New books about Kubrick
porti...@yahoo.com
Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History
(Wisconsin Film Studies) (Paperback)
by Geoffrey Cocks (Editor), James Diedrick (Editor), Glenn Perusek
(Editor)
but I do not know anything about this book which is not available until
28 July:
The Kubrick Facade: Faces and Voices in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
(Paperback)
by Jason Sperb
Any information would be welcome.
Thanks!
Genevieve
Boaz
porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have been waiting for this one:
>
> Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History
> (Wisconsin Film Studies) (Paperback)
> by Geoffrey Cocks (Editor), James Diedrick (Editor), Glenn Perusek
> (Editor)
Great. I need to order my copy soon. We haven't had a good firestorm
over a book here in some time. ;-)
> but I do not know anything about this book which is not available until
> 28 July:
>
> The Kubrick Facade: Faces and Voices in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
> (Paperback)
> by Jason Sperb
>
> Any information would be welcome.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Genevieve
I'll see what I can find out when I order the other one.
Boaz
("...a writer of subversive literature...")
porti...@yahoo.com
I know the 1st book edited by Professor Cocks is very good but the 2nd
one by Jason Sperb sounds intriguing...
Gen
Matthew Dickinson
looks like Tim Kreider got his essay in it. Wonder if it has his AI
one.
Harry Bailey
Boaz wrote:
> porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I have been waiting for this one:
> >
> > Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History
> > (Wisconsin Film Studies) (Paperback)
> > by Geoffrey Cocks (Editor), James Diedrick (Editor), Glenn Perusek
> > (Editor)
>
> Great. I need to order my copy soon. We haven't had a good firestorm
> over a book here in some time. ;-)
Sorry to disappoint you, Boaz, but most of the articles in this book
are already well known. The best of them, by Mark Crispen Miller, Tim
Kreider (their articles have been online at The Kubrick Site for many
years), and Paula Willoquet Maricondi have already been discussed to
death at this newsgroup over the years (that is, before it became the
troll-controlled, pathologically amnesiac rump that it now is).
Indeed, one of the book's contributors, Tim Kreider (a political
cartoonist) used to post here, subsequent to the publication of his EWS
analysis (he later also published an article on AI), before moving over
to Kubrick Net and then, like everyone else there, withdrawing (see
below for his current interests). Paula has since become obsessed with
sexuality, publishing books on Peter Greenaway and Pedro Almodovar (but
then, she was born and raised in Brazil), despite her otherwise superb
previous film criticism, while Mark Crispin Miller has taken to
linguistic analyses of Bush's speech gaffes (as further evidence of
Bush's elitist psycho-pathology).
About Tim Kreider:
"His cartoons are merciless, sparing no one--not even their own
horrified, disoriented author, who points out the current absurdities
and stupidities without a hint of moral self-congratulation (on the
contrary). His drawings are inspired, his humor devastating, and his
truthfulness almost unbearable. In short, he is to the satirical
cartoon what Stanley Kubrick was to cinematic satire--e.g., Dr.
Strangelove. No matter what goes down, no matter what comes next,
however bad the news (that is or isn't being reported), you owe it to
yourself to check out this man's work, so you can laugh until it hurts,
and then stops hurting."
-from the introduction, by Mark Crispin Miller, to Kreider's 2005 book
"Why Do They Kill Me". See here: http://thepaincomics.com/newbook.htm
(As for Geoffrey Alexander, the founder of this newsgroup and of The
Kubrick Site, his destination and present purpose now a total mystery,
in stark contrast to the vast majority of other previous posters here,
whose present "activities" are easily discerned. Geoff even had a blog,
but it has disappeared, along with him. Sad).
dav...@earthlink.net
> cartoonist) used to post here, subsequent to the publication of his EWS
> analysis (he later also published an article on AI), before moving over
> to Kubrick Net and then, like everyone else there, withdrawing (see
> below for his current interests).
What is "Kubrick Net"? Is there another Kubrick discussion group?
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
Harry Bailey
There used to be, David. Actually, I would have thought (obviously
incorrectly) that you would have been (or were, pseudonymously) a
contributor there. It was set up by Bilge Ebiri in 2001 (ironically,
just two days before a few planes lost their bearings) and its members
- about 30+ (including Geoff Alexander, Gordon Dahlquist, Padraig
Henry, Rod Munday, Kian Bergson, FAQ, LEJACKEL, Charles
Knowles/Thornhill, David Kirkpatrick, M4RV1N, Tim Kreider, Kubrick's
nephew Bob, among others. One of its members, ex-AMKer Peter Tonguette,
left to set up the auteur-oriented Yahoo forum _a-film-by_, but he has
since left it too) - were all AMKers. It still exists, (here:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/kubricknet/) but for a variety of
reasons too complicated to detail here in a few sentences,
self-destructed, much like this one.
Matthew Dickinson
I suggest setting up a membership-only Kubrick WIKI if you are looking
for a new way to discuss his movies besides these ever-failing
newsgroups and forums.
porti...@yahoo.com
I guess I can check this book out from the library; I was not aware
that several of the articles were online. I am a great fan of Mark
Crispin Miller's "The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National
Disorder"
Genevieve
Harry Bailey
How would that be a NEW way? Unless there's a spectacularly sharp
understanding of the underlying causes of newsgroup failure and how to
avoid it, such a proposal is a recipe for even greater failure, for its
viral replication. As Beckett quipped, if you are going to fail again -
fail better.
porti...@yahoo.com
> > 28 July:
> >
> > The Kubrick Facade: Faces and Voices in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
> > (Paperback)
> > by Jason Sperb
> >
> > Any information would be welcome.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Genevieve
>
> I'll see what I can find out when I order the other one.
>
> Boaz
> ("...a writer of subversive literature...")
Boaz, I've found a webpage on the last book ~ Gen
http://www.scarecrowpress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=081085855X
The Kubrick Facade: Faces and Voices in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
Jason Sperb
The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
$29.95 Paper 0-8108-5855-X Jun 2006 198pp
Many of Stanley Kubrick's films are often interpreted as cold and
ambiguous. Whether viewing Barry Lyndon, 2001, The Shining, or Eyes
Wide Shut, there is a sense in which these films resist their own
audiences, creating a distance from them. Though many note the coldness
of Kubrick's films, a smaller number attempt to explore exactly how his
body of work elicits this particular reaction. Fewer still attempt to
articulate what it might mean to "feel" Stanley Kubrick's films. In The
Kubrick Facade, Jason Sperb examines the narrative ambiguity of the
director's films-from the voice-over narration in early works,
including the once forgotten Fear and Desire-to the blank faces of
characters in his later ones. In doing so, Sperb shows how both devices
struggle in vain to make sense of the chaos and sterility of the
cinematic surface.
All thirteen of Stanley Kubrick's feature length films are discussed in
chronological order, from the little seen and long neglected Fear and
Desire to the posthumous release of Eyes Wide Shut. Sperb also
discusses Kubrick's importance to Steven Spielberg's AI. While
exploring all of Kubrick's films, the author concentrates in particular
on The Killing, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket,
and Eyes Wide Shut.
This is also the first book-length study that focuses considerable
attention on Fear and Desire and its relevance to Kubrick's larger body
of work. In this respect, The Kubrick Facade is one of the first truly
comprehensive books on narrative in the maverick director's films. It
is also the first book to integrate a discussion of AI, and the first
to fully explore the importance of the consistent visual emphasis on
blank, silent faces in his post-Lolita films.
About the Author
Jason Sperb teaches in the Department of Communication & Culture at
Indiana University, Bloomington. He has contributed to such
publications as Quarterly Review of Film and Video, Biography, Studies
in the Literary Imagination, and Bright Lights Film Journal.
Table of Contents for
The Kubrick Facade: Faces and Voices in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
Preface
Acknowledgments
1. Introduction: Experiencing Faces and Voices
2. We're All Islands: Seeing and Hearing the Country of the Mind in
Fear and Desire
3. Taking Life Too Seriously: Imposing Narrative Authority from
Killer's Kiss to Lolita
4. He'll See the Big Board: Narration and the Magic of Words in Dr.
Strangelove
5. I Can Feel It: Sounds, Intensities, and Subjectivities in 2001
6. A Kubrickian Look: Narrating in a Voiceless Voice-Over
7. Their Eyes Were Wide Shut: Bill Harford as Failed Narrator
8. Conclusion: Sensing Stanley Kubrick
Filmography
Selected Bibliography
Index
About the Author
Harry Bailey
Thanks for that, Genevieve. Looks very interesting.
The myth of Kubrick's coldness (as opposed to his dispassionate
philosophical position) is an interesting one (a fiction that books
like this help put to rest), which I suspect had as much to do with his
exile from the Hollywood studio system as his films, when we consider
other directors whose films are much "colder" than Kubrick's but whose
brand names generally have no such association: Michael Mann (Heat is
the very epitomy of icy-cold brutal alienation: "walk away from all
social connections in 30 seconds" etc) and David Cronenberg (all of his
films, from Videodrome to Crash), just to take two examples.
dav...@earthlink.net
reaction to sentimentality in movies, to the point of perhaps avoiding
it to the extreme -- but not as a manifestation of a "cold"
personality, not from someone who loved animals and his family so much.
Harry Bailey
I take your point, David, but I think his aesthetic (and philosophical)
position towards film construction extended far beyond both a
sentimentality allergy and his projected/transferencial personality
characteristics. As I said, the (tabloid) construction of Kubrick (the
brand name, not the person, whom the press didn't even know) derived
from his exile status (and, admitedly, his resulting reluctance to
cosily rub shoulders with the media mover-and-shaker gossip columnists).
MickeyMoop
Boaz wrote:
> porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I have been waiting for this one:
> >
> > Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History
> > (Wisconsin Film Studies) (Paperback)
> > by Geoffrey Cocks (Editor), James Diedrick (Editor), Glenn Perusek
> > (Editor)
>
> Great. I need to order my copy soon. We haven't had a good firestorm
> over a book here in some time. ;-)
>
> > but I do not know anything about this book which is not available until
> > 28 July:
> >
> > The Kubrick Facade: Faces and Voices in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
> > (Paperback)
> > by Jason Sperb
ichorwhip
I don't think AMK ever really "self-destructed" Harry. In fact, there
has been more traffic on it this month than in over three years. Lots
of repetitive trolly-guacamole in there to be squirtin', but I'd guess
that over half of it actually had to do with Kubrick or his films.
That's not bad as far as noosegroups go. We are in Kubrick's Golden
Age as I'm very fond of pointing out, and it's time for all of
Stanley's many admirers to come home. And as for Uselessnet, abUsenet,
Youthnet, or whatever you want to call it, what happens on newsgroups
is pretty much standard across the board. The "good" posters have to
contend with the "bad" ones and the best way to do that is to shut the
"bad" ones out with a lot of "good" posting. AMK is what you put into
it. If AMK were truly self-destructed we'd be arguing about President
Douche, Rastlin' or Paper versus Plastic. Instead we see arguments
about whether General Ripper was able to ejaculate or not etcetera. Not
the "ideal" Kubrick topic I suppose, but at least it's within the
realm.
Just my opinion of course, but I think AMK self-destruction will be
nigh about the time that Tarantino takes the presidency...
"He'll see everything! He'll see the BIG BOARD!!"
i
"piop"
MickeyMoop
MickeyMoop wrote:
> Boaz wrote:
> > porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I have been waiting for this one:
> > >
> > > Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History
> > > (Wisconsin Film Studies) (Paperback)
> > > by Geoffrey Cocks (Editor), James Diedrick (Editor), Glenn Perusek
> > > (Editor)
> >
> > Great. I need to order my copy soon. We haven't had a good firestorm
> > over a book here in some time. ;-)
> >
> > > but I do not know anything about this book which is not available until
> > > 28 July:
> > >
> > > The Kubrick Facade: Faces and Voices in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
> > > (Paperback)
> > > by Jason Sperb
> > > Well, I spent $30 on the paperback Sunday at Shakespeare & Co.(716 Broadway; only copy) and Raphael's 'Pumpkinification of Kubrick' is to hurl for.
MickeyMoop
MickeyMoop wrote:
> Boaz wrote:
> > porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I have been waiting for this one:
> > >
> > > Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History
> > > (Wisconsin Film Studies) (Paperback)
> > > by Geoffrey Cocks (Editor), James Diedrick (Editor), Glenn Perusek
> > > (Editor)
> >
> > Great. I need to order my copy soon. We haven't had a good firestorm
> > over a book here in some time. ;-)
> >
> > > but I do not know anything about this book which is not available until
> > > 28 July:
> > >
> > > The Kubrick Facade: Faces and Voices in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
> > > (Paperback)
> > > by Jason Sperb
> > > Well, I spent $30 on the paperback Sunday at Shakespeare & Co.(716 Broadway; only copy) and Raphael's 'Pumpkinification of Kubrick' is to hurl for.
Harry Bailey
Its been quite a pile-up, then. Your criterion is interesting ("All the
autistic psychos frantically posting their "help me" messages here.
Great, isn't it!?").
>Lots
> of repetitive trolly-guacamole in there to be squirtin', but I'd guess
> that over half of it actually had to do with Kubrick or his films.
> That's not bad as far as noosegroups go. We are in Kubrick's Golden
> Age as I'm very fond of pointing out, and it's time for all of
> Stanley's many admirers to come home. And as for Uselessnet, abUsenet,
> Youthnet, or whatever you want to call it, what happens on newsgroups
> is pretty much standard across the board.
You seem to be quite satisfied with this "accept the way thing are"
fatalism.
>The "good" posters have to
> contend with the "bad" ones and the best way to do that is to shut the
> "bad" ones out with a lot of "good" posting.
It has been the other way around for years, while "good" has been
re-defined as "bad" by the lunatics posting here. In short, the
newsgroup is pathologically impotent.
> Just my opinion of course, but I think AMK self-destruction will be
> nigh about the time that Tarantino takes the presidency...
But he's already done just that (though its the presidency ITSELF that
needs to be flushed down the fucking toilet), and Bush is running
Hollywood.
ichorwhip
Your interpretation of my "criterion" would only be interesting(read:
valid) if only I had actually said that. It's naive to suggest that
there ever really was any shortage of "autistic psychos" on AMK. Is
that what you're saying? Of course it is not. I've read an extended
cross section of the archives here and "insanity" runs through most of
it. BTW I still haven't figured out who "YOU" are exactly, but I have
my suspicions. Who did you post as before? Afraid of something Harry?
Not Room 237!!!!
>
> >Lots
> > of repetitive trolly-guacamole in there to be squirtin', but I'd guess
> > that over half of it actually had to do with Kubrick or his films.
> > That's not bad as far as noosegroups go. We are in Kubrick's Golden
> > Age as I'm very fond of pointing out, and it's time for all of
> > Stanley's many admirers to come home. And as for Uselessnet, abUsenet,
> > Youthnet, or whatever you want to call it, what happens on newsgroups
> > is pretty much standard across the board.
>
> You seem to be quite satisfied with this "accept the way things are"
> fatalism.
I'm quite satisified with not worrying about it. Here we have a
newsgroup. I have no idea what you mean by "fatalism." On the other
hand, you seem to be quite adept at complaining and contributing to a
"problem" you percieve without offering any solutions of your own. It
doesn't bother me mind you, in fact it's typical and often boring, but
it does seem a smidge hypocritical of you to be negatively assessing
AMK at all.
>
>
> >The "good" posters have to
> > contend with the "bad" ones and the best way to do that is to shut the
> > "bad" ones out with a lot of "good" posting.
>
> It has been the other way around for years, while "good" has been
> re-defined as "bad" by the lunatics posting here. In short, the
> newsgroup is pathologically impotent.
"I'm sorry to differ with you, sir, but you are the caretaker."
>
> > Just my opinion of course, but I think AMK self-destruction will be
> > nigh about the time that Tarantino takes the presidency...
>
> But he's already done just that (though it's the presidency ITSELF that
> needs to be flushed down the fucking toilet), and Bush is running
> Hollywood.
Phew! I thought for a second you were gwine to trash the Jews....
"A rather naughty boy, if I may be so bold, sir."
i
"piop"
Harry Bailey
> Your interpretation of my "criterion" would only be interesting(read:
> valid) if only I had actually said that.
You were attempting to judge the "success" of the NG by the quantity of
posts transmitted, while neglecting to mention that well over 90 per
cent of such posts are desperate but disavowed pleas for HELP by the
likes of Bubbledung, Matt D and their ilk (while much of the rest is
mere consumerist horse-trading).
>It's naive to suggest that
> there ever really was any shortage of "autistic psychos" on AMK. Is
> that what you're saying? Of course it is not.
The NG is now dominated by posters who have no serious interest in
either Kubrick's films or in wider film and cultural discussion and
analysis. There has not been one significant, much less interesting,
thread at this NG in at least a year. And I challenge you to
convincingly demonstrate otherwise (but, predictably, like other
posters here, your response will be inherently self-incriminating, will
be yet more ridiculously inane outbursts of adolescent contempt,
"irony", ridicule and Joker buffoonery).
>I've read an extended
> cross section of the archives here and "insanity" runs through most of
> it.
If this is your actual position, then what, in all seriousness, are you
doing here? Or is it that you find evidence of apparent hysteria and
insanity, as you call it, particularly reassuring? (Because what you
are saying is simply wrong, is simply intended to provoke yet more
insanity).
>BTW I still haven't figured out who "YOU" are exactly, but I have
> my suspicions. Who did you post as before? Afraid of something Harry?
> Not Room 237!!!!
You're in danger of coming across like a paranoid conspiracy theorist
here, desperate to find some secret, hidden agenda behind what is
directly in front of you Well, obviously you're "obviously" a
targeted victim of attempted mind control by some "hidden" force, some
"secret" poster. Anyone who is half-awake knows full well that the
Illuminati are clearly behind everything that goes on here, as
elsewhere. You're not foolin' nobody here!. Yes, you have different
factions and groups --Skull and Bones, Opus Dei, Freemasons,
practioners of Kaballah, these factions sometimes disagree, but you are
still part of the same group of controlling Overloads hiding behind
suspicious-looking masks and pseudonyms. And I'm gonna enter room 237
to get to the bottom of all this, and find out the real hidden truth
behind it all!
> > You seem to be quite satisfied with this "accept the way things are"
> > fatalism.
>
> I'm quite satisified with not worrying about it. Here we have a
> newsgroup. I have no idea what you mean by "fatalism."
No idea? Of course not, despite having yet again confirmed it in your
first sentence here.
>On the other
> hand, you seem to be quite adept at complaining and contributing to a
> "problem" you percieve without offering any solutions of your own.
Interesting, first you dismiss the notion of there being any problem by
contemptibly placing the word in quotation marks, then, in spite of
your denial of there being any problem, you automatically demand a
solution from anyone who would dare suggest that there might be a
problem in the first place. This is the ugly rhetoric of reactionary
ideology at its worst. ("What problem!? There is no solution because
there is no problem" etc). All designed to censor any real debate,
analysis, or discussion. Oh, the sad insanity of the smug! I can
picture you in a "discussion" about environmental degradation: "you are
not allowed to call it a problem unless you can produce an immediate
solution! And even if you do suggest a "solution" we will immediately
and laughably dismiss it, because the way things are is the only
solution, and anyway, there is no problem!". Or the current Israeli
state terrorism in Lebanon: "how dare you question it unless you can
produce an immediate solution!". And so on. For you, the only
"solution" to problems is always-already preinscribed in the existing
order, is always a continuing blind and fatalistic conformity to the
suicidal status quo.
here's Harry
ichorwhip
Harry Bailey wrote:
> ichorwhip wrote:
> > Your interpretation of my "criterion" would only be interesting(read:
> > valid) if only I had actually said that.
>
> You were attempting to judge the "success" of the NG by the quantity of
> posts transmitted, while neglecting to mention that well over 90 per
> cent of such posts are desperate but disavowed pleas for HELP by the
> likes of Bubbledung, Matt D and their ilk (while much of the rest is
> mere consumerist horse-trading).
I think your "figures" are off in multiples. I acknowledged that there
is a large quantity of blather (for lack of a better term), but
something like half of it was actually on or about Kubrick. If you've
got the time to objectively evaluate the data, go for it! Be sure to
report back now. Also, who exactly is "their ilk?"
>
> >It's naive to suggest that
> > there ever really was any shortage of "autistic psychos" on AMK. Is
> > that what you're saying? Of course it is not.
>
> The NG is now dominated by posters who have no serious interest in
> either Kubrick's films or in wider film and cultural discussion and
> analysis.
Oh yeah? If you want to give in to this delusional, fatalist POV why
don't you keep it to yourself? At least I had an answer, which you've
conveniently ignored. I'm thinking you are the one who lacks serious
intent when you say things such as this. I hope this isn't a waste of
time..........
> There has not been one significant, much less interesting,
> thread at this NG in at least a year. And I challenge you to
> convincingly demonstrate otherwise (but, predictably, like other
> posters here, your response will be inherently self-incriminating, will
> be yet more ridiculously inane outbursts of adolescent contempt,
> "irony", ridicule and Joker buffoonery).
I think I just figured out who you are, nicely done. Of course there
is no right answer for the likes of you, and since you didn't have an
appointment........
>
> >I've read an extended
> > cross section of the archives here and "insanity" runs through most of
> > it.
>
> If this is your actual position, then what, in all seriousness, are you
> doing here?
I might ask you the same thing! I wish I could draw you a picture
showing the various trolls, morons and troglodytes that have been in
and out of this newsgroup all along. That would be a pictograph
approximating what I meant by "insanity runs through most of it." Are
you entirely new to Usenet? I say, "NO," but lacking something....
> Or is it that you find evidence of apparent hysteria and
> insanity, as you call it, particularly reassuring? (Because what you
> are saying is simply wrong, is simply intended to provoke yet more
> insanity).
Completely wrong and crossing over into horseshitting. I can see that
you're an arrogant fool at times, but now I'm seeing........ other
things.
>
> >BTW I still haven't figured out who "YOU" are exactly, but I have
> > my suspicions. Who did you post as before? Afraid of something Harry?
> > Not Room 237!!!!
>
> You're in danger of coming across like a paranoid conspiracy theorist
> here, desperate to find some secret, hidden agenda behind what is
> directly in front of you.
Start the projector!
> Well, obviously you're "obviously" a
> targeted victim of attempted mind control by some "hidden" force, some
> "secret" poster. Anyone who is half-awake knows full well that the
> Illuminati are clearly behind everything that goes on here, as
> elsewhere.
Stupid, all too stupid...
> You're not foolin' nobody here!. Yes, you have different
> factions and groups --Skull and Bones, Opus Dei, Freemasons,
> practioners of Kaballah, these factions sometimes disagree, but you are
> still part of the same group of controlling Overloads hiding behind
> suspicious-looking masks and pseudonyms. And I'm gonna enter room 237
> to get to the bottom of all this, and find out the real hidden truth
> behind it all!
You have lathered! All of this to avoid a simple question. Harry
don't....
>
> > > You seem to be quite satisfied with this "accept the way things are"
> > > fatalism.
> >
> > I'm quite satisified with not worrying about it. Here we have a
> > newsgroup. I have no idea what you mean by "fatalism."
>
> No idea? Of course not, despite having yet again confirmed it in your
> first sentence here.
I am not the one who has given up to a newsgroup existence of
convoluted arrogance and complaining and never contributing that which
I demand. You are free to leave. You did know that didn't you? Or
you can start posting some relevant Kubrick material to show all of us
"idiots" how it's done. (Where have I said this before?) Of course
you won't because you prolly can't, and it's contradictory to your
overall belly-aching agenda. I answer your disingenuous challenge with
a totally sincere one.
> >On the other
> > hand, you seem to be quite adept at complaining and contributing to a
> > "problem" you percieve without offering any solutions of your own.
>
> Interesting, first you dismiss the notion of there being any problem by
> contemptibly placing the word in quotation marks, then, in spite of
> your denial of there being any problem, you automatically demand a
> solution from anyone who would dare suggest that there might be a
> problem in the first place.
Typical inflammatory bait... The big misinterpretation.... Yeah, I
said "problem" in quotes all right because I don't consider two or
three guys to be dominating this newsgroup with their so-called
constant lunacy. What exactly are you doing? Next he'll say, "You
denied your denial!!! Reactionary! Libertine! Free Thinker!!!!"
Never was a denial to begin with, ya big sidetracker!
> This is the ugly rhetoric of reactionary
> ideology at its worst.
No, you constantly use the "ugly rhetoric" yourself. If there's such a
problem on AMK why don't you do something about it besides moaning?
You won't. I think you're prolly incapable, but how about 500 words on
"2001:ASO" regarding Hal's error. Was it on purpose? Or was it
because of human folly? There's a topic for you. What say you?
> ("What problem!? There is no solution because
> there is no problem" etc).
Rhetorical rhetoric? I love how I get accused of all of this shit by
all of this shit....... such unsophisticated sophistry....
> All designed to censor any real debate,
> analysis, or discussion.
You accuse me of censorship? HA! I just invited you to pontificate
unfettered and dead on-topic. Have at it!
> Oh, the sad insanity of the smug!
Who's insane? Who's smug?
> I can
> picture you in a "discussion" about environmental degradation: "you are
> not allowed to call it a problem unless you can produce an immediate
> solution!
Your argument is disqualified because you have violated the true spirit
of what I said. Let me make it simple for you: Post on Kubrick.
> And even if you do suggest a "solution" we will immediately
> and laughably dismiss it, because the way things are is the only
> solution, and anyway, there is no problem!".
That's right! Blow things way out of proportion. Terrorism is upon
AMK!!! Run for your lives! It is a newsgroup! Get a grip on that
will you?
> Or the current Israeli
> state terrorism in Lebanon: "how dare you question it unless you can
> produce an immediate solution!". And so on. For you, the only
> "solution" to problems is always-already preinscribed in the existing
> order, is always a continuing blind and fatalistic conformity to the
> suicidal status quo.
>
> here's Harry
Oh nonsense! I thought you might be reasonable, but that time has
passed. Stop being a part of the "fucking problem" you're SOOOOOOOOO
concerned about and dazzle us with a display of Kubrick fireworks! I
dare you!
"It can only be attributal to human error."
i
"peace is our profession"