> >he may know, but we never will.
>>
>> >he can do his damnedest to try to convince us, by citing various
>> >things he placed in the story, however, he may have placed many
>> >possible plausible proofs.
>>
>> >see that?
>>
>> Over-reaching again.
>
>hardly.
>
>in this case, there was clearly a major effort to make multiple
>possible interpretations completely plausible.
I don't think so. Thought so at first, thought he was toying with us
and setting up lots of possibilities, but turns out they all point in
the same direction.
>> "God is subtle, but He is never malicious." -- Einstein
>
>but David Chase isn't God.
He isn't?
>> >besides, he's flat out said that he does not want to tell us in any
>> >other way than having us watch the thing ourselves -- he's told us to
>> >figure it out for ourselves.
>>
>> >now you're coming along and claiming that there can only be one valid
>> >conclusion in that matter.
>>
>> How is that different from so many other works of art? Artists don't
>> usually make their intentions explicit. That doesn't mean they don't
>> have intentions, or that we can't fathom them if we're up to the job,
>> or that all explanations are equally valid.
>
>you've been over-reaching in your other posts with your anal-retentive
>obsession with the POV sequence consistency thinger.
You're missing the meaning of over-reaching. Your misuse of
"obsessive" and "anal retentive" are examples of over-reaching: you've
used technical terms that you don't really understand to provide an
erroneous and needlessly-complex explanation of a very simple
phenomenon, to whit, a straightforward analysis of filmmaking
technique and intent.
>to show you just how much you're over-reaching with that POV thinger,
>consider this:
>
>the black-out could just as easily have signified that the terrorists
>whom Tony was giving info about to the FBI took out Newark at that
>very moment they were in the diner.
>
>the episode was riddled with that whole looming Arab threat thinger.
>
>AJ considers joining the army, his obsessive focus on how everyone was
>oblivious to world events during Bobby's wake banquet, surfing the web
>about it with his new girlfriend, Tony's conversation with Agent
>Harris at their secret meeting at the airport, etc..
>
>there's simply no way to distinguish that black-out from the one
>you're over-reaching on.
You just don't get it, do you? Possibility isn't plausibility. The
suspense writer tells you what's going to happen. If you can read the
technique, you can read his intent, up to a point. It's a language.
You over reach (talk about IKYBWAI's) when you choose an improbable
explanation rather than a probable or evident one. It's the
application of conspiracy theories to art.
>so there's at least two possibilities that cannot both coexist but
>which are both completely plausible, storyline-wise and symbolic-wise.
>
>and that same dynamic applies to the "life goes on" scenario, with the
>blackout signifying nothing more than the Finale having abrubtly ended
>in a highly suspenseful circumstance but which, like it always
>eventually did throughout the entire series, turns out to be
>absolutely nothing more threatening than a fish-fry with the family --
>albeit with Tony not able to fully enjoy his meal, as usual.
>
>remember the way he always nervously fork-fiddled with his food in
>almost every scene where he's eating dinner?
>
>so the potential Tony POV at the last moment is apropos simply because
>the whole show was basically from his POV anyway.
>
>and the "don't stop" click-out lyrics was just the audience's echoed
>plea for more.
>
>anyway, the existence of three possible whackings, from Tony's
>conscious POV (the trucker; the black dudes; and the members only
>guy), actually tends to discount the possibility of an actual hit,
>more than anything.
Not at all. Only one of them, possibly two are established as hit men.
The others are probably, though not certainly, bystanders. This is all
standard stuff. Look at the final scene from the perspective of Film
101. Pretened you'd been handed a suspense script and had to finish
it. Chase sets everything up by the book.
>because it demonstrates acute paranoia far more than a real threat.
>
>it's overkill, so to speak.
No, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Let your inner
filmmaker free. You're making a suspense film. What do you do? You put
the victim in a vulnerable place. You show him possible threats. You
scare the audience with faux threats. Then the killer jumps out of the
shadows.
>so you see, there is no definitive ending possible.
>
>though clearly, using only what i presented above, the first two
>possibilities are more plausible symbolic-wise than the third "life
>goes on" fantasy.
>
>however, the upbeat music and lyrical selections certainly enhance the
>symbolism in favor of the "life goes on" scenario.
>
>but it would be easy to argue that the music and lyrics were
>indicating otherwise as well, in both an ironic sense and/or a literal
>sense.
>
>one thing is certain though, they were all thoroughly enjoying those
>juicy onion rings.
>
>especially Tony.
>
>the way he accentuated his satisfaction with his nodding expression
>was classic Tony.
>
>that James Gandolfini is a brilliant performer.
That's true. I wouldn't go so far as to say he made the show, but it's
hard to see how it could have worked without him. They did an amazing
job of casting, one of the best I've ever seen.
>i'm certainly voting for a movie follow-up.
>
>there'd be any number of ways of doing so without even going near the
>finale mystery.
>
>though that would be great to see as well.
>
>particularly if it was the "life goes on" scenario.
>
>or maybe Tony pleading his way into heaven, trying to use symbolic
>dream-like flashback arguments.
>
>and just when things start favoring T, Christophuh shows up at the
>proceeding, arms folded, with a cleaver sticking out of his back-
>pocket.
>
>and the white clouds dissolve into dark red walls.
Cleaver's another reason you know that Tony dies.
Ray Haddad
and $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Jul 2, 10:35?am, Ray Haddad <rhad...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>> >150+ blog entries and only one comment so far.
>>
>> >why?
>>
>> I wonder. Give us your theory, Xero.
>
>screw you, scumbag.
>
>but do feel free to give _your_ utterly dishonest theory.
Xero, you're the one who has only one comment. Your theory?
Mine theory is that you've got no one reading your megablog. I went
there once out of courtesy to you. Looked like a Google Ad-fest so I
never read even the first of your entries. Probably happens a lot.
>presto!
>
>> >like for instance, i type in: jukebox
>>
>> >and... voila!
>>
>> >i can quickly grab a hotlink to a youtube video that i've previously
>> >found in order to use it to help make some other commentary.
>>
>> Hey, genius. It's called HTML and it's been around a while.
>
>and google groups makes it even far more useful and flexible, dummy.
Drag and drop is hard? Xero, when making a blog entry, you need only
to drag and drop a URL to make a link while using the WYSIWYG
function of the editor. Seriously. That's it.
>> Maybe you should go to the unicornian HTML page:
>> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
>
>maybe you should GFY.
>
>dry.
>
>you dishonest time-wasting line-crossing grief-causing anti-social
>twerp.
Oh, the irony.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:15:20 -0700, $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>iPhone envy.
>
>I don't even have a cell phone. Something about not wanting to cook my
>brain, innit.
Too late, Josh.
Ever seen Hannibal? The Ray Liotta saute scene?
--
Ray
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> You think the guy who created the
> >> >> series and wrote the final episode
> >> >> doesn't know what it's about?
>
> >> >he may know, but we never will.
>
> >> >he can do his damnedest to try to convince us, by citing various
> >> >things he placed in the story, however, he may have placed many
> >> >possible plausible proofs.
>
> >> >see that?
>
> >> Over-reaching again.
>
> >hardly.
>
> >in this case, there was clearly a major effort to make multiple
> >possible interpretations completely plausible.
>
> I don't think so. Thought so at first, thought he was toying with us
> and setting up lots of possibilities, but turns out they all point in
> the same direction.
wrong.
> >> "God is subtle, but He is never malicious." -- Einstein
>
> >but David Chase isn't God.
>
> He isn't?
maybe for atheists like yourself.
> >> >besides, he's flat out said that he does not want to tell us in any
> >> >other way than having us watch the thing ourselves -- he's told us to
> >> >figure it out for ourselves.
>
> >> >now you're coming along and claiming that there can only be one valid
> >> >conclusion in that matter.
>
> >> How is that different from so many other works of art? Artists don't
> >> usually make their intentions explicit. That doesn't mean they don't
> >> have intentions, or that we can't fathom them if we're up to the job,
> >> or that all explanations are equally valid.
>
> >you've been over-reaching in your other posts with your anal-retentive
> >obsession with the POV sequence consistency thinger.
>
> You're missing the meaning of over-reaching.
so says Mr. anal-retentive.
> Your misuse of "obsessive" and "anal retentive" are examples
> of over-reaching:
not at all.
you're obsessing over film "technique" as "language" and banking on
it.
that's a very anal-retentive approach to interpretration of art.
> you've
> used technical terms that you don't really understand
i wasn't using them as a Psychiatrist, anal-boy.
> to provide an
> erroneous and needlessly-complex explanation of a very simple
> phenomenon, to whit, a straightforward analysis of filmmaking
> technique and intent.
"straight-forward" for obsessive anal-retentive closure junkies like
yourself.
duh.
do you feel those gloves coming off?
> >to show you just how much you're over-reaching with that POV thinger,
> >consider this:
>
> >the black-out could just as easily have signified that the terrorists
> >whom Tony was giving info about to the FBI took out Newark at that
> >very moment they were in the diner.
>
> >the episode was riddled with that whole looming Arab threat thinger.
>
> >AJ considers joining the army, his obsessive focus on how everyone was
> >oblivious to world events during Bobby's wake banquet, surfing the web
> >about it with his new girlfriend, Tony's conversation with Agent
> >Harris at their secret meeting at the airport, etc..
>
> >there's simply no way to distinguish that black-out from the one
> >you're over-reaching on.
>
> You just don't get it, do you?
you really think you DO get it, don't you.
how utterly anal.
there is no way whatsoever to distinguish the Newark hit from the T
hit.
(assuming you insist on calling a blank screen a corpse, FFS)
> Possibility isn't plausibility.
exactly.
and all you have is possibilities.
that's all ANYONE has here, duhski.
do try to keep up with your own anal methodologies of film
interpretation.
> Possibility isn't plausibility.
which, BTW, is precisely how i _know_ that you're a liar in regards
to:
"> Josh, are you claiming that you
> don't know what that means?
What what means?"
-- Joshua "P" Hill
and...
[after a very long absence, Josh explains his recent return
to misc.writing which consists largely of hundreds of posts
defending the credibility of Josh's new Real-Life pal:
Ray (the Circus Master Troll/nice guy terrorist!) Haddad]
"> Met Ray IRL a year or two ago, just as I was losing interest
> in the newsgroup. Poked in for the second time in a year and
> saw Gekko's post. Read posts about Ray with idle curiosity.
yeah yeah, did you pass Billo in the hall?
did he wish you good luck while squeezing out his hanky?"
-- $Zero...
among other things.
> The suspense writer tells you what's going to happen.
no. the suspense writer creates suspense.
> If you can read the technique,
Gawd. what an insufferable elitist.
> If you can read the technique,
> you can read his intent, up to a point.
there's the rub innit.
"up to a point"
> It's a language.
building the suspense is...
interpretting the blank screen is NOT.
duh fucking duh.
> You over reach (talk about IKYBWAI's) when you choose an improbable
> explanation rather than a probable or evident one.
you expose your obsessive anal-retentive closure junkie self when you
apply those terms to a blank screen -- very unsuspensefully, i might
add.
> It's the application of conspiracy theories to art.
yours is, yes.
you have absolutely no evidence of even a single dead body and you're
busy identifying the killer, FFS.
talk about conspiracy theories, huh?
> >so there's at least two possibilities that cannot both coexist but
> >which are both completely plausible, storyline-wise and symbolic-wise.
>
> >and that same dynamic applies to the "life goes on" scenario, with the
> >blackout signifying nothing more than the Finale having abrubtly ended
> >in a highly suspenseful circumstance but which, like it always
> >eventually did throughout the entire series, turns out to be
> >absolutely nothing more threatening than a fish-fry with the family --
> >albeit with Tony not able to fully enjoy his meal, as usual.
>
> >remember the way he always nervously fork-fiddled with his food in
> >almost every scene where he's eating dinner?
>
> >so the potential Tony POV at the last moment is apropos simply because
> >the whole show was basically from his POV anyway.
>
> >and the "don't stop" click-out lyrics was just the audience's echoed
> >plea for more.
>
> >anyway, the existence of three possible whackings, from Tony's
> >conscious POV (the trucker; the black dudes; and the members only
> >guy), actually tends to discount the possibility of an actual hit,
> >more than anything.
>
> Not at all.
yes, at all.
> Only one of them, possibly two are established as hit men.
none are "established" as anything other than suspicious looking
diners.
duh fucking double duh.
> The others are probably, though not certainly, bystanders.
no. the others aare all undercover FBI.
even the boyscouts, and the lobster on the stove.
> This is all standard stuff.
anal alert!
> Look at the final scene from the perspective of Film 101.
i think they're waiting for you in room 101.
> Pretened you'd been handed a suspense script and had to finish
> it. Chase sets everything up by the book.
that's what your banking on.
but we're playing Soprano rules monopoly here.
duh.
we're taliking about mobsters, keep in mind.
rules are more like, um, suggestions, if that.
> >because it demonstrates acute paranoia far more than a real threat.
>
> >it's overkill, so to speak.
>
> No, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
oh. please send my apologies to Anal University.
> Let your inner filmmaker free.
S U B L I M E I R O N Y A L E R T ! ! !
"Let your inner filmmaker free."
> You're making a suspense film. What do you do?
throw away my mob film?
> You put the victim in a vulnerable place.
we'll need some help with that.
shall i call Charlie the Chipper, or Willy the Sausage?
> You show him possible threats.
like some Arab strip-joint drug dealers, maybe?
> You scare the audience with faux threats.
oh. you mean the seedy looking dioners?
ok. i'm back with you now.
> Then the killer jumps out of the shadows.
NUKED!
> >so you see, there is no definitive ending possible.
>
> >though clearly, using only what i presented above, the first two
> >possibilities are more plausible symbolic-wise than the third "life
> >goes on" fantasy.
>
> >however, the upbeat music and lyrical selections certainly enhance the
> >symbolism in favor of the "life goes on" scenario.
>
> >but it would be easy to argue that the music and lyrics were
> >indicating otherwise as well, in both an ironic sense and/or a literal
> >sense.
>
> >one thing is certain though, they were all thoroughly enjoying those
> >juicy onion rings.
>
> >especially Tony.
>
> >the way he accentuated his satisfaction with his nodding expression
> >was classic Tony.
>
> >that James Gandolfini is a brilliant performer.
>
> That's true. I wouldn't go so far as to say he made the show, but it's
> hard to see how it could have worked without him. They did an amazing
> job of casting, one of the best I've ever seen.
oops, i have to agree there.
> >i'm certainly voting for a movie follow-up.
>
> >there'd be any number of ways of doing so without even going near the
> >finale mystery.
>
> >though that would be great to see as well.
>
> >particularly if it was the "life goes on" scenario.
>
> >or maybe Tony pleading his way into heaven, trying to use symbolic
> >dream-like flashback arguments.
>
> >and just when things start favoring T, Christophuh shows up at the
> >proceeding, arms folded, with a cleaver sticking out of his back-
> >pocket.
>
> >and the white clouds dissolve into dark red walls.
>
> Cleaver's another reason you know that Tony dies.
um... only if you're going for "conspiracy theories"
you're about as consistent as meatspace Ray.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> Also known by Apple to be soldered in like the iPod batteries so when
>> it's time to replace it you have to pay them lots of money.
>
>$85.95 to replace the battery. Send your iPhone to Apple (and be without
>it while they work on the battery). Apple replaces the battery, wipes
>the memory, sends you back the iPhone.
>
>Be sure to back up all your data before you send the iPhone in for a new
>battery.
>
>(and further note: you can't buy iTunes directly from your iPhone. Yah,
>I was sunk in a slough of despond about that too.)
Nice. At least you know your memory's been polished. What is it about
polishing and wiping that invites comparison to death, anyhow? (I
suppose, metaphorically speaking, we're some kind of mess.)
Josh Hill
I understand Rays are tasty sauteed and fricasseed as well.
Josh Hill
>On Jul 2, 5:29?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> You think the guy who created the
>> >> >> series and wrote the final episode
>> >> >> doesn't know what it's about?
>>
>> >> >he may know, but we never will.
>>
>> >> >he can do his damnedest to try to convince us, by citing various
>> >> >things he placed in the story, however, he may have placed many
>> >> >possible plausible proofs.
>>
>> >> >see that?
>>
>> >> Over-reaching again.
>>
>> >hardly.
>>
>> >in this case, there was clearly a major effort to make multiple
>> >possible interpretations completely plausible.
>>
>> I don't think so. Thought so at first, thought he was toying with us
>> and setting up lots of possibilities, but turns out they all point in
>> the same direction.
>
>wrong.
You'd have to identify some that don't.
>> >> "God is subtle, but He is never malicious." -- Einstein
>>
>> >but David Chase isn't God.
>>
>> He isn't?
>
>maybe for atheists like yourself.
>> >> >besides, he's flat out said that he does not want to tell us in any
>> >> >other way than having us watch the thing ourselves -- he's told us to
>> >> >figure it out for ourselves.
>>
>> >> >now you're coming along and claiming that there can only be one valid
>> >> >conclusion in that matter.
>>
>> >> How is that different from so many other works of art? Artists don't
>> >> usually make their intentions explicit. That doesn't mean they don't
>> >> have intentions, or that we can't fathom them if we're up to the job,
>> >> or that all explanations are equally valid.
>>
>> >you've been over-reaching in your other posts with your anal-retentive
>> >obsession with the POV sequence consistency thinger.
>>
>> You're missing the meaning of over-reaching.
>
>so says Mr. anal-retentive.
>
>> Your misuse of "obsessive" and "anal retentive" are examples
>> of over-reaching:
>
>not at all.
>
>you're obsessing over film "technique" as "language" and banking on
>it.
>
>that's a very anal-retentive approach to interpretration of art.
Oh, puhleeze. Keep it for the rubes.
>> you've
>> used technical terms that you don't really understand
>
>i wasn't using them as a Psychiatrist, anal-boy.
Obviously not.
>> to provide an
>> erroneous and needlessly-complex explanation of a very simple
>> phenomenon, to whit, a straightforward analysis of filmmaking
>> technique and intent.
>
>"straight-forward" for obsessive anal-retentive closure junkies like
>yourself.
>
>duh.
>
>do you feel those gloves coming off?
No, I feel someone losing an argument, and not very gracefully.
>> >to show you just how much you're over-reaching with that POV thinger,
>> >consider this:
>>
>> >the black-out could just as easily have signified that the terrorists
>> >whom Tony was giving info about to the FBI took out Newark at that
>> >very moment they were in the diner.
>>
>> >the episode was riddled with that whole looming Arab threat thinger.
>>
>> >AJ considers joining the army, his obsessive focus on how everyone was
>> >oblivious to world events during Bobby's wake banquet, surfing the web
>> >about it with his new girlfriend, Tony's conversation with Agent
>> >Harris at their secret meeting at the airport, etc..
>>
>> >there's simply no way to distinguish that black-out from the one
>> >you're over-reaching on.
>>
>> You just don't get it, do you?
>
>you really think you DO get it, don't you.
>
>how utterly anal.
>
>there is no way whatsoever to distinguish the Newark hit from the T
>hit.
>
>(assuming you insist on calling a blank screen a corpse, FFS)
>
>> Possibility isn't plausibility.
>
>exactly.
>
>and all you have is possibilities.
>
>that's all ANYONE has here, duhski.
>
>do try to keep up with your own anal methodologies of film
>interpretation.
Dude, if you don't understand how a director establishes POV, you are
not qualified to comment on methodologies of film interpretation.
Actually, I find it surprising that you don't. I've never taken a
course in film, haven't read much about the technicalities of it. But
it's an obvious part of the language, it's intrinsic. I don't see how
one can watch movies and TV without understanding it.
>> Possibility isn't plausibility.
>
>which, BTW, is precisely how i _know_ that you're a liar in regards
>to:
>
> "> Josh, are you claiming that you
> > don't know what that means?
>
> What what means?"
> -- Joshua "P" Hill
>
>and...
>
> [after a very long absence, Josh explains his recent return
> to misc.writing which consists largely of hundreds of posts
> defending the credibility of Josh's new Real-Life pal:
> Ray (the Circus Master Troll/nice guy terrorist!) Haddad]
>
> "> Met Ray IRL a year or two ago, just as I was losing interest
> > in the newsgroup. Poked in for the second time in a year and
> > saw Gekko's post. Read posts about Ray with idle curiosity.
>
> yeah yeah, did you pass Billo in the hall?
>
> did he wish you good luck while squeezing out his hanky?"
>
> -- $Zero...
>
>among other things.
Paranoid schizophrenia, if you want to play shrink. You have no idea
how fucking crazy you sound. Or maybe you do, since you're sensitive
on the topic. Lesson one for the paranoiac: you are /not/ able to
ascertain malign intent. Lesson two: you harm yourself terribly when
you do so. Summation: People are /not/ out to get you, Zero. They are
not plotting against you. You are not that important.
>> The suspense writer tells you what's going to happen.
>
>no. the suspense writer creates suspense.
Dude, Suspense 101: you create suspense by letting the audience know
what's going to happen.
Shot of little girl.
Shot of ticking bomb.
Yada.
>> If you can read the technique,
>
>Gawd. what an insufferable elitist.
This from the fellow who's constantly calling himself a creative
genius and everyone else dumb? The gawds laugh.
>> If you can read the technique,
>> you can read his intent, up to a point.
>
>there's the rub innit.
>
> "up to a point"
>
>> It's a language.
>
>building the suspense is...
>
>interpretting the blank screen is NOT.
>
>duh fucking duh.
Tony's dead, Zero. Chase didn't even use a unique technique. I just
watched a program in which someone was knocked unconscious. Shot of
her terrified face, shot of the club coming down /from her viewpoint,/
fade to black to tell you that she's been knocked out.
>> You over reach (talk about IKYBWAI's) when you choose an improbable
>> explanation rather than a probable or evident one.
>
>you expose your obsessive anal-retentive closure junkie self when you
>apply those terms to a blank screen -- very unsuspensefully, i might
>add.
Dude, the work is what it is.
>> It's the application of conspiracy theories to art.
>
>yours is, yes.
>
>you have absolutely no evidence of even a single dead body and you're
>busy identifying the killer, FFS.
>
>talk about conspiracy theories, huh?
IOW, you have no understanding of what sets a conspiracy theory
apart. Why am I not surprised?
>> >so there's at least two possibilities that cannot both coexist but
>> >which are both completely plausible, storyline-wise and symbolic-wise.
>>
>> >and that same dynamic applies to the "life goes on" scenario, with the
>> >blackout signifying nothing more than the Finale having abrubtly ended
>> >in a highly suspenseful circumstance but which, like it always
>> >eventually did throughout the entire series, turns out to be
>> >absolutely nothing more threatening than a fish-fry with the family --
>> >albeit with Tony not able to fully enjoy his meal, as usual.
>>
>> >remember the way he always nervously fork-fiddled with his food in
>> >almost every scene where he's eating dinner?
>>
>> >so the potential Tony POV at the last moment is apropos simply because
>> >the whole show was basically from his POV anyway.
>>
>> >and the "don't stop" click-out lyrics was just the audience's echoed
>> >plea for more.
>>
>> >anyway, the existence of three possible whackings, from Tony's
>> >conscious POV (the trucker; the black dudes; and the members only
>> >guy), actually tends to discount the possibility of an actual hit,
>> >more than anything.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
>yes, at all.
>
>> Only one of them, possibly two are established as hit men.
>
>none are "established" as anything other than suspicious looking
>diners.
You claim to watch nothing but TV, and yet you can't understand basic
cues? Dude, I am not being elitist here: you're being an idiot.
>duh fucking double duh.
>
>> The others are probably, though not certainly, bystanders.
>
>no. the others aare all undercover FBI.
Yeah, guess you turned in Gekko.
>even the boyscouts, and the lobster on the stove.
>
>
>> This is all standard stuff.
>
>anal alert!
>
>> Look at the final scene from the perspective of Film 101.
>
>i think they're waiting for you in room 101.
I think that those who can argue do.
>> Pretened you'd been handed a suspense script and had to finish
>> it. Chase sets everything up by the book.
>
>that's what your banking on.
>
>but we're playing Soprano rules monopoly here.
>
>duh.
>
>we're taliking about mobsters, keep in mind.
>
>rules are more like, um, suggestions, if that.
Zero, he's a writer, not a mobster. It's a teevee show.
I see you don't understand parallel plots and symbolism, either. Tell
me, Zero, what does it mean when the psychologist gives up on Tony?
Why does Chase have Christopher force a writer to work for him?
Alan Hope
>On Jul 2, 10:32?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> > Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >> You can keep track of your single comment.
>> >> >and all others that follow it.
>> >> <cue tumbleweed>
>> >but why, Alan?
>> >what's your theory?
>> >let's hear it.
>> >150+ blog entries and only one comment so far.
>> >why?
>> Because the only people likely to go to your "megablog" are people who
>> have come across you already, here. And so they have no desire to
>> subject themselves to yet more of your tired delusional wittering.
>total bullshit.
Sorry. I'm a client. I'm better-placed to judge your product from the
client's point of view than you are. You're notoriously deluded,
paranoid, self-aggrandising and oblivious to criticism. How could you
possibly know if what I say is true? You have no objectivity.
>anyway, that certainly wouldn't explain how my other blogs, with far
>fewer of my "tired delusional witterings", received far more comments
>-- hundreds of comments actually, and only linked to a couple dozen
>entries.
What other blogs?
>1/~150 does not compare to ~200/~24
Who knows? It's difficult not to get comments on an actual blog.
Someone always happens along. Your tiresomeness in here being allied
with the impossibility of finding a blog on GG.
>(not very well anyway).
>something is drastically different, innit.
Yes. You're in the wrong venue. People don't browse Google Groups the
way they browse blogs.
>> >> >plus all of my own comments.
>> >> >all nicely threaded and easily and quickly google-searchable by
>> >> >keywords.
>> >> Searching your own comments to yourself.
>> >yep.
>> >like for instance, i type in: jukebox
>> >and... voila!
>> >i can quickly grab a hotlink to a youtube video that i've previously
>> >found in order to use it to help make some other commentary.
>> Fantastic. You could also search YouTube.
>but my megablog jukebox, for instance, contains a list of dozens of
>already found and formatted names and links, therefore a zillion times
>more efficient and fatster.
Except nobody can watch the videos without leaving you.
>> Or just not repeat yourself to yourself.
>sorry that you don't grok the quote/music/whatevers enhancement
>delights of modern communication.
There's no music in GG.
>many people pepper their sigs with same.
>Zen has a random generator on his blog.
>as do you, sort of -- a collection of them, anyway.
I have dynamic widgets powered by RSS feeds, is what you mean. I also
have embedded video, photos and (somewhere) audio. Put any of that on
megablog, good luck.
>of course, i often relate them to articles directly.
You can post a link that takes readers away from your stupid blog.
That's all you can do.
>i go the extra mile for my non-mega/zero readers.
On the contrary, you make them fetch the goodies themselves.
>kinda like, say, providing a relevant soundtrack of sorts.
You have no soundtrack. You post links.
>but now the options have expanded greatly in that regard.
>> You can do the same thing in Blogger, only faster, by using tags.
>one would have to create tags for every word in an "article" which
>would be rather stupid.
Not true. Using tags is like searching sensibly. It's the other side
of the same coin. Since experienced searchers search on keywords, all
you have to do is use tags as keywords. Simple.
>using google is much better for that.
You probably still search for "the" and "and".
>and one can create tag posts to mimic that limited blogger feature.
What a stupid idea.
>> >see how that worrks?
>> >of course, i can check the whole megablog archive for any other kind
>> >of stuff in just the same way.
>> So what? Where's the advantage in that?
>if you can't see it intuitively, it would take far too long to explain
>it.
So you have no answer.
>> >like, if i was looking for links to something that i noted in a
>> >previous article, same thing.
>> I heard you the first time. This is not another advantage, it's the
>> same one all over again. So you can find things you posted earlier.
>> BFD.
>and expand upon them, by adding to the thread.
Who goes back to old threads?
>> >when there are more comment leavers, _their_ interesting contributions
>> >will also be in the archive.
>> If, not when.
>well, yes.
>it's somewhat hacker contingent, as always.
You don't even know what "hacker" means. Some genius.
>> >i mean, you know how google works, don't you?
>> Google owns Blogger. Are you stupid?
>is google stupid?
>they don't provide google quality threading/quoting/searching for
>blogger comments.
There's a reason for that. It's not needed.
>which is utterly idiotioc.
Of course not. Who cares about searching in comments?
>> >> >it's a great way to organize a megablog.
>> >> >yes it is.
>> >> What's "mega" about it?
>> >well, mostly right now, it's a mega-mystery innit.
>> So it's not mega at all. It's actually uncommonly puny.
>but why?
It's a crap product being offered for sale in the wrong place by the
world's worst salesman. How about that for why?
>there's rarely a post i make here that goes unresponded to.
Are you kidding? Are the voices responding to you?
People respond to you here because you go into an existing thread.
Your own threads are uniformly ignored, because they're witless,
dreary and altogether nutball.
>> >any insightful or comic theories as to why, Alan?
>> >it's certainly not because i don't write interesting and entertaining
>> >stuff here and there.
>> It's exactly because of that.
>complete bullshit.
You're no judge.
>> >so what's your theory?
>> That's my theory. You're full of wacko shit and nobody's interested.
>wrong.
Self-evidently right.
>QED.
>> Sorry if that doesn't flatter you as much as your nutball conspiracy
>> theories would.
>whaaaaaatever.
>and thanks.
>...
>anyway, you're competing with Ray for utter dishonesty.
>that's gotta suck.
You're deluded. Nobody's interested in your shit. Get new shit, Zero.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>Drag and drop is hard? Xero, when making a blog entry, you need only
>to drag and drop a URL to make a link while using the WYSIWYG
>function of the editor. Seriously. That's it.
Wrong.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>try slate.com
>i think that's where i read it.
That's not a cite, genius.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>Chase, however, has said what he has to say about his intent with regard
>to the Sopranos, so $Zero's conflation of Chase intentions and Bradbury
>intentions and people misconstruing one or both or all three errs on the
>side of nonsense.
I'm obliged to Your Ladyship.
What a surprise, Zero retailing nonsense. Whatever next?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >try slate.com
> >i think that's where i read it.
>
> That's not a cite, genius.
"i think that's where i read it."
that's all the work i'm willing to do for you.
google is your friend.
Alan Hope
>And then he plays that lovely trick by going to Tony's viewpoint at
>the moment he's shot. It's audacious and brilliant. Anyone else would
>have shown Tony lying in a puddle of blood, or leaving the restaurant
>merrily. Or perhaps he would have faded things out. Chase did that
>rarity in art as in life, something new.
Unless the blackout is merely a blackout, in which case he did what
all representations of life in art have done since time immemorial: he
finished in media res. The series stops, the story goes on. Nothing
original about it, although it is frustrating for viewers expecting an
"ending".
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:09:59 +0800, Ray Haddad
><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:29:49 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>>On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:15:20 -0700, $Zero <zero...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>iPhone envy.
>>>I don't even have a cell phone. Something about not wanting to cook my
>>>brain, innit.
>>Too late, Josh.
>>Ever seen Hannibal? The Ray Liotta saute scene?
>I understand Rays are tasty sauteed and fricasseed as well.
You can't fricassee a ray. Too many bones. You'd want to eat the wings
with a caper sauce. Or black butter, which is also traditional.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>>>>No, they don't.
Expectations are set up to be shot down.
>This on top of the obvious signs that there's going to be a hit -- the
>guy drinking coffee and looking over his shoulder at him, then heading
>to the bathroom in a Godfather joke. The Hitchcock-style buildup as
>Meadow parks -- she'll be shot, possibly killed as the guy flees.
One: Obvious signs are there to mislead you.
Two: You need to look a bit more closely at Hitchcock's use of
montage. Perhaps read his interviews with Truffaut, which may be the
best book on film ever published. And check out this site I came
across yesterday and was planning on getting around to blogging:
http://www.borgus.com/think/hitch.htm.
In short, if you're convinced the signs all point to A, the truth is
most likely to be found at B. Or anywhere but A, at any rate.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> Towse goes:
>
> >Chase, however, has said what he has to say about his intent
> >with regard to the Sopranos,
which, somehow, Sal is unable to even paraphrase.
go figure.
at least that helps lighten Alan's workload innit.
> >so $Zero's conflation of Chase intentions and Bradbury
> >intentions and people misconstruing one or both or all
> >three errs on the side of nonsense.
>
> I'm obliged to Your Ladyship.
>
> What a surprise, Zero retailing nonsense.
yeah, right.
> Whatever next?
whatever next?
Alan (the elitist) gets stumped by a "delusional" high-school drop-
out, as usual.
that's what.
...
but at least you've got SAT-boy Josh (the closure junkie) as company,
so cheer up.
Alan Hope
>How is that different from so many other works of art? Artists don't
>usually make their intentions explicit. That doesn't mean they don't
>have intentions, or that we can't fathom them if we're up to the job,
>or that all explanations are equally valid.
Exactly. There is an intention on the part of the artist, but we do
not, and may never, know what it is. Nevertheless, it is there.
Where great art differs from bad art is:
the layering of meaning: a work has many different messages
simultaneously; and
ease of determining what those meanings are.
So you might go from a birthday card verse (one meaning, openly
expressed) to another birthday card (one meaning, expressed using a
mildly rude pun) to the paintings of Poussin, or Middlemarch, or the
Ninth Symphony of Beethoven.
On this reckoning, music is the supreme art because it has a wealth of
meanings, while the composer's intent is virtually impossible to
determine *from the work itself*. Most other artforms leave clues, in
the form of words or images.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
Josh is just another one of those anal-retentive closure junkies.
so it's no surprise that he'd cling for dear life on one particular
ending or another.
especially if he can "justify" it by relying on some obsessive, anal-
retentive, film-school 101 "technique".
duh.
...
"it's an entry level job... so, buck up!
-- Tony Soprano
"alright...
focus on the good times"
-- AJ Soprano
"don't be sarcastic."
-- Tony Soprano
"isn't that what you said one time?
try to remember the times that were good?"
-- AJ Soprano
"i did?"
-- Tony Soprano
"yeah."
-- AJ Soprano
"well, it's true, i guess."
-- Tony Soprano
...
"enjoy the music"
-- Tony Soprano
-$Zero...
"oh, poor you."
-- Sopranos catchphrase
Sopranos Finale Essays (Greatest Hits -- Part II)
Thread-drift from misc.writing -- featuring Kurt, Josh, & Hope
(was: Re: for $Z: iPhone activation problems cause lots of headaches)
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/460cccbd1cfa2824
$Zero
"enjoy the music"
-- Tony Soprano
[suggestion made in the second scene
of The Sopranos series finale]
http://tinypic.com/4pd4ei1.jpg
"Don't Stop Believing"
Journey
"Any way you want it"
-- Jukebox title card
[during a monopoly game, Bobby makes an observation]
"you Sopranos...
you go too far!"
-- Bobby Bacala
[episode: Soprano Home Movies]
"the fat lady sang, but she was a Soprano."
-- megablog
-$Zero...
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
whoa.
chunk by chunk, surely.
> >> >i'm certainly voting for a movie follow-up.
>
> >> >there'd be any number of ways of doing so without
> >> >even going near the finale mystery.
>
> >> >though that would be great to see as well.
>
> >> >particularly if it was the "life goes on" scenario.
>
> >> >or maybe Tony pleading his way into heaven, trying to use
> >> >symbolic dream-like flashback arguments.
>
> >> >and just when things start favoring T, Christophuh shows up
> >> >at the proceeding, arms folded, with a cleaver sticking out of
> >> >his back-pocket.
>
> >> >and the white clouds dissolve into dark red walls.
>
> >> Cleaver's another reason you know that Tony dies.
>
> >um... only if you're going for "conspiracy theories"
>
> >you're about as consistent as meatspace Ray.
>
> I see you don't understand parallel plots and symbolism, either.
google search: zero cleaver sopranos
and voila!
Re: every possible ending (Sopranos Finale Spoilers)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/888bf6d5a6a4ecf6
> Tell me, Zero, what does it mean when
> the psychologist gives up on Tony?
she did that a few times during the show.
this time she did it because, the night before, she read some anal-
retentive circle-jerk psychiatrist study about "the criminal mind"
after being embarrassed at a dinner party by her own analyst, who
himself is a recovering alcoholic Untouchables groupie -- whose
parents named "Elliot."
FFS.
can SAT-Josh really be just as easily artistically whoosed as
meatspace Ray?
> Why does Chase have Christopher force a writer to work for him?
so that Christophuh eventually has "justification" to shoot the writer
in the head for simply reminding a drunken sobbing self-pitying
Christophuh that he's in the mob?
yikes.
$Zero
oops, i forgot the real reason:
because Tony ripped out a recipe page from one of the magazines in her
waiting room.
which, symbolically means:
Tony's stealing the recipes out of her food magazines
thus, whatever breakthrus he has ever made with her regarding his
horrible behaviors over the years can ONLY be used by Tony for evil
purposes.
like, when Tony artfully put the recipe back into the magazine while
he left her office -- just after she had offered to give him the names
of other doctors who could better "enable" him.
Ray Haddad
and Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com> instead replied:
>Ray Haddad goes:
>
>>Drag and drop is hard? Xero, when making a blog entry, you need only
>>to drag and drop a URL to make a link while using the WYSIWYG
>>function of the editor. Seriously. That's it.
>
>Wrong.
Perhaps in your primitive blog. Not mine.
--
Ray
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> You think the guy who created the
> >> >> >> series and wrote the final episode
> >> >> >> doesn't know what it's about?
>
> >> >> >he may know, but we never will.
>
> >> >> >he can do his damnedest to try to convince us, by citing various
> >> >> >things he placed in the story, however, he may have placed many
> >> >> >possible plausible proofs.
>
> >> >> >see that?
>
> >> >> Over-reaching again.
>
> >> >hardly.
>
> >> >in this case, there was clearly a major effort to make multiple
> >> >possible interpretations completely plausible.
>
> >> I don't think so. Thought so at first, thought he was toying with us
> >> and setting up lots of possibilities, but turns out they all point in
> >> the same direction.
>
> >wrong.
>
> You'd have to identify some that don't.
i've already identified two possibilities that solidly contradict
eachother, even using your overly anal-retentive filmschool 101
analysis technique.
1] Tony gets whacked.
(by one of several possible htitmen, no less)
2] Newark goes poof.
so given that, the "life goes on" interpretation is just as plausible.
because you're seeing body bags where none definitively exist.
you're making your own interpretation of the blank screen,
which is fine, but not "irrefutable" by any means.
the sudden death ending may exist in two highly "justifiable"
symbolic interpretations, but neither is definitive.
EOFS
"enjoy the music"
-- Tony Soprano
[suggestion made in the second scene
of The Sopranos series finale]
http://tinypic.com/4pd4ei1.jpg
remember the song that was playing when AJ started screwing his new
girlfriend in his SUV:
"advertising signs
that con you
into thinking
you're the one...
that can do...
what's never been done...
that can win...
what's never been won...
meantime life... outside...
goes on... all around you."
-- Bob Dylan
[song: "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)"]
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/
and then, after a successful escape, they both watched the SUV burn
while the song slowly mutated away in flames.
[during a monopoly game, Bobby protests]
"the Parker Brothers went to alot of
trouble to come up with these rules!"
-- Bobby Bacala
[episode: Soprano Home Movies]
-$Zero...
Thomas Armagost
some that television would educate and uplift the masses in the Post
Second World War period.
Max Headroom is a synthesis of the two extremes. Yes, TV is a drug.
Homeless people stare vacantly at TV sets that they push around in
shopping carts. But the popularity of crusading journalist Edison
Carter is proof that the masses still yearn to be free. The best
satire is the depiction of television executives. They seem eerily
similar to Bush administration officials.
In 1994, all sorts of utopian propaganda was being written about the
net. That's when I said "if I ever write a book on the subject, it
will be titled THE INTERNET SUCKS."
Sadly, I never got around to writing THE INTERNET SUCKS. I'd
planned it to be a parody of a book titled The Internet
Companion.
http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/editinc/foreword.htm
Foreword by Vice President Al Gore. Swoon.
BTW, Zero.
The 13th Annual Brainwash Movie Festival.
http://laughingsquid.com/the-13th-annual-brainwash-movie-festival
Thirteen years. Has it really been that long?
--
http://armagost.wordpress.com
"Don't forget to register to vote" - Frank Zappa
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> >> "God is subtle, but He is never malicious." -- Einstein
>
> >> >but David Chase isn't God.
>
> >> He isn't?
>
> >maybe for atheists like yourself.
>
> >> >> >besides, he's flat out said that he does not want to tell us in any
> >> >> >other way than having us watch the thing ourselves -- he's told us to
> >> >> >figure it out for ourselves.
>
> >> >> >now you're coming along and claiming that there can only be one valid
> >> >> >conclusion in that matter.
>
> >> >> How is that different from so many other works of art? Artists don't
> >> >> usually make their intentions explicit. That doesn't mean they don't
> >> >> have intentions, or that we can't fathom them if we're up to the job,
> >> >> or that all explanations are equally valid.
>
> >> >you've been over-reaching in your other posts with your anal-retentive
> >> >obsession with the POV sequence consistency thinger.
>
> >> You're missing the meaning of over-reaching.
>
> >so says Mr. anal-retentive.
>
> >> Your misuse of "obsessive" and "anal retentive" are examples
> >> of over-reaching:
>
> >not at all.
>
> >you're obsessing over film "technique" as "language"
> >and banking on it.
>
> >that's a very anal-retentive approach to interpretation of art.
>
> Oh, puhleeze. Keep it for the rubes.
it is what it is.
> >> you've used technical terms that you don't really understand
>
> >i wasn't using them as a Psychiatrist, anal-boy.
>
> Obviously not.
never intended to.
i used them in the laymen's vernacular.
which doesn't differ much in meaning, BTW.
> >> to provide an erroneous and needlessly-complex explanation of
> >> a very simple phenomenon, to whit, a straightforward analysis
> >> of filmmaking technique and intent.
>
> >"straight-forward" for obsessive anal-retentive closure junkies
> >like yourself.
>
> >duh.
>
> >do you feel those gloves coming off?
>
> No, I feel someone losing an argument, and not very gracefully.
well, that's one interpretation.
to which of course you're entitled.
but you probably shouldn't hang on to it for dear life,
like you are with your Sopranos thesis.
because it's wrong, as usual.
> >> >to show you just how much you're over-reaching with that POV thinger,
> >> >consider this:
>
> >> >the black-out could just as easily have signified that the terrorists
> >> >(whom Tony was giving info about to the FBI) took out Newark at that
> >> >very moment they were in the diner.
>
> >> >the episode was riddled with that whole looming Arab threat thinger.
>
> >> >AJ considers joining the army, his obsessive focus on how everyone was
> >> >oblivious to world events during Bobby's wake banquet, surfing the web
> >> >about it with his new girlfriend, Tony's conversation with Agent
> >> >Harris at their secret meeting at the airport, etc..
>
> >> >there's simply no way to distinguish that black-out from the one
> >> >you're over-reaching on.
>
> >> You just don't get it, do you?
>
> >you really think you DO get it, don't you.
>
> >how utterly anal.
>
> >there is no way whatsoever to distinguish the Newark hit
> >from the T hit.
>
> >(assuming you insist on calling a blank screen a corpse, FFS)
>
> >> Possibility isn't plausibility.
>
> >exactly.
>
> >and all you have is possibilities.
>
> >that's all ANYONE has here, duhski.
>
> >do try to keep up with your own anal methodologies of film
> >interpretation.
>
> Dude, if you don't understand how a director establishes POV, you are
> not qualified to comment on methodologies of film interpretation.
anal elitist alert!
> Actually, I find it surprising that you don't.
that's probably because i DO understand how POV "can" be handled,
cinematically.
but in the final "analysis", it's an intuitive thing, which "can"
be used as a device for suspense (as well as a device for leading
anal-retentive types into jumping to wrong conclusions).
it's certainly not written in stone that the cinematic techniques
one employs to tell a story somehow determine the meaning.
duh.
> I've never taken a course in film,
obviously.
> haven't read much about the technicalities of it.
yet you rely on this hazy understanding of yours to desperately grasp
for some sort of definitive closure.
> But it's an obvious part of the language, it's intrinsic.
it's not intrinsic, it's intuitive.
a good film-maker uses those tools without the viewer ever being
consciously aware of the "techniques", FFS.
nobody needs to go to film school to figure out what a particular film
means, and certainly not if they're successful films.
> I don't see how one can watch movies and TV without understanding it.
yet you're relying entirely on film-making devices to prove your anal-
retentive theory.
you might want to consider how many people have chosen the "life goes
on" interpretation.
versus how many people have chosen the Tony gets whacked
interpretation.
it's not definitive either way, is it?
not even close.
my guess?
you've read a few reviews from some critics you admire and you're
going that route.
David Chase must be laughing his ass off at all of the certainty out
there in elitist land.
Josh, did you ever watch Northern Exposure?
[completely disguised and behaving _just like_
his twin brother Jules, Joel asks amazed:
"How did you know, Ed?"]
"It's an Indian thing.
We're not taken in
by appearances."
-- Ed Chigliak (film-maker)
[actor: Darren E. Burrows; from
the tv show: "Northern Exposure"]
$Zero
(was: Re: for $Z: iPhone activation problems cause lots of headaches)
On Jul 2, 10:28 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hope:
> >> >> >> You think the guy who created the
> >> >> >> series and wrote the final episode
> >> >> >> doesn't know what it's about?
>
> >> >> >he may know, but we never will.
>
> >> >> >he can do his damnedest to try to convince us, by citing various
> >> >> >things he placed in the story, however, he may have placed many
> >> >> >possible plausible proofs.
>
> >> >> >see that?
>
> >> >> Over-reaching again.
>
> >> >hardly.
>
> >> >in this case, there was clearly a major effort to make multiple
> >> >possible interpretations completely plausible.
>
> >> I don't think so. Thought so at first, thought he was toying with us
> >> and setting up lots of possibilities, but turns out they all point in
> >> the same direction.
>
> >wrong.
>
> You'd have to identify some that don't.
irony alert!
[...]
> >> Possibility isn't plausibility.
>
> >which, BTW, is precisely how i _know_ that you're a liar in regards
> >to:
>
> > "> Josh, are you claiming that you
> > > don't know what that means?
>
> > What what means?"
> > -- Joshua "P" Hill
>
> >and...
>
> > [after a very long absence, Josh explains his recent return
> > to misc.writing which consists largely of hundreds of posts
> > defending the credibility of Josh's new Real-Life pal:
> > Ray (the Circus Master Troll/nice guy terrorist!) Haddad]
>
> > "> Met Ray IRL a year or two ago, just as I was losing interest
> > > in the newsgroup. Poked in for the second time in a year and
> > > saw Gekko's post. Read posts about Ray with idle curiosity.
>
> > yeah yeah, did you pass Billo in the hall?
>
> > did he wish you good luck while squeezing out his hanky?"
>
> > -- $Zero...
>
> >among other things.
>
> Paranoid schizophrenia, if you want to play shrink.
Gawd.
here we go.
shooting the messenger, again.
[checking watch]
> You have no idea how fucking crazy you sound.
you think my conclusions that you're a liar are mine only?
whoa. talk about delusions, huh?
"> Josh, are you claiming that you
> don't know what that means?
What what means?"
-- Joshua "P" Hill
"Possibility isn't plausibility."
-- Joshua "P" Hill
translation: P = Popeye The Sailor Man
run, Josh, run!
> Or maybe you do, since you're sensitive on the topic.
gee, i wonder why?
once artfully cornered by moi, how many other desperados have resorted
to that despicable lame out?
yikes.
> Lesson one for the paranoiac:
> you are /not/ able to ascertain malign intent.
bwah!
so says the dude who is now characterizing me as a paranoid schizo
because he's losing an argument about a tv show.
FFS.
> Lesson two: you harm yourself terribly when you do so.
lesson zero:
be careful who you call on their utter bullshit because
they just may be pathetic malicious little crybabies.
> Summation: People are /not/ out to get you, Zero.
hey, thanks for the tip, Josh.
being a paranoid schizo, it really means a lot to me.
..
anyway, why DO you keep running away from that post showing
irrefutable proof of your lying?
have you realized that there's just no possible way that you can hope
to refute the clear evidence of your lies?
could it be?
naw.
it's because _i'm_ a paranoid schizo.
yeah, that's the ticket!
LOL.
> They are not plotting against you. You are not that important.
that must be why the NY Times put me on the front page one day.
as well as why what i was doing and saying was being covered in USA
today, the LA Times, and several ABC affiliates, etc..
so when my computer was promptly hac/ked (and the electronic filing
cabinet full of data for the lawsuit thus vanished) that was probably
just my paranoid schizo imagination at work.
yep.
"Possibility isn't plausibility."
-- Joshua "P" Hill
[...]
> >> Cleaver's another reason you know that Tony dies.
>
> >um... only if you're going for "conspiracy theories"
>
> >you're about as consistent as meatspace Ray.
-$Zero...
Money -- wikipedia find of the day
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/8f6f0c049da1943a
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> The suspense writer tells you what's going to happen.
>
> >no. the suspense writer creates suspense.
>
> Dude, Suspense 101: you create suspense by letting the
> audience know what's going to happen.
>
> Shot of little girl.
>
> Shot of ticking bomb.
>
> Yada.
yoda.
Shot of little girl.
Shot of ticking bomb.
Shot of mother approaching in car.
blank screen for ten seconds.
roll credits.
can you guess Josh's interpretation?
> >> If you can read the technique,
>
> >Gawd. what an insufferable elitist.
>
> This from the fellow who's constantly calling himself a creative
> genius and everyone else dumb? The gawds laugh.
cluetime:
just because i'm a self-proclaimed creative genius and i often
observe that so many others are gullible fricken' idiots doesn't
mean that i'm an elitist snob.
actually, i'm so far from an elitist snob that it's not even funny.
at all.
...
ba' dum, chshhhh!
-$Zero...
The Fat Lady Sang (but she was a Soprano)
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/76bd4c318ebe15fb
Sopranos Finale Essays (Greatest Hits -- Part II)
Thread-drift from misc.writing -- featuring Kurt, Josh, & Hope
(was: Re: for $Z: iPhone activation problems cause lots of headaches)
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/460cccbd1cfa2824
$Zero
> Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >> The suspense writer tells you what's going to happen.
>
> > >no. the suspense writer creates suspense.
>
> > Dude, Suspense 101: you create suspense by letting the
> > audience know what's going to happen.
>
> > Shot of little girl.
>
> > Shot of ticking bomb.
>
> > Yada.
>
> yoda.
>
> Shot of little girl.
>
> Shot of ticking bomb.
>
> Shot of mother approaching in car.
>
> blank screen for ten seconds.
>
> roll credits.
>
> can you guess Josh's interpretation?
actually, to make it more analogous to the Sopranos finale:
Shot of little girl.
Shot of newly assigned day care worker
(watching girl unwrap the gift he just gave her).
Shot of ticking bomb
(with a Toys-R-Us pricetag dangling from it).
Shot of CNN breaking news stories
(about possible hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.)
Shot of always-stressed-out mob-wife mother
(happily approaching the day care center in car).
blank screen for ten seconds.
roll credits.
can you guess Josh's definitive interpretation?
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> If you can read the technique,
> >> you can read his intent, up to a point.
>
> >there's the rub innit.
>
> > "up to a point"
>
> >> It's a language.
>
> >building the suspense is...
>
> >but interpretting the blank screen is NOT.
>
> >duh fucking duh.
>
> Tony's dead, Zero.
Tony's a fictional character, Josh.
> Chase didn't even use a unique technique.
yes he did.
hence your certainty about Tony's "fate".
> I just watched a program in which someone was knocked unconscious.
> Shot of her terrified face, shot of the club coming down /from her
> viewpoint,/ fade to black to tell you that she's been knocked out.
um...
there was no terrified shot of Tony's face.
there was no club coming down.
there was no gun being aimed at his head.
(there wasn't even a gun shown anywhere near his head, nor in the
diner).
there were no terrorists flicking switches.
etc.
every threat you perceived was nothing more than perceived.
it was suspense.
open-ended suspense.
and it was left that way on purpose.
duh.
> >> You over reach (talk about IKYBWAI's) when you choose an improbable
> >> explanation rather than a probable or evident one.
>
> >you expose your obsessive anal-retentive closure junkie self when you
> >apply those terms to a blank screen -- very unsuspensefully, i might
> >add.
>
> Dude, the work is what it is.
no shit, Sherlock.
the finale was open-ended suspense.
nothing more, nothing less.
to interpret as you will.
again, the finale was open-ended suspense.
just like the famous and brilliantly funny Sopranos Russian episode.
Chase's frequent statement:
life is a glorious mixture of fleeting joys
and various messes and annoying loose ends.
it's not cut and dry (like so many people wish it were).
[...]
> >> Cleaver's another reason you know that Tony dies.
>
> >um... only if you're going for "conspiracy theories"
>
> >you're about as consistent as meatspace Ray.
>
> I see you don't understand parallel plots and symbolism, either.
google search: zero cleaver sopranos
and voila!
Re: every possible ending (Sopranos Finale Spoilers)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/888bf6d5a6a4ecf6
-$Zero...
The Fat Lady Sang (but she was a Soprano)
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/76bd4c318ebe15fb
Sopranos Finale Essays (Greatest Hits -- Part II)
Thread-drift from misc.writing -- featuring Kurt, Josh, & Hope
Alan Hope
Alan Hope
>On Jul 3, 5:08?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >try slate.com
>> >i think that's where i read it.
>> That's not a cite, genius.
> "i think that's where i read it."
>that's all the work i'm willing to do for you.
>google is your friend.
So you have nothing.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>it's certainly not written in stone that the cinematic techniques
>one employs to tell a story somehow determine the meaning.
Another prize contender for stupidest comment of the week.
There's no other good reason for using whatever cinematic techniques
you're talking about.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> It's the application of conspiracy theories to art.
>
> >yours is, yes.
>
> >you have absolutely no evidence of even a single dead body and you're
> >busy identifying the killer, FFS.
>
> >talk about conspiracy theories, huh?
>
> IOW, you have no understanding of what sets a conspiracy theory
> apart. Why am I not surprised?
sure i do.
here's your conspiracy theory (applied to art):
although there was nothing but a blank screen as evidence,
i have concluded that because the last camera shot was a
view of Tony looking up as Meadow walked into the diner, it
is irrefutably true that the man in the Members Only jacket
had come out of the bathroom (just like Michael Corleone did
in the Godfather) and he then blew Tony away. then, as he was
trying to escape, he also killed Meadow who was blocking the door.
everything points to this conclusion and excludes all others.
like, whoa.
talking about conspiracy theories, huh?
> >> >so there's at least two possibilities that cannot both coexist but
> >> >which are both completely plausible, storyline-wise and symbolic-wise.
>
> >> >and that same dynamic applies to the "life goes on" scenario, with the
> >> >blackout signifying nothing more than the Finale having abrubtly ended
> >> >in a highly suspenseful circumstance but which, like it always
> >> >eventually did throughout the entire series, turns out to be
> >> >absolutely nothing more threatening than a fish-fry with the family --
> >> >albeit with Tony not able to fully enjoy his meal, as usual.
>
> >> >remember the way he always nervously fork-fiddled with his food in
> >> >almost every scene where he's eating dinner?
>
> >> >so the potential Tony POV at the last moment is apropos simply because
> >> >the whole show was basically from his POV anyway.
>
> >> >and the "don't stop" click-out lyrics was just the audience's echoed
> >> >plea for more.
>
> >> >anyway, the existence of three possible whackings, from Tony's
> >> >conscious POV (the trucker; the black dudes; and the members only
> >> >guy), actually tends to discount the possibility of an actual hit,
> >> >more than anything.
>
> >> Not at all.
>
> >yes, at all.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >On Jul 3, 5:08?am, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >try slate.com
> >> >i think that's where i read it.
> >> That's not a cite, genius.
> > "i think that's where i read it."
> >that's all the work i'm willing to do for you.
> >google is your friend.
>
> So you have nothing.
did you try adding "iphone + battery" to your search?
-$Zero...
not enough readers? top ten questions to ask yourself
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/f004ecba32215eab
Money -- wikipedia find of the day
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/8f6f0c049da1943a