Holocaust
Mr Jinx
I watched a programme on the holocaust this morning. They were
showing the 'little red house' at Auschwitz where so many of the
murders took place -- no windows and only one door. Every so often
the programme cut to adverts. Then we were shown bright, shiny things
we could buy. There were Christmas songs and somebody told us about a
hedge trimmer that would make an ideal gift. On the screen happy
children and grown-ups smiled from a world of comfort and plenty
before we were returned to the grainy footage of women and children
being taken from trains and selected for work or perhaps deemed unfit
to work.
Good God. Look what wonders man has made.
Mr Jinx
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> I watched a programme on the holocaust this morning
Busy then?
TCA
"Upbeat & Cheerful Martin" <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eb794e1f-2e7a-4600...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Busy then?
Thankfully, it appears he's never too busy to spend a little time thinking
about what a fucked up world we live in....
Was you out Christmas shopping?
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Was you out Christmas shopping?
Nope, just cleaning out last night's bong
really real
There are all kinds of atrocities in the world like genocide and
television advertising.
I want to know why the first time I've ever had to endure an internet ad
before watching a youtube video was when Bob Dylan got his xmas video
posted in youtube.
Is Bob Dylan the antimoses?
TCA
"treadleson" <trea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0d759ebe-ec03-4b6a...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>Clockwork Orange, set in UK, was just on TV. It did quite well in the US.
>I was wondering whether it had been as big a hit over in England.
It was banned for many years.... but it's got quite a cult status now it's
freely available.
TCA
> Nope, just cleaning out last night's bong
Ahh.. a smoker...:) Me too... and I love a little mental stimulation when
stoned. I'm guessing you're more of a Tom & Jerry man though?
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> I'm guessing you're more of a Tom & Jerry man though?
I get my kicks burning Beatles albums. John Lennon...what a
talentless get, eh?
TCA
> I get my kicks burning Beatles albums. John Lennon...what a talentless
> get, eh?
Are you saying Mr Jinx was getting a 'kick' out of what he observed?
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Are you saying Mr Jinx was getting a 'kick' out of what he observed?
Do you speak English?
TCA
> Do you speak English?
Internet English or Queens English? Or, worse still... American English...
?
really real
>
>> Are you saying Mr Jinx was getting a 'kick' out of what he observed?
>
> Do you speak English?
That's rude, Martin. Why don't you answer the question?
Janice
> > It was banned for many years.... but it's got quite a cult status now it's
> > freely available.
>
> Banned. How interesting.
Yes, that was my reaction also.
Who banned it? How long was it banned & when (and how) did it become
"freely available"?
We take the First Amendment for granted...
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Janice
> On Nov 18, 10:33 pm, treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > It was banned for many years.... but it's got quite a cult status now it's
> > > freely available.
>
> > Banned. How interesting.
>
> Yes, that was my reaction also.
>
> Who banned it? How long was it banned & when (and how) did it become
> "freely available"?
>
> We take the First Amendment for granted...
From Yahoo.answers.com:
In the United Kingdom, the sexual violence in the film was considered
extreme. Furthermore, it was claimed that the film had inspired
copycat behaviour. In March 1972, a prosecutor at a trial of a 14-year-
old boy accused of the manslaughter of one of his classmates referred
to A Clockwork Orange, telling the judge that the case had a macabre
relevance to the film.[8]
The attacker, a boy age 16 from Bletchley, pleaded guilty after
telling police that his friends had told him of the film "and the
beating up of an old boy like this one"; defence counsel told the
trial "the link between this crime and sensational literature,
particularly A Clockwork Orange, is established beyond reasonable
doubt".[9] The press also blamed the influence of the film for a rape
in which the attackers sang "Singin' in the Rain". Kubrick
subsequently requested that Warner Brothers withdraw the film from UK
distribution.
At the time, it was widely believed that the copycat attacks were what
led Kubrick to withdraw the film from distribution in the United
Kingdom. However, in a television documentary made after Kubrick's
death, his widow Christiane confirmed rumours that Kubrick had
withdrawn A Clockwork Orange on police advice after threats were made
against Kubrick and his family (the source of the threats was not
discussed). That Warner Bros. acceded to Kubrick's request to withdraw
the film is an indication of the remarkable relationship Kubrick had
with the studio, particularly the executive Terry Semel.
-----------------------------
Kubrick withdrew it from the UK.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> That's rude, Martin. Why don't you answer the question?
What question?
really real
>
>> That's rude, Martin. Why don't you answer the question?
>
> What question?
>
Fuck you Martin. When are you going to apologize for your attempts to
always derail threads with your silly sense of humour?
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> That's rude, Martin...
> Fuck you Martin
I'm getting mixed signals from you here. Could you please provide
some clarification?
really real
>
>> Fuck you Martin
>
> I'm getting mixed signals from you here. Could you please provide
> some clarification?
Yes, Martin, I have been trying for a while now to get you to stop with
your smarmy jokes that attempt to derail threads. If you find yourself
feeling something about these threads, try to put it in words, instead
of your usual "look at my silliness" posts.
I think you are being a coward, hiding your true feelings behind jokes.
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Yes, Martin, I have been trying for a while now to get you to stop with
> your smarmy jokes that attempt to derail threads
You've been trying to silence me? You've got your work cut out for
you there, buster. Anyway, you've hardly been trying very hard. Why
don't you email some other RMD people and get them to ignore me?
You're quite into that sort of thing, aren't you?
really real
>
> You've been trying to silence me?
No, it's the opposite. I've been trying to get you to speak out. I
consider your jokes to be a form of silence, because they seem to say
"stop all serious discussion now."
You've got your work cut out for
> you there, buster. Anyway, you've hardly been trying very hard. Why
> don't you email some other RMD people and get them to ignore me?
> You're quite into that sort of thing, aren't you?
The only person in rmd I tried to silence was Rachel because I thought
her insane multiple posting was ruining threads. Do you see the common
theme here?
Janice
> Thanks for all that. A fascinating tale...truly. The totally
> unexpected parallel is not between the teenage murderer and the film,
> but between the film and a possible copycat attack against the
> director, a la "Singing In the Rain" sequence.
It's an interesting affirmation of the concept that where we focus our
attention is indicative of the reality we create for ourselves.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TCA
> What question?
"Are you saying Mr Jinx was getting a 'kick' out of what he observed?"
I was curious as to why you found his observations amusing and a source for
ridicule. Personally I found them quite disturbing but I have to admit... I
find your attitude towards them even more disturbing.
Now, as you asked, the question is quite simple.... therefore... the answer
should be equally as simple?
Do you think that Mr Jinx got a kick out of what he noticed?
TCA
"Janice" <jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote in message
news:c7c9ba46-d792-4b28...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> We take the First Amendment for granted...
I think the American constutution needs to be updated for the 21st
centuary....
Janice
Normally I would not participate in this sort of 1x1 confrontation,
but since you are discussing the effect of Martin's comments on public
threads, and since I am part of this public, I thought I'd add my 2
cents worth (tho it's probably not worth that).
If someone reacts to a thread topic in a manner that is obviously
derogatory (slamming the poster), I ignore it and judge the thread
topic by its original content.
If someone reacts to a thread topic in a manner that is obviously
meant to trivialize the topic, I ignore it and judge the thread topic
by its original content.
If someone reacts to a thread topic by posting a silly comment in the
middle of a serious discussion, I usually ignore it unless I find that
it lightens the moment enough for everyone to grab a little more
perspective on the topic.
If a 1x1 confrontation takes place and is on-topic I usually read it
but refrain from participating unless I feel I have something of value
to add... because I would rather discuss than confront.
If a 1x1 confrontation takes place and lasts for more than a few
posts, AND is off-topic from the original thread, AND takes up too
much time to wade through (no kill file option), then no matter how
valid or valuable the original or ongoing discussion might have been,
I usually just leave & go somewhere else, rarely to return to that
thread.
In other words rr, altho' I understand your concern here, I think I
want to let you know that I am able to make intelligent choices
regardless of who is posting whatever, and that the 1x1 confrontation
with Martin on the subject of derailing may be more likely to derail
me more than a silly comment would.
I know that you feel protective of this ng and some of the people in
it, but I would imagine that most of the other participating members
of rmd are capable of making similar choices based on what they want
out of rmd.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
really real
confrontation will derail a thread and I also agree that confrontations
usually go on for way too long a time.
Martin and I are old rmd friends and so I don't think we're going to get
into a feud. I just think it's worth possibly derailing this thread, and
the Afghanistan thread, if I can get Martin to lay off a lot of other
threads in the future.
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Do you think that Mr Jinx got a kick out of what he noticed?
How can I answer that if you've got the nerve to ask me?
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> In other words rr, altho' I understand your concern here, I think I
> want to let you know that I am able to make intelligent choices
> regardless of who is posting whatever, and that the 1x1 confrontation
> with Martin on the subject of derailing may be more likely to derail
> me more than a silly comment would
In addition, I would add that a discussion group is no different to a
conversation in a room, and the thread that develops is the one we
have. Ironically, Really Real often stands up for freedom of speech,
but doesn't like being mocked. This leads to his attempts to assert
control over a discussion, but ordering people to answer questions and
scolding people for being 'rude'. Unfortunately for him, he often
discredits his own 'argument' by saying things like 'Fuck off,
Martin'. I know all this because we're old friends, you know
Janice
That discussion probably deserves its own thread.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Martin and I are old rmd friends and so I don't think we're going to get
> into a feud
You mean you think telling me to fuck off twice in one day is *not* a
cue for a feud? You love feuds anyway - they give you free reign to
be as offensive as you like. By the way, since you're accusing me of
not staying on topic, here's your second point in response to Mr J's
original post: "I want to know why the first time I've ever had to
endure an internet ad before watching a youtube video was when Bob
Dylan got his xmas video posted in youtube"
TCA
> How can I answer that if you've got the nerve to ask me?
'Maybe' it's a reflection on how your opening post to this topic portrayed
you?
Forgive me if I'm wrong but I believe certain subjects demand only serious
input and if you're unable to offer anything of substance then it's best
that you don't jumjp in? To attempt to gain a few giggles at the expense of
such a troubling matter is... well... pretty fuckin' low. Would you not
agree?
TCA
On Nov 19, 2:09 pm, "TCA" <bootcov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We take the First Amendment for granted...
> > I think the American constutution needs to be updated for the 21st
> > centuary....
> That discussion probably deserves its own thread.
It would be interesting to dissect it and apply it's antique values to
today's modern society...
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Forgive me if I'm wrong
No problem. Now, let's move on shall we?
TCA
> You mean you think telling me to fuck off twice in one day is *not* a
> cue for a feud? You love feuds anyway - they give you free reign to
> be as offensive as you like. By the way, since you're accusing me of
> not staying on topic, here's your second point in response to Mr J's
> original post: "I want to know why the first time I've ever had to
> endure an internet ad before watching a youtube video was when Bob
> Dylan got his xmas video posted in youtube"
Wasn't the topic about how corrupt & insensitive the advertising media has
become and isn't the above regarding the advertising media?
A slight tangent but I don't see any case for calling it off topic?
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Wasn't the topic about how corrupt & insensitive the advertising media has
> become and isn't the above regarding the advertising media?
>
> A slight tangent but I don't see any case for calling it off topic?
The above comment was referring specifically to an ad shown with a Bob
Dylan video. That's more than a slight tangent from insensitivity
around the subject of the holocaust. My remark to Mr J was an
affectionate dig at his daytime TV watching; it clearly made no
reference to the subject of the programme he was talking about. Feel
free to imply that it did, but doing so smacks of the kind of baiting
you might find in rec.music.beatles
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> That's some pretty low shit, especially coming from a self-styled
> "humanitarian." Does he really do that?
You'll have to wait for RR to *really* get me going before I divulge
that kind of information. I only have to raise the subject and he
starts referring to me as his 'old friend', within minutes of telling
me to fuck off..!
Just Walkin'
>
> > > I think the American constutution needs to be updated for the 21st
> > > centuary....
>
> > That discussion probably deserves its own thread.
>
> while as it is a strong underscore in many of his postings.
>
What makes you think that?
If you recall, Zbigniew Brzezinski and his pal Sam Huntington issued a
call to reconvene our Constitutional Convention back in the '70s for
that very purpose. I fought like hell against it at the time and would
do so now as well. My goal is to move ever-forward, not back. I want
us to have more rights; not less and will resist any attempt to
abridge the ones we fought so hard to get.
One right I would like is to be safe from smears and lies....
M. Rick
In today's times you can't tell the ad from the art. Dylan fans
insist otherwise because they've invested their souls in Dylan.
You could mix in Cialis, Budweiser and Pepto-Bismol ads with Dylan's
Xmas videos, nobody but Dylan fans would blink an eye.
really real
>
> You'll have to wait for RR to *really* get me going before I divulge
> that kind of information. I only have to raise the subject and he
> starts referring to me as his 'old friend', within minutes of telling
> me to fuck off..!
>
If you can't tell an old friend to fuck off, then what kind of friend is he?
And quit leading treadleson on, because he gets confused easily. Stop
pretending you have scandalous information about me.
really real
>
> You mean you think telling me to fuck off twice in one day is *not* a
> cue for a feud?
Of course it isn't. I'm one of your best friends here. When you went off
in a snit a while back, I was a major cheerleader in trying to entice
you back.
You'd love feuds anyway - they give you free reign to
> be as offensive as you like. By the way, since you're accusing me of
> not staying on topic, here's your second point in response to Mr J's
> original post: "I want to know why the first time I've ever had to
really real
> In addition, I would add that a discussion group is no different to a
> conversation in a room, and the thread that develops is the one we
> have. Ironically, Really Real often stands up for freedom of speech,
> but doesn't like being mocked. This leads to his attempts to assert
> control over a discussion, but ordering people to answer questions and
> scolding people for being 'rude'.
It's not about trying to control threads, it's about trying to stop you
from derailing threads.
really real
Has your negativity towards Bob Dylan taken you to the point where you
don't think there's a difference between a Dylan video and an advertisement?
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> And quit leading treadleson on, because he gets confused easily. Stop
> pretending you have scandalous information about me
"I need you to post something like..."
Ring any bells?
M. Rick
The gecko in the top hat and wig doesn't work for Geico? My
apologies.
really real
> Why am I not surprised. And coming from the holierest than thou
> person on here no less, he who stands in judgment over the beliefs,
> opinions and tastes of others. How perfectly tawdry.
Actually, treadleson, you are the holierest than thou person in rmd.
Look at the way you attack people for their beliefs. If someone tells
you a war was immoral, then they must be the enemy. If someone like Jinx
doesn't post the way you like, you attack him relentlessly until public
pressure forces you to stop.
G-d forbid if someone has different religious beliefs than you. Then
they really feel your wrath.