I didn't want to mention this . . .

[wlah...@gmail.com]

but I can't stand Warren Beatty.

[Tom]

On Nov 17, 9:11 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.

Yeah, he's always seemed rather full of himself to me.

Tom

[moviePig]

On Nov 17, 10:11 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.

Umm, I feel I'm missing an "apropos of" here...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[gtr]

Jerry Lewis--now there's a guy who's full of himself.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-18 03:11:10 +0000, wlah...@gmail.com said:

> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.

What's to not stand? It's almost like not being able to stand Arnold
Stang or Jack Gilford. It would seem one would have to go out of their
way to even notice Beatty for evaluation and rejection.

I've seen maybe two movies he was in; they stunk. In fact maybe the
ONLY time I've fallen asleep in a movie theater was Bulworth. And I
was sacked for a good 20 minutes. But hell--I've seen more movies that
stunk with Ronald Reagan.

I saw Tom Cruise in the theater (an assignmen for a writing class) in
his "I Can't Even Spell Accting Rite!" tour de force, "Fourth of July".
I was so outraged with his incompetence I was at the back of the
theater with my hand on the door ready to push it as soon as I smelled
the credits crawl. Now THAT's somebody to get behind not standing.

[mra...@frontier.com]

<wlah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b856cb8b-1e2c-4ec2...@googlegroups.com...

>
>
> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.

Agreed. The only film of his I can stand is The Parallax View, and that
would have been better with someone else in the lead--Steve McQueen? Donald
Sutherland?--but at least he gets killed at the end.

PBT

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:21:19 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> On Nov 17, 10:11 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > but I can't stand Warren Beatty.
>
> Umm, I feel I'm missing an "apropos of" here...
>

There is no need of an "apropos of" here. The statement applies in all cases, real and abstract.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:39:58 AM UTC-5, gtr wrote:

> On 2012-11-18 03:11:10 +0000, wlah...@gmail.com said:
>
> > but I can't stand Warren Beatty.
>
> What's to not stand? It's almost like not being able to stand Arnold
> Stang or Jack Gilford.

But Arnold Stang did those Chunky commercials. That must count for something.

[Tom]

On Nov 18, 9:34 am, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:39:58 AM UTC-5, gtr wrote:

> > On 2012-11-18 03:11:10 +0000, wlahe...@gmail.com said:
>
> > > but I can't stand Warren Beatty.
>
> > What's to not stand? It's almost like not being able to stand Arnold
> > Stang or Jack Gilford.
>
> But Arnold Stang did those Chunky commercials. That must count for something.

And didn't Jack Gilford do Tootsie- Roll Pops commercials?

Creepy looking men and candy... what's not to like?

Tom

[bermuda999]

"What a chunk"

[gtr]

Right--a dignified but unremarkable career. So who could work up a head
of steam for someone so unremarkable? I put Beatty in the same category.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-18 16:44:08 +0000, Tom said:

> On Nov 18, 9:34 am, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:39:58 AM UTC-5, gtr wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-18 03:11:10 +0000, wlahe...@gmail.com said:
>>
>>>> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.
>>
>>> What's to not stand? It's almost like not being able to stand Arnold
>>> Stang or Jack Gilford.
>>
>> But Arnold Stang did those Chunky commercials. That must count for something.
>
> And didn't Jack Gilford do Tootsie- Roll Pops commercials?

I thought it was Cracker Jack.

> Creepy looking men and candy... what's not to like?

Creepy men like your grandfather!

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:11:10 PM UTC-5, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.

According to the IMDB, the last movie that he did that was not a TV movie was 2001. So you are OK if you stick to recent flicks.

[trotsky]

On 11/17/12 10:21 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On Nov 17, 10:11 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.
>
> Umm, I feel I'm missing an "apropos of" here...

What, you're unfamiliar with sir william's particular brand of well wishing?

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:50:28 PM UTC-5, gtr wrote:

> I thought it was Cracker Jack.
>

And here's one allegedly banned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-GdtKmrxIY&feature=fvwrel

[Tom]

On Nov 18, 11:50 am, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> On 2012-11-18 16:44:08 +0000, Tom said:
>
> > On Nov 18, 9:34 am, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:39:58 AM UTC-5, gtr wrote:
> >>> On 2012-11-18 03:11:10 +0000, wlahe...@gmail.com said:
>
> >>>> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.
>
> >>> What's to not stand? It's almost like not being able to stand Arnold
> >>> Stang or Jack Gilford.
>
> >> But Arnold Stang did those Chunky commercials. That must count for something.
>
> > And didn't Jack Gilford do Tootsie- Roll Pops commercials?
>
> I thought it was Cracker Jack.

Yes, it was... thanks.

>
> > Creepy looking men and candy... what's not to like?
>
> Creepy men like your grandfather!

I didn't they were creepy, I said they were creepy looking. And which
of my long dead grandfathers are you getting personal about...
maternal (who I never knew) or paternal?

Tom

[moviePig]

But it's like disinterring him to wish him poor health.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 3:02:25 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> But it's like disinterring him to wish him poor health.
>

Where did I wish him "poor health"?

[moviePig]

Unless there's some recent context I missed, I'd have judged him
passed into irrelevance. Thus, I'm not grasping why you'd invoke his
countenance anew, even for a tomato throw.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 5:01:46 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> Unless there's some recent context I missed, I'd have judged him
> passed into irrelevance. Thus, I'm not grasping why you'd invoke his
> countenance anew, even for a tomato throw.

One would think -- as to his irrelevance -- except his effect upon film criticism still irks me. Mostly, I just felt like it.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 19:11:10 -0800 (PST), wlah...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
>but I can't stand Warren Beatty.

If your mind is disciplined enough, you can ignore the negative and
concentrate on, say, his wonderful performance in "Bugsy" (1991)

I can understand why you have trouble, though. Try crossword puzzles.
--

[moviePig]

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why - I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_do_not_like_thee,_Doctor_Fell )

[trotsky]

On 11/18/12 2:02 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On Nov 18, 10:32 am, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:21:19 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 10:11 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.
>>
>>> Umm, I feel I'm missing an "apropos of" here...
>>
>> There is no need of an "apropos of" here. The statement applies in all cases, real and abstract.
>
> But it's like disinterring him to wish him poor health.

See, you do get it!

[trotsky]

On 11/18/12 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On Nov 18, 3:08 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 3:02:25 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>> But it's like disinterring him to wish him poor health.
>>
>> Where did I wish him "poor health"?
>
> Unless there's some recent context I missed, I'd have judged him
> passed into irrelevance. Thus, I'm not grasping why you'd invoke his
> countenance anew, even for a tomato throw.

Personally, I would like to see this grow into a whole slew of "You know
who really sucks ass?" posts.

[trotsky]

Some connection to film noir, or what?

[trotsky]

He won't even do Sudoku because of Pearl Harbor.

[trotsky]

That's not fair, because clearly william was about to launch into a
diatribe about Beatty's horrible and lasting effect on "film criticism".

[trotsky]

On 11/18/12 4:36 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:

Wait, let me take a shot: Pauline Kael saw "Shampoo" and couldn't sit
straight for the next fifteen years

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 5:41:13 PM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> If your mind is disciplined enough, you can ignore the negative and
> concentrate on, say, his wonderful performance in "Bugsy" (1991)
>

So you've "disciplined" your mind to watch junk. I'm so envious. That explains a lot.

>
> I can understand why you have trouble, though. Try crossword puzzles.
>

Judging by your posts, you can't understand much and, btw, I do the Saturday NYTimes crossword puzzle in ink. My god, you're a waste of time.

[Ralph]

On Nov 18, 5:22 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:

> Personally, I would like to see this grow into a whole slew of "You know
> who really sucks ass?" posts.

Let me oblige. Daniel Day-Lewis.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 5:47:24 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
> The reason why - I cannot tell;
> But this I know, and know full well,
> I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.
>

Would love to go on with this but the morons have arrived and I have better things to do.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-18 19:50:28 +0000, Tom said:

>> I thought it was Cracker Jack.
>
> Yes, it was... thanks.
>
>>> Creepy looking men and candy... what's not to like?
>>
>> Creepy men like your grandfather!
>
> I didn't they were creepy, I said they were creepy looking. And which
> of my long dead grandfathers are you getting personal about...
> maternal (who I never knew) or paternal?

No offense intended I meant "creepy" like any nice old man is creepy,
mostly not at all except to children. "Come give your aunt Betty some
sugar." "I don't want to kiss aunt Betty--she smells funny!"

[gtr]

As long as the "who" isn't limited William, I'd be delighted with that.
But as all threads go, I assume this one will...

I already offered up Jerry Lewis, but I guess that's about as easy as
it gets. Oh--and Tom Cruise. Now there's an "entertainer" I dislike so
much I'd consider buying a DVD just to shit on it. No, that's too much
trouble: But I'd SAY I would.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-18 22:41:02 +0000, Mack A. Damia said:

> ...you can ignore the negative and concentrate on, say, his wonderful
> performance in "Bugsy" (1991)

It's true, in that movie he wasn't intolerable. Ms. Benning sure does
make the house-lights flicker too...

[Mack A. Damia]

You mean the children's version, the same one that's in the Weekly
Reader.

>My god, you're a waste of time.

Don't flatter yourself at my expense. Your time is quite
insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe.

--

[notbob]

On 2012-11-18, SLGreg <SLG...@madeitup.com> wrote:

> Harry Connick, Jr.

Now we're talkin'!! ;)

Jack Black
Nicolas Cage
Matthew Broderick

As long as we're in a serious bashin' mood, see my other thread.

nb


--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

[notbob]

On 2012-11-19, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:

> Now we're talkin'!! ;)

In one movie: B Bob Thornton in Slingblade, one of the worst
performances in one of the worst movies, ever!

OTOH, loved him in Tombstone and Bad Santa.

[moviePig]

On Nov 17, 10:11 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.

I do not like thee, Beatty, Warren.
Dismay, the day that you were bor'n.
On you I spew my store of scor'n,
And on those like thee, Beatty, Warren.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:19:19 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>
> I do not like thee, Beatty, Warren.
> Dismay, the day that you were bor'n.
> On you I spew my store of scor'n,
> And on those like thee, Beatty, Warren.
>

Thanks for rounding up all the poetic disses to Beatty. The truth is he just doesn't occupy much of my time. Last night I thought about him for a moment and I posted. No big deal. But thanks for the effort. It beat the hell out of many of the other posts but then around here it's only a matter of time before the moron brigade arrives, the mindless hyenas of usenet, and they lower the conversation to the level of what's heard on the short yellow buses. Never poetry from the damaged and ignorant, at best a misremembered limerick. So thanks for the poetry.

[Mack A. Damia]

Jack and Jill went up the hill,
Each with a buck and a quarter.
Jill came down with two and a half.
(They didn't go up for water)

--

[trotsky]

On 11/18/12 10:19 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On Nov 17, 10:11 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> but I can't stand Warren Beatty.
>
> I do not like thee, Beatty, Warren.
> Dismay, the day that you were bor'n.
> On you I spew my store of scor'n,
> And on those like thee, Beatty, Warren.

Chaucer just puked in his gr'ave.

[trotsky]

This per Andrew Dice Clay:

Little Miss Muffet
Sat on a tuffet
A lightbulb was stuck up her ass
It woke up the spider who lived deep inside her
He said "hey, free electric and gas!"

[Mack A. Damia]

There once was a wise, old guru,
Who fell asleep in a canoe.
He dreamed that Venus
Was tickling his penis,
And woke up with a canoe full of goo.

--

[trotsky]

You pick your favorite:

http://pctechtalk.com/topic/80155-andrew-dice-clay-dirty-nursery-rhymes/

[Mack A. Damia]

Willy Ahern in Boston
Drove a little red Austin.
There was room for his ass,
Three gallons of gas,
But his balls hung out,
So he lost 'em.

--

[madar...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:39:58 AM UTC-5, gtr wrote:

> On 2012-11-18 03:11:10 +0000, wlah...@gmail.com said:
>
>
>
> > but I can't stand Warren Beatty.
>
>
>

> What's to not stand? It's almost like not being able to stand Arnold
>
> Stang or Jack Gilford. It would seem one would have to go out of their
>
> way to even notice Beatty for evaluation and rejection.
>
>
>
> I've seen maybe two movies he was in; they stunk. In fact maybe the
>
> ONLY time I've fallen asleep in a movie theater was Bulworth. And I
>
> was sacked for a good 20 minutes. But hell--I've seen more movies that
>
> stunk with Ronald Reagan.
>
>
>
> I saw Tom Cruise in the theater (an assignmen for a writing class) in
>
> his "I Can't Even Spell Accting Rite!" tour de force, "Fourth of July".
>
> I was so outraged with his incompetence I was at the back of the
>
> theater with my hand on the door ready to push it as soon as I smelled
>
> the credits crawl. Now THAT's somebody to get behind not standing.

Well said.

Oh, and to Mack: BUGSY was horrible because Beatty and Bening were completely miscast. It might have made a decent film with better actors in their roles. Read the book on which it's based.

[Mack A. Damia]

Too many books; too little eye power.

Somebody besides me liked it:

Bugsy won Academy Awards for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration (Dennis
Gassner, Nancy Haigh) and Best Costume Design.

It was nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role (Warren Beatty),
Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Harvey Keitel and Ben Kingsley), Best
Cinematography, Best Director, Best Music, Original Score, Best
Picture and Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen.

It received eight (8) Golden Globe nominations and won for Best
Picture – Drama. The Silence of the Lambs won many categories where
Bugsy received nominations in 1991. The film was nominated for the
Golden Bear at the 42nd Berlin International Film Festival.

American Film Institute Lists AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes and
Villains: Bugsy Siegel – Nominated Villain

AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes: "Why don't you go outside and jerk
yourself a soda?" – Nominated

AFI's 10 Top 10 – Nominated Gangster Film

--

[gtr]

On 2012-11-19 18:28:44 +0000, Mack A. Damia said:

> Too many books; too little eye power.
>

> Somebody besides me liked it [Bugsy]:

>
> Bugsy won Academy Awards for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration (Dennis
> Gassner, Nancy Haigh) and Best Costume Design.
>
> It was nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role (Warren Beatty),
> Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Harvey Keitel and Ben Kingsley), Best
> Cinematography, Best Director, Best Music, Original Score, Best
> Picture and Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen.
>
> It received eight (8) Golden Globe nominations and won for Best
> Picture � Drama. The Silence of the Lambs won many categories where
> Bugsy received nominations in 1991. The film was nominated for the
> Golden Bear at the 42nd Berlin International Film Festival.
>
> American Film Institute Lists AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes and
> Villains: Bugsy Siegel � Nominated Villain
>
> AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes: "Why don't you go outside and jerk
> yourself a soda?" � Nominated
>
> AFI's 10 Top 10 � Nominated Gangster Film

Oh my. At our last film group we watched three movies in which Alan
Bates was present. One was an "Unmarried Woman" which I didn't see when
it initially came out. Lord-godamighty did it stink. Time and culture
have not been good to that movie but it the stench was high on a number
of fronts, most notably the pop-schlock arrangments that Bill Conti
extruded into the score.

I shared my views, but with wit and panache, and with that sympathetic
cadence I reserve for children and half-wits--and friends I don't want
to lose before the dessert.

I was informed of all the many awards it had won or been nominated for,
including Conti, at which point I was compelled to say, "Oh, okay. Well
I guess it was good after all."

Don't we all have movies we loved that won bupkiss and movies we
despised that were honored? Stallone was up for best actor for Rocky
when DeNiro was up for Taxi Driver, and Finch for Network. Just having
his name read in that grouping should have been the highpoint of his
career. Unfortunately there was much much more.

I've used my too-quickly proselytized response ("I guess it was good
after all") a few times when my exacting critiques are upended by the
citation of a Jury Prize at the Dallas Film Festivul (I think that's
how they spell it!). It's not much of a counter, but it cuts the
discussion off, which has its value.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 19, 2012 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, gtr wrote:
>
> I was informed of all the many awards it had won or been nominated for,
> including Conti, at which point I was compelled to say, "Oh, okay. Well
> I guess it was good after all."
>
>

The listing of awards or quotations from critics are the last bastion of the Philistine. Usually when that kind of banter replaces discussion it means that the speaker can't -- or won't -- describe their appreciation (should they actually have one). It is the blunderbuss approach: "It won awards, so shut up" instead of "I liked the film because . . . ."

[Mack A. Damia]

yas......yas.....yas...

But what I said was, "Somebody besides me liked it."

Who has the definitive decision on a film's quality?

Please tell me; I want to annoy them.

--

[Mack A. Damia]

I enjoyed it, so STFU.

--

[Mack A. Damia]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:18:51 -0800, SLGreg <SLG...@madeitup.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:16:38 -0800 (PST), wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>

>Justin Bieber sweeping the AMA's last night is a prime example.

Honoring Dick Clark, too. Innovator and spokesman of the pop music
scene.

--

[gtr]

They can say why they like the film, but then I bust up their critique
point by point, laced with derisive humour and concepts they don't
understand. I'm real party fun that way!

In all seriousness, I DO bust up these movies from my own vantage
point, and they can't really defend against many of the things I say,
except "the [lighting/continuity/dialogue/plot/editing/photography]
don't really mean that much to me. I just cried when the dog died".
And I'm fine with that. I cried when the dog died too, but that
doesn't make it good and even more important--it doesn't make it "well
made". Mostly I critique the object and it's qualities.

Hell, I pull the fingernails out on the movies *I MYSELF* recommend.
There are precious few movies where I don't find significant
inequities. That doesn't mean, though, that I too didn't fall in love
with little Peggy or cry wihen the dog died.

The awards reponse does irk me when it comes right after a carefullly
considered opinion. Once as I began to run out of oxygen, one friend
had been twittling on his iphone and responded with, "Rotten Tomatoes
gives it 9 stars. Nine stars! These are professional critics!" That
was his line. I about blew my martini out my nose. It would be even
more funny if it had been ironic, which it was not.

[gtr]

There you go! Actually I think it would be more fun to ask, "Well I
enjoyed it, how do you explain that?" Sure, I know that around here
that would be answered with "you're a faggot" or... Hmm. I guess I've
never really acquired the vocabulary for that kind of retort, but you
get my meaning.

It would be fun to consider what it is about people's tastes when they
like something that another considers broken or hobbled.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-20 00:44:13 +0000, Mack A. Damia said:

> yas......yas.....yas...
>
> But what I said was, "Somebody besides me liked it."

Hell, I think I admitted to liking it myself upstream despite Beatty's
appearance.

> Who has the definitive decision on a film's quality?

You do when you're watching. I take over when it's my shift.

> Please tell me; I want to annoy them.

Get busy!

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:24:07 PM UTC-5, gtr wrote:
>
> There you go! Actually I think it would be more fun to ask, "Well I
> enjoyed it, how do you explain that?" Sure, I know that around here
> that would be answered with "you're a faggot" or... Hmm. I guess I've
> never really acquired the vocabulary for that kind of retort, but you
> get my meaning.
>

It is possible to have a decent conversation around here before the juveniles and the trolls arrive to reduce the conversation to "faggot" or genitalia references. Sometimes it's just too bad. A conversation is moving along and then Mac or trotsky show up and there's just no point anymore. I can't remember either of them saying anything memorable or interesting about a film. Ever. Both are homophobes and both are fascinated by genitalia as if they were fifth graders in a very slow school. Been a nice chat, but I'm off to the races . . .

[Mack A. Damia]

William, I like you, and I appreciate your reviews and the
back-and-forth banter I am only kidding you - maybe rattling your
chain or shaking your cage. Perhaps a smiley would have been
appropriate, but it seems as though we don't use them in here. You
seem to have a fairly thin skin, and you take offense rather easily.
Lighten up - it's only a newsgroup, and please take these things with
a grain of salt.

--

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 19, 2012 9:37:18 PM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:

>
> William, I like you, and I appreciate your reviews and the
> back-and-forth banter I am only kidding you - maybe rattling your
> chain or shaking your cage. Perhaps a smiley would have been
> appropriate, but it seems as though we don't use them in here. You
> seem to have a fairly thin skin, and you take offense rather easily.
> Lighten up - it's only a newsgroup, and please take these things with
> a grain of salt.
>

I'm not thin-skinned. You get in my face and then I will get in your face. Them's the rules. You call people "faggots" and make all kinds of dick references and then when you get as good as you give you get all flustered as if someone's sniping you. I'm sick of this shit. I don't even bother to post reviews here anymore because (a) most people here don't give a shit about most of the films I see (which is fine); and (b) because of the dickheads like you and trotsky. Trotsky is just an idiot troll who has no real grasp of anything. You accused me of plagiarism (with no proof of course) and there was never any indiction of humor involved. Oh, now that's a joke? I stick around here because a decent conversation about film can still happen. There's still some decent people here. What I'll take with a grain of salt is your above statement. Frankly, I don't give a damn and I don't believe it.

[gtr]

On 2012-11-20 01:37:33 +0000, wlah...@gmail.com said:

> On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:24:07 PM UTC-5, gtr wrote:
>>
>> There you go! Actually I think it would be more fun to ask, "Well I
>> enjoyed it, how do you explain that?" Sure, I know that around here
>> that would be answered with "you're a faggot" or... Hmm. I guess I've
>> never really acquired the vocabulary for that kind of retort, but you
>> get my meaning.
>
> It is possible to have a decent conversation around here before the
> juveniles and the trolls arrive to reduce the conversation to "faggot"
> or genitalia references. Sometimes it's just too bad. A conversation is

> moving along and then Mac or trotsky show up and...

BZZZT. Thank you for playing...

[gtr]

On 2012-11-20 03:00:18 +0000, wlah...@gmail.com said:

> On Monday, November 19, 2012 9:37:18 PM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
>>
>> William, I like you, and I appreciate your reviews and the
>> back-and-forth banter I am only kidding you - maybe rattling your
>> chain or shaking your cage. Perhaps a smiley would have been
>> appropriate, but it seems as though we don't use them in here.

Go ahead and lead the pack in promoting our mutual camaraderie!

>> You seem to have a fairly thin skin, and you take offense rather easily.
>> Lighten up - it's only a newsgroup, and please take these things with
>> a grain of salt.
>
> I'm not thin-skinned. You get in my face and then I will get in your
> face. Them's the rules.

Very good. I'm glad we settled that and we can move along...

I too have experienced significant social chafing with any number of
people. But I do my best not to make it personal. If they insist on
making it personal, that's fine; I think they are dealing with problems
accrued early in life. But, I've never strategically whittled anybody's
soul into kiddling and accomplished either of these two goals:

1) Feeling good about myself
2) Having them acknowledge their soul was whittled into kiddling

I gave it a good long run for a number of years. Then I stopped.

Almost.

[Mack A. Damia]

Where have a called somebody a faggot? It's a word that's really not
in my vocabulary, and I don't recall any "dick" references, either.

Care to elucidate?

--

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 19, 2012 10:07:07 PM UTC-5, gtr wrote:

> BZZZT. Thank you for playing...

Sorry, calvin, I didn't know it was *your* thread . . .

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 19, 2012 10:27:00 PM UTC-5, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> Where have a called somebody a faggot? It's a word that's really not
> in my vocabulary, and I don't recall any "dick" references, either.
>
> Care to elucidate?
>

No. It's in the record. There was a whole sub-thread about your homophobia and you came back with "some of my best friends" or some nonsense like that. Does that ring a bell? I'm not going to sift through the archives to "prove" to you what I believe is apparent to everyone here. Plus, I don't give a shit.

[Mack A. Damia]

I don't know what the fuck you're on about. As far as "dick" is
concerned, I have mentioned "Dick" Clark a few times. That's a first
name, William. It's short for "Richard".

I think you're confused.

--

[trotsky]

On 11/19/12 6:44 PM, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> Who has the definitive decision on a film's quality?

Do you even need to ask this question?

[trotsky]

On 11/19/12 7:37 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:24:07 PM UTC-5, gtr wrote:
>>
>> There you go! Actually I think it would be more fun to ask, "Well I
>> enjoyed it, how do you explain that?" Sure, I know that around here
>> that would be answered with "you're a faggot" or... Hmm. I guess I've
>> never really acquired the vocabulary for that kind of retort, but you
>> get my meaning.
>>
> It is possible to have a decent conversation around here before the juveniles and the trolls arrive to reduce the conversation to "faggot" or genitalia references.

How is that any different by the bullshit analysis of how the thread is
going?

[gtr]

[madar...@gmail.com]

Last I checked, Beatty still sucked.

[trotsky]

On 11/20/12 10:51 AM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-11-20 16:04:54 +0000, trotsky said:
>
>> On 11/19/12 7:37 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:24:07 PM UTC-5, gtr wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There you go! Actually I think it would be more fun to ask, "Well I
>>>> enjoyed it, how do you explain that?" Sure, I know that around here
>>>> that would be answered with "you're a faggot" or... Hmm. I guess I've
>>>> never really acquired the vocabulary for that kind of retort, but you
>>>> get my meaning.
>>>>
>>> It is possible to have a decent conversation around here before the
>>> juveniles and the trolls arrive to reduce the conversation to
>>> "faggot" or genitalia references.
>>
>>

>> How is that any different from the bullshit analysis of how the thread

>> is going?
>
> Do you even need to ask this question?

Do you have an answer? People that want to stay on topic stay on topic.
This newsgroup isn't about trolls, or poorly thought out analysis of
"hijacked threads". This group is about past films, and ANY other
discussions are off topic. So, yeah, I need to ask that question, and
you clearly need to understand why it was asked.

Any questions?

[Mack A. Damia]

What subjects of discussions don't relate to past films?

You name anything, and I'll supply the past film.

Basically, we have an open forum with past films as a point of focus.

--

[gtr]

On 2012-11-20 19:06:18 +0000, trotsky said:

> On 11/20/12 10:51 AM, gtr wrote:
>> On 2012-11-20 16:04:54 +0000, trotsky said:
>>
>>> On 11/19/12 7:37 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:24:07 PM UTC-5, gtr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go! Actually I think it would be more fun to ask, "Well I
>>>>> enjoyed it, how do you explain that?" Sure, I know that around here
>>>>> that would be answered with "you're a faggot" or... Hmm. I guess I've
>>>>> never really acquired the vocabulary for that kind of retort, but you
>>>>> get my meaning.
>>>>>
>>>> It is possible to have a decent conversation around here before the
>>>> juveniles and the trolls arrive to reduce the conversation to
>>>> "faggot" or genitalia references.
>>>
>>> How is that any different from the bullshit analysis of how the thread
>>> is going?
>>
>> Do you even need to ask this question?
>
> Do you have an answer?

No, because I don't think I can really understand what the pronouns you
are using refer to. My response was just a riff on your last posed
question to another.

> People that want to stay on topic stay on topic. This newsgroup isn't
> about trolls, or poorly thought out analysis of "hijacked threads".
> This group is about past films, and ANY other discussions are off topic.

I've been hanging here a year or more. "Being about?". This newsgroup
is purportedly for the discussion of movies. But many threads, likely
most, morph into secondary topics and here many morph into personal
attacks emanating from long-standing feuds. This doesn't make it vastly
dissimilar from a number of other usenet discussions that I participate
in. But the volume is much smaller so it's more of an inconvenience to
me.

I don't imagine what inconveniences, distracts or irritates me is of
any interest to you, but I'm stating my perspective. I take a quick
glance at the activity here, usually a few times a day, and if there is
an interesting discussion or topic I'll participate. When it turns into
a slap-fight between 3 or 4 of the main slap-fight enthusiasts, I
usually wait till it's over; certainly participating doesn't do me any
good. Nor does commentary on the nature of slap-fights, as I have again
proven.

> So, yeah, I need to ask that question, and you clearly need to
> understand why it was asked.

I don't think I understand your question, so logically I don't
understand why itwas asked. Perhaps it is this: How is calling someone
a faggot different than an analysis of the way in which discussions
break down into name calling? To this my answer would be: Calling
someone a faggot is a direct personal insult. Carping about how topics
devolve into name-calling is a commentary on that process. This is how
they differ.

> Any questions?

No. You say you "need to ask a question", and you did. I attempted to answer.

[trotsky]

Okay, here is what william said:

> It is possible to have a decent conversation around here before the
> juveniles and the trolls arrive to reduce the conversation to
> "faggot" or genitalia references.

Which past films do you want to tie this to?

[Mack A. Damia]

Right off the bat, "The Breakfast Club" (1985) comes to mind.
"Midnight Cowboy" (1969) is another one dealing partly with
intolerance and name-calling.

--

[trotsky]

That would make william Ratso Rizzo, I suppose.

[Tom]

On Nov 18, 5:47 pm, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> On 2012-11-18 19:50:28 +0000, Tom said:
>
> >> I thought it was Cracker Jack.
>
> > Yes, it was... thanks.
>
> >>> Creepy looking men and candy... what's not to like?
>
> >> Creepy men like your grandfather!
>
> > I didn't they were creepy, I said they were creepy looking. And which
> > of my long dead grandfathers are you getting personal about...
> > maternal (who I never knew) or paternal?
>
> No offense intended I meant "creepy" like any nice old man is creepy,
> mostly not at all except to children. "Come give your aunt Betty some
> sugar."  "I don't want to kiss aunt Betty--she smells funny!"

OK, I get it... thanks for letting me know!

Oddly, I had an Aunt Betty... She had an unusually deep voice, I guess
from being a smoker... I don't remember if she smelled funny, though.
lol!

Tom

[gtr]

On 2012-11-21 02:55:20 +0000, Tom said:

>> No offense intended I meant "creepy" like any nice old man is creepy,
>> mostly not at all except to children. "Come give your aunt Betty some
>> sugar."  "I don't want to kiss aunt Betty--she smells funny!"
>
> OK, I get it... thanks for letting me know!
>
> Oddly, I had an Aunt Betty... She had an unusually deep voice, I guess
> from being a smoker... I don't remember if she smelled funny, though.
> lol!

That line always tickles me. I actually heard a kid say that at a
picnic once. I was in stitches.

It reminded me of when I was a kid and had to be mauled and slathered
on by all kinds of bosomy old relatives about which I knew nothing
except they last saw me when I was "this big".

[Tom]

Ah, good times!

Tom