New Book: "The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick"
porti...@yahoo.com
by Jerold J. Abrams (Editor) will be available in May 2007. You can
"search inside" on Amazon.com and there is a table of contents.
M. Genevieve
Yelps
<porti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173894800.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Gee I wasn't aware SK had written any book on his Philosophy.
dc
Wordsmith
> <portia_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
He didn't need to. His films are his philosophy.
W : )
Yelps
"Wordsmith" <word...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174077239....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Its a pretentious title, implying that these "acadenic" writers are
"philosophers" and that they understand Sk's inner thoughts and they are
qualified to dissect the work of SK using words. That whole idea is
antithetical to SK's own statements and clothes his art in static words.
Books like these are written by people that are on the never ending search
to label things that cannot be summed up in words and they are so wrapped up
in words and roof-brain chatter, they could never be real artists
themselves.
I will skim the book and see if I actually want to read it. But from
looking at the various credentials of the essay writers in the book and some
writing samples I've found, it looks like just another disgrace to me that
will just agitate me.
dc
ichorwhip
> "Wordsmith" <wordsm...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174077239....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 2:14 pm, "Yelps" <birdsmesty...@worldsiliyeti.net> wrote:
> >> <portia_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1173894800.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick (The Philosophy of Popular Culture)
> >> > by Jerold J. Abrams (Editor) will be available in May 2007. You can
> >> > "search inside" on Amazon.com and there is a table of contents.
>
> >> > M. Genevieve
>
> >> Gee I wasn't aware SK had written any book on his Philosophy.
>
> >> dc
>
> > He didn't need to. His films are his philosophy.
>
> > W : )
>
> Its a pretentious title, implying that these "acadenic" writers are
> "philosophers" and that they understand Sk's inner thoughts and they are
> qualified to dissect the work of SK using words.
What qualifies you to make a statement like that Danny?
> That whole idea is
> antithetical to SK's own statements and clothes his art in static words.
"Are you sure?!!!"
> Books like these are written by people that are on the never ending search
> to label things that cannot be summed up in words and they are so wrapped up
> in words and roof-brain chatter, they could never be real artists
> themselves.
I guess this makes you one of them although I wouldn't expect to be
invited to any cocktail parties...
> I will skim the book and see if I actually want to read it.
What on earth for? You have already formed your usual inflexible and
somewhat ignorant opinion, and I seriously doubt that you'll be
dissuaded...
> But from
> looking at the various credentials of the essay writers in the book and some
> writing samples I've found, it looks like just another disgrace to me that
> will just agitate me.
Then why not just forget it? Oh... and shut up too.
"And now you, another victim of the modern age."
i
"piop"
Yelps
"ichorwhip" <icho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174087685.9...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 16, 4:34 pm, "Yelps" <birdsmesty...@worldsiliyeti.net> wrote:
>> "Wordsmith" <wordsm...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174077239....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 14, 2:14 pm, "Yelps" <birdsmesty...@worldsiliyeti.net> wrote:
>> >> <portia_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1173894800.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick (The Philosophy of Popular
>> >> > Culture)
>> >> > by Jerold J. Abrams (Editor) will be available in May 2007. You can
>> >> > "search inside" on Amazon.com and there is a table of contents.
>>
>> >> > M. Genevieve
>>
>> >> Gee I wasn't aware SK had written any book on his Philosophy.
>>
>> >> dc
>>
>> > He didn't need to. His films are his philosophy.
>>
>> > W : )
>>
>> Its a pretentious title, implying that these "acadenic" writers are
>> "philosophers" and that they understand Sk's inner thoughts and they are
>> qualified to dissect the work of SK using words.
>
> What qualifies you to make a statement like that Danny?
Because I have commonsense and mental masturbators don't.
SK's work is primarily a visual and non-verbal experience. Even his
dialogue is less about the semantic meanings as it is about conveying a
non-verbal experience. Even the greatest novelists do this as well.
Academically dissecting art, turns it into something it is not.
Experiencing art or any subtle experience requires an openess that is only
constricted by a false construct of words and labels. This is not a
revolutionary idea of course. SK himself conveys that attitude. He never
sat down and wrote a book called, "My Philosophy" because that is not what
his "philosophy" is about. He certainly wasn't about leading people to HIS
conclusions but wanted people to have their own experience of his work,
which is the opposite of what these parasitic, pretentious, idiots are
doing by claiming to be able to pronounce SK's "philosophy," in words.
Rather then just pointing one to the film and letting them just experience
it, mental masturbators create a meta program of roof brain chatter. They
are parasitic because they are writing a book and selling it, based on
someone else's art. People who might clamor for this kind of mental
masturbation have already missed the point igf they have to go looking for
it in books about it.
Fortunately there have been REAL philosophers who have grasped and taught
that stopping the mind rather then letting the mind babble incessently,
allows one to intensify experience and have the most fulfulling non-verbal
experience. An artist who works from that kind of premise is also able to
convey experience more capably.
>
>> That whole idea is
>> antithetical to SK's own statements and clothes his art in static words.
>
> "Are you sure?!!!"
Yes very sure. You know as well as I do how he reacted when people tried to
pidgeon-hole him or his films.
>
>> Books like these are written by people that are on the never ending
>> search
>> to label things that cannot be summed up in words and they are so wrapped
>> up
>> in words and roof-brain chatter, they could never be real artists
>> themselves.
>
> I guess this makes you one of them although I wouldn't expect to be
> invited to any cocktail parties...
No I am not one of "them." and no I wouldn't be seen at cocktail parties
with pinheads who are going to apply their sophomoric thinking to the work
of great artists and try to sell their tripe, as though they have a right to
do so
>
>> I will skim the book and see if I actually want to read it.
>
> What on earth for? You have already formed your usual inflexible and
> somewhat ignorant opinion, and I seriously doubt that you'll be
> dissuaded...
On the outside chance I might be wrong and there might be some writers in
the book that renounce the very idea of pidgeon holing SK-----that have a
deeper understanding. But the first hint is the title. Anyone putting
their writings into a volume with that name sucks---unless a publisher
pulled a fast one on them and changed the title.
I'm sure there will be token efforts with a disclaimer, to make it clear
that Sk's films are nonverbal experiences etc. ------but then they will
start with the usual misinformation and mental masturbator tripe---which is
neither casual discussion (which has to occur in words), experiential, but
instead it will be that phoney, academic style tripe that misses by a
thousand miles and ends up in a sewer full of mud. A world of Shit.
>
>> But from
>> looking at the various credentials of the essay writers in the book and
>> some
>> writing samples I've found, it looks like just another disgrace to me
>> that
>> will just agitate me.
>
> Then why not just forget it? Oh... and shut up too.
Unlike these imposters, I can write how I feel about these kinds of books
and I am not going to hide behind academic pretentions, by stating my
opinion, in an artificial way. I am also not afraid to state my biased
opinions for fear of not sounding academic enough nor would I want to put
my words into Sk's thoughts, clothed in phoney intellectualizing.
ya I am a buddhist by nature. IMO, SK was influenced on many levels, by
ACC's "Cyrpto-Buddhism" and his own 60's LSD experiences. This kind of
influence tends to steer smarter people away from mental masturbation and
causes people to see things from amgles that academics are always at a loss
to explain.
dc
ichorwhip
> "ichorwhip" <ichorw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174087685.9...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 4:34 pm, "Yelps" <birdsmesty...@worldsiliyeti.net> wrote:
> >> "Wordsmith" <wordsm...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1174077239....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 14, 2:14 pm, "Yelps" <birdsmesty...@worldsiliyeti.net> wrote:
> >> >> <portia_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:1173894800.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick (The Philosophy of Popular
> >> >> > Culture)
> >> >> > by Jerold J. Abrams (Editor) will be available in May 2007. You can
> >> >> > "search inside" on Amazon.com and there is a table of contents.
>
> >> >> > M. Genevieve
>
> >> >> Gee I wasn't aware SK had written any book on his Philosophy.
>
> >> >> dc
>
> >> > He didn't need to. His films are his philosophy.
>
> >> > W : )
>
> >> Its a pretentious title, implying that these "acadenic" writers are
> >> "philosophers" and that they understand Sk's inner thoughts and they are
> >> qualified to dissect the work of SK using words.
>
> > What qualifies you to make a statement like that Danny?
>
> Because I have commonsense and mental masturbators don't.
It is blatantly evident that you hold great disdain and occasional
hostility (Buddha Where Are You?) for the "academic" type. How is
that sensible? Academics have to have discipline to achieve their
goals. Why don't you even remotely respect that?
> SK's work is primarily a visual and non-verbal experience. Even his
> dialogue is less about the semantic meanings as it is about conveying a
> non-verbal experience. Even the greatest novelists do this as well.
A nonverbal novel? Sounds like something Criss Angel would "write."
> Academically dissecting art, turns it into something it is not.
I submit that the integrity of the art remains the same no matter what
someone says about it.
> Experiencing art or any subtle experience requires an openess that is only
> constricted by a false construct of words and labels. This is not a
> revolutionary idea of course. SK himself conveys that attitude. He never
> sat down and wrote a book called, "My Philosophy" because that is not what
> his "philosophy" is about.
He never wrote a book! There are most certainly philosophically
defineable tendencies and attitudes throughout his films. That is not
a revolutionary idea of course.
> He certainly wasn't about leading people to HIS
> conclusions but wanted people to have their own experience of his work,
> which is the opposite of what these parasitic, pretentious, idiots are
> doing by claiming to be able to pronounce SK's "philosophy," in words.
But you don't know that these "idiots" tsk tsk are actually doing that
until you give them a fair and rational reading. I don't know
either. I could quite possibly come to loath this book, but I won't
dismiss it off the cuff, therein lies ignorance.
> Rather then just pointing one to the film and letting them just experience
> it, mental masturbators create a meta program of roof brain chatter.
Your attitude about philosophy in general is skewed and contradictory
in my opinion.
> They
> are parasitic because they are writing a book and selling it, based on
> someone else's art.
So you are accusing the author of this book of doing it for the money?
Big laugh! They should have written yet another slasher flick or
dumbshit comedy script instead! I think that the typical author of
books on Kubrick's films are in it for wholly different reasons than
you insinuate. They are obviously deeply affected and impressed with
Kubrick's work. Their motives are very far from what you think they
are; that's my educated guess.
> People who might clamor for this kind of mental
> masturbation have already missed the point if they have to go looking for
> it in books about it.
A totally insupportable statement... you are lording again...
>
> Fortunately there have been REAL philosophers
> who have grasped and taught
> that stopping the mind rather then letting the mind babble incessently,
> allows one to intensify experience and have the most fulfulling non-verbal
> experience. An artist who works from that kind of premise is also able to
> convey experience more capably.
I follow your point to a certain extent, but nevertheless we all have
a philosophy however errant and undisciplined it may be, even you.
> >> That whole idea is
> >> antithetical to SK's own statements and clothes his art in static words.
>
> > "Are you sure?!!!"
>
> Yes very sure. You know as well as I do how he reacted when people tried to
> pigeon-hole him or his films.
Well if I knew for a fact that the book in question tried to "pigeon-
hole" Kubrick from some sort of imaginary omniscience then I might
agree with you. Case in point was Wheat's ridiculously arrogant and
insulting views on the allegories in 2001. I can't take that!
>
> >> Books like these are written by people that are on the never ending
> >> search
> >> to label things that cannot be summed up in words and they are so wrapped
> >> up
> >> in words and roof-brain chatter, they could never be real artists
> >> themselves.
>
> > I guess this makes you one of them although I wouldn't expect to be
> > invited to any cocktail parties...
>
> No I am not one of "them." and no I wouldn't be seen at cocktail parties
> with pinheads who are going to apply their sophomoric thinking to the work
> of great artists and try to sell their tripe, as though they have a right to
> do so
Oh lighten up! Maybe they get high too...
>
>
>
> >> I will skim the book and see if I actually want to read it.
>
> > What on earth for? You have already formed your usual inflexible and
> > somewhat ignorant opinion, and I seriously doubt that you'll be
> > dissuaded...
>
> On the outside chance I might be wrong
A breakthrough!
> and there might be some writers in
> the book that renounce the very idea of pigeon-holing SK-----that have a
> deeper understanding. But the first hint is the title.
Always judge a book by it's cover ---noted
> Anyone putting
> their writings into a volume with that name sucks---unless a publisher
> pulled a fast one on them and changed the title.
"Roman Ping... Roman Pong."
>
> I'm sure there will be token efforts with a disclaimer, to make it clear
> that Sk's films are nonverbal experiences etc.
You are not sure!
>------but then they will
> start with the usual misinformation and mental masturbator tripe---which is
> neither casual discussion (which has to occur in words), experiential, but
> instead it will be that phoney, academic style tripe that misses by a
> thousand miles and ends up in a sewer full of mud. A world of Shit.
So your mind is made up? Or not? Who the hell knows?
>
>
>
> >> But from
> >> looking at the various credentials of the essay writers in the book and
> >> some
> >> writing samples I've found, it looks like just another disgrace to me
> >> that
> >> will just agitate me.
>
> > Then why not just forget it? Oh... and shut up too.
>
> Unlike these imposters, I can write how I feel about these kinds of books
> and I am not going to hide behind academic pretentions, by stating my
> opinion, in an artificial way. I am also not afraid to state my biased
> opinions
Why are your opinions biased?
> for fear of not sounding academic enough nor would I want to put
> my words into Sk's thoughts, clothed in phoney intellectualizing.
>
> ya I am a buddhist by nature.
You continue to fool me...
> IMO, SK was influenced on many levels, by
> ACC's "Cyrpto-Buddhism" and his own 60's LSD experiences.
OMG! Not the acid bath again!
> This kind of
> influence tends to steer smarter people away from mental masturbation and
> causes people to see things from angles that academics are always at a loss
> to explain.
This is not necessarily so, and you have even admitted as much within
your many contradictions laid out here for all to see. Still I find
that you are being relatively reasonable for you. And you didn't even
call me an asshole....
"They've turned out to be completely unreliable assholes."
i
"piop"
Yelps
I respect real science a great deal. I also respect good historians that
collect and present information. I also respect people who express opinions
about a topic as long as they don't pretend to be anything but a private
party stating opinions. But when silly Liberal Arts types and "film
critics" imagine their techniques/methods are "scientific" and try to
mimic a pseudoscientific voice, then that really irritates me.
>
>> SK's work is primarily a visual and non-verbal experience. Even his
>> dialogue is less about the semantic meanings as it is about conveying a
>> non-verbal experience. Even the greatest novelists do this as well.
>
> A nonverbal novel? Sounds like something Criss Angel would "write."
I you read a great novel and see only words then I am sorry about that. Im
sure you see more then words.
>
>> Academically dissecting art, turns it into something it is not.
>
> I submit that the integrity of the art remains the same no matter what
> someone says about it.
Elementary my dear Ichorwhip. that is why it is so stupid to babble about
it in a pseudoscientific and pretentious voice.
People who do not have the capacity to create art do not have the license to
sell books about it and foist on others their own prejudices that really
have nothing to do with the artists intention.
>
>> Experiencing art or any subtle experience requires an openess that is
>> only
>> constricted by a false construct of words and labels. This is not a
>> revolutionary idea of course. SK himself conveys that attitude. He never
>> sat down and wrote a book called, "My Philosophy" because that is not
>> what
>> his "philosophy" is about.
>
> He never wrote a book! There are most certainly philosophically
> defineable tendencies and attitudes throughout his films. That is not
> a revolutionary idea of course.
I don't think their is anything explicit in his films that points to
Philosophical universals, except in 2001--and that is only going to be
understood as a psychedelic experience. One can talk about Computer
Intelligence and other sub plots in 2001, but that was all just red
herrings. One can generalize he was anti war and anti stupidity. Something
tells me this book will run the gamut and have SK a Freudian, Jungian,
Existentialist, Athetist, Jew with a touch of autism and OCD. Ugh.,
>
>> He certainly wasn't about leading people to HIS
>> conclusions but wanted people to have their own experience of his work,
>> which is the opposite of what these parasitic, pretentious, idiots are
>> doing by claiming to be able to pronounce SK's "philosophy," in words.
>
> But you don't know that these "idiots" tsk tsk are actually doing that
> until you give them a fair and rational reading. I don't know
> either. I could quite possibly come to loath this book, but I won't
> dismiss it off the cuff, therein lies ignorance.
Well I am not going to give then money sight unseen and support their habit.
and I have a plenty of reason to be entitrely sceptical. Academic Film
critic times are like self appointed priests telling the masses what a film
is about and what you are supposed to think. . They are always way off,
because of their inherent disposition. Its more of an illness. Thats why
"they," love to accuse SK of being a ASS-burger. They are mealy mouth and
you know it. They couldn't even make it to the rank of a common ant
crawling on SK. :0
>
>
>> Rather then just pointing one to the film and letting them just
>> experience
>> it, mental masturbators create a meta program of roof brain chatter.
>
> Your attitude about philosophy in general is skewed and contradictory
> in my opinion.
Nothing about my "opinion" hasn't already been discussed ad-infinitum by
centuries of real philosophy.
>
>> They
>> are parasitic because they are writing a book and selling it, based on
>> someone else's art.
>
> So you are accusing the author of this book of doing it for the money?
> Big laugh!
Not just for money, for recognition of their high falluting bullsh**t and to
try to purge themselves of troublsome recurring thoughts. (of course they
don't realize they are doing this last bit)
They should have written yet another slasher flick or
> dumbshit comedy script instead! I think that the typical author of
> books on Kubrick's films are in it for wholly different reasons than
> you insinuate. They are obviously deeply affected and impressed with
> Kubrick's work. Their motives are very far from what you think they
> are; that's my educated guess.
C'mon. --except for the beautiful, repectful books that present information
and beautiful pages of photography, most books on SK contain as much
concealed hate of SK as they do respect for him. They want to point out
where SK is wrong and how he failed at this and that.
>
>> People who might clamor for this kind of mental
>> masturbation have already missed the point if they have to go looking for
>> it in books about it.
>
> A totally insupportable statement... you are lording again...
Baloney. I think you mean 'unsupportable" but of course it's supportable.
I'll refrain from quoting cliches or ancient wisdom about this point. I am
sure you can think of some.
>> Fortunately there have been REAL philosophers
>> who have grasped and taught
>> that stopping the mind rather then letting the mind babble incessently,
>> allows one to intensify experience and have the most fulfulling
>> non-verbal
>> experience. An artist who works from that kind of premise is also able
>> to
>> convey experience more capably.
>
> I follow your point to a certain extent, but nevertheless we all have
> a philosophy however errant and undisciplined it may be, even you.
And we can talk about it casually but please lets not put academic mental
masturbation in a book about great art and call it real and name it "The
Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick." If he was alive, my guess is he'd sued them
or at the very least ridicule them as I am doing.
>
>> >> That whole idea is
>> >> antithetical to SK's own statements and clothes his art in static
>> >> words.
>>
>> > "Are you sure?!!!"
>>
>> Yes very sure. You know as well as I do how he reacted when people tried
>> to
>> pigeon-hole him or his films.
>
> Well if I knew for a fact that the book in question tried to "pigeon-
> hole" Kubrick from some sort of imaginary omniscience then I might
> agree with you. Case in point was Wheat's ridiculously arrogant and
> insulting views on the allegories in 2001. I can't take that!
As I say below I am allowing room for my being wrong about the book---but
what are the odds? it'll just be more annoying stuff.
>
>>
>> >> Books like these are written by people that are on the never ending
>> >> search
>> >> to label things that cannot be summed up in words and they are so
>> >> wrapped
>> >> up
>> >> in words and roof-brain chatter, they could never be real artists
>> >> themselves.
>>
>> > I guess this makes you one of them although I wouldn't expect to be
>> > invited to any cocktail parties...
>>
>> No I am not one of "them." and no I wouldn't be seen at cocktail parties
>> with pinheads who are going to apply their sophomoric thinking to the
>> work
>> of great artists and try to sell their tripe, as though they have a right
>> to
>> do so
>
> Oh lighten up! Maybe they get high too...
ya coke freaks and Vodka and Scotch with their pot, viagra and prozac.
>>
>> >> I will skim the book and see if I actually want to read it.
>>
>> > What on earth for? You have already formed your usual inflexible and
>> > somewhat ignorant opinion, and I seriously doubt that you'll be
>> > dissuaded...
>>
>> On the outside chance I might be wrong
>
> A breakthrough!
>
Not a breakthrough, i'd be happy if the book actually was a good one. I am
just 99% for sure that it will be idiotic.
>> and there might be some writers in
>> the book that renounce the very idea of pigeon-holing SK-----that have a
>> deeper understanding. But the first hint is the title.
>
> Always judge a book by it's cover ---noted
There is another cliche about this, coming from ancient life-state wisdom.
(Yui butsu yo butsu. Nai no kujin. Shoho jisso. Sho-i shoho. Nyo ze so. Nyo
ze sho. Nyo ze tai. Nyo ze riki. Nyo ze sa. Nyo ze in. Nyo ze en. Nyo ze ka.
Nyo ze ho. Nyo ze honmak kukyo to.)
"The true entity of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between
Buddhas. This reality consists of the appearance, nature, entity, power,
influence, internal cause, relation, latent effect, manifest effect and
their consistency from beginning to end."
This explains what was known as "ten aspects"--they first being "appearance"
and You must have heard of the term "Dependent Origination." Its just cause
and effect. The ten aspects are consistent from beginning to end, just like
you can read someone's face and probably know their momemtary life
state---if you a person who is attuned to this.
>
>> Anyone putting
>> their writings into a volume with that name sucks---unless a publisher
>> pulled a fast one on them and changed the title.
>
> "Roman Ping... Roman Pong."
Thats would have been a much better name.
>
>>
>> I'm sure there will be token efforts with a disclaimer, to make it clear
>> that Sk's films are nonverbal experiences etc.
>
> You are not sure!
99%
>
>>------but then they will
>> start with the usual misinformation and mental masturbator tripe---which
>> is
>> neither casual discussion (which has to occur in words), experiential,
>> but
>> instead it will be that phoney, academic style tripe that misses by a
>> thousand miles and ends up in a sewer full of mud. A world of Shit.
>
> So your mind is made up? Or not? Who the hell knows?
When I go to Barnes and Noble this week to pick up my copy of Buffy Season
Eight comic first volume....
l'll see if they have this one and I'll take a look at it and decide then.
If it has a clue Ill get it otherwise no way.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> But from
>> >> looking at the various credentials of the essay writers in the book
>> >> and
>> >> some
>> >> writing samples I've found, it looks like just another disgrace to me
>> >> that
>> >> will just agitate me.
>>
>> > Then why not just forget it? Oh... and shut up too.
>>
>> Unlike these imposters, I can write how I feel about these kinds of books
>> and I am not going to hide behind academic pretentions, by stating my
>> opinion, in an artificial way. I am also not afraid to state my biased
>> opinions
>
> Why are your opinions biased?
>
>> for fear of not sounding academic enough nor would I want to put
>> my words into Sk's thoughts, clothed in phoney intellectualizing.
>>
>> ya I am a buddhist by nature.
>
> You continue to fool me...
>
>> IMO, SK was influenced on many levels, by
>> ACC's "Cyrpto-Buddhism" and his own 60's LSD experiences.
>
> OMG! Not the acid bath again!
So lame. See--this is why all of this is so pathetically misdiagnosed. for
the modern age, LSD is the greatest discovery of science. That people do not
know this and that this is not common knowledge, is insane and bizarre to
the nth degree.
think about what i just said.
>
>> This kind of
>> influence tends to steer smarter people away from mental masturbation
>> and
>> causes people to see things from angles that academics are always at a
>> loss
>> to explain.
>
> This is not necessarily so, and you have even admitted as much within
> your many contradictions laid out here for all to see. Still I find
> that you are being relatively reasonable for you. And you didn't even
> call me an asshole....
I only call you an asshole when you are being one or in jest. And NO, LSD
does not necessarily lead all users to enlightenment. There is more to it
then that. karma and preparation.
dc
Boaz
> On Mar 16, 9:04 pm, "Yawps" <birdshithead...@mrbuffy.net> wrote:
> > >> Its a pretentious title, implying that these "acadenic" writers are
> > >> "philosophers" and that they understand Sk's inner thoughts and they are
> > >> qualified to dissect the work of SK using words.
>
> > > What qualifies you to make a statement like that Danny?
>
> > Because I have commonsense and mental masturbators don't.
LOL!!! Oh, yeah! He's been posting since 1996! That must mean
something, doesn't it, Ich?
> It is blatantly evident that you hold great disdain and occasional
> hostility (Buddha Where Are You?) for the "academic" type. How is
> that sensible? Academics have to have discipline to achieve their
> goals. Why don't you even remotely respect that?
>
> > SK's work is primarily a visual and non-verbal experience. Even his
> > dialogue is less about the semantic meanings as it is about conveying a
> > non-verbal experience. Even the greatest novelists do this as well.
>
> A nonverbal novel? Sounds like something Criss Angel would "write."
Sounds more like he's full of shit, so much so he just might float
away. It sounds like Mr. Buffy believes no one is allowed to talk or
post about what their impressions of Kubrick's films are, that they
are an "experience, man! A happening!" It's the typical excuse people
used in the '60s and '70 to get around the fact that they were too
fucking ignorant to formulate an educated opinion on Kubrick's works,
their brains fried from too much drugs, sex and rock and roll. A lot
were in college, and if they couldn't figure this stuff out then no
one else could, right?
> > Academically dissecting art, turns it into something it is not.
>
> I submit that the integrity of the art remains the same no matter what
> someone says about it.
Exactly, Ich. What is said in writings I've read in the past on
Kubrick's films only help to stimulate a stronger opinion to the one I
may have formulated myself, whether in agreement or disagreement.
Yawps doesn't want anyone to burst his bubble, his inner sanctum.
Otherwise he'll wake up one morning and realize he truly doesn't know
shit from shamrocks (in honor of St. Patrick's Day -- the shamrocks
part anyway).
> > Experiencing art or any subtle experience requires an openess that is only
> > constricted by a false construct of words and labels. This is not a
> > revolutionary idea of course. SK himself conveys that attitude. He never
> > sat down and wrote a book called, "My Philosophy" because that is not what
> > his "philosophy" is about.
>
> He never wrote a book! There are most certainly philosophically
> defineable tendencies and attitudes throughout his films. That is not
> a revolutionary idea of course.
Forget it, Ich. You are arguing with a brick wall. That comment of his
is just one more asinine remark in a long line of asinine remarks. You
can probably trace them back 11 years on AMK.
> > He certainly wasn't about leading people to HIS
> > conclusions but wanted people to have their own experience of his work,
> > which is the opposite of what these parasitic, pretentious, idiots are
> > doing by claiming to be able to pronounce SK's "philosophy," in words.
>
> But you don't know that these "idiots" tsk tsk are actually doing that
> until you give them a fair and rational reading. I don't know
> either. I could quite possibly come to loath this book, but I won't
> dismiss it off the cuff, therein lies ignorance.
Mr. Buffy is just formulating another series of straw men arguments in
his feeble attacks. He hasn't read the book, yet he's already made up
his mind what he thinks of it. Sounds like some other people regarding
another book on Kubrick's films, doesn't it, Ich? , )
> > Rather then just pointing one to the film and letting them just experience
> > it, mental masturbators create a meta program of roof brain chatter.
>
> Your attitude about philosophy in general is skewed and contradictory
> in my opinion.
Yeah, and notice how he keeps bringing up the word "masturbator"? I
hope he keeps a bottle of Windex (TM) handy to keep his TV screen
clean when watching those episodes of Buffy. , ) Didn't Sade sing a
song about the likes of you: "Smooth Masturbator"?
> > They
> > are parasitic because they are writing a book and selling it, based on
> > someone else's art.
>
> So you are accusing the author of this book of doing it for the money?
> Big laugh! They should have written yet another slasher flick or
> dumbshit comedy script instead! I think that the typical author of
> books on Kubrick's films are in it for wholly different reasons than
> you insinuate. They are obviously deeply affected and impressed with
> Kubrick's work. Their motives are very far from what you think they
> are; that's my educated guess.
A very good educated guess, Ich. How many of these books actualy make
money for the authors? Ask GC and find out what his royalties are from
his works on Kubrick. No, I'm sure he still has to subsist on a
college professor's salary.
> > People who might clamor for this kind of mental
> > masturbation have already missed the point if they have to go looking for
> > it in books about it.
>
> A totally insupportable statement... you are lording again...
And there's that word again! Wow, your hand must be pretty sore by
now, Mr. Buffy, not to mention other extremities. , )
> > Fortunately there have been REAL philosophers
> > who have grasped and taught
> > that stopping the mind rather then letting the mind babble incessently,
> > allows one to intensify experience and have the most fulfulling non-verbal
> > experience. An artist who works from that kind of premise is also able to
> > convey experience more capably.
>
> I follow your point to a certain extent, but nevertheless we all have
> a philosophy however errant and undisciplined it may be, even you.
Just watch Buffy and no doubt you will find out. , ) Hey, man, the
secrets of the universe are revealed in those episodes! Don't you
know?
> > >> That whole idea is
> > >> antithetical to SK's own statements and clothes his art in static words.
>
> > > "Are you sure?!!!"
>
> > Yes very sure. You know as well as I do how he reacted when people tried to
> > pigeon-hole him or his films.
>
> Well if I knew for a fact that the book in question tried to "pigeon-
> hole" Kubrick from some sort of imaginary omniscience then I might
> agree with you. Case in point was Wheat's ridiculously arrogant and
> insulting views on the allegories in 2001. I can't take that!
Again, the straw man argument, Ich. Who are "these people" he rattles
on about here?
> > >> Books like these are written by people that are on the never ending
> > >> search
> > >> to label things that cannot be summed up in words and they are so wrapped
> > >> up
> > >> in words and roof-brain chatter, they could never be real artists
> > >> themselves.
>
> > > I guess this makes you one of them although I wouldn't expect to be
> > > invited to any cocktail parties...
>
> > No I am not one of "them." and no I wouldn't be seen at cocktail parties
> > with pinheads who are going to apply their sophomoric thinking to the work
> > of great artists and try to sell their tripe, as though they have a right to
> > do so
>
> Oh lighten up! Maybe they get high too...
No, he'd rather spend his time in the balcony of a run-down theater in
downtown L.A., smelling of pussy and pot, as he sleeps through a David
Lean festival. Bog forbid anyone would want him at a party after all
of that; they might be inclined to shake his hand, not knowing where
it's been. , )
> > >> I will skim the book and see if I actually want to read it.
>
> > > What on earth for? You have already formed your usual inflexible and
> > > somewhat ignorant opinion, and I seriously doubt that you'll be
> > > dissuaded...
>
> > On the outside chance I might be wrong
>
> A breakthrough!
I think there is more than an "outside chance." As to the book's
contents, I'd have to find out on my own, certainly an effort I'd
rather take than to listen to Mr. Buffy's dismissals.
> > and there might be some writers in
> > the book that renounce the very idea of pigeon-holing SK-----that have a
> > deeper understanding. But the first hint is the title.
>
> Always judge a book by it's cover ---noted
Yeah, ask Steven Berkoff. , )
> > Anyone putting
> > their writings into a volume with that name sucks---unless a publisher
> > pulled a fast one on them and changed the title.
>
> "Roman Ping... Roman Pong."
Speaking of Roman, shouldn't we summon the stone cutter for these
"pearls of wisdom" from Mr. Buffy? Or will writing on wax do?
> > I'm sure there will be token efforts with a disclaimer, to make it clear
> > that Sk's films are nonverbal experiences etc.
>
> You are not sure!
Of course he's not! It's as if music and paintings, both "non-verbal"
experiences themselves, are not fit for verbal scrutiny and study.
Good Bog, how would music and art scholars get through their studies
with that kind of thinking?
> >------but then they will
> > start with the usual misinformation and mental masturbator tripe---
Again with that word! Are you ambidextrous, Mr. Buffy? Do you keep
both hands busy equally, so as not to wear them out? , )
> which is
> > neither casual discussion (which has to occur in words), experiential, but
> > instead it will be that phoney, academic style tripe that misses by a
> > thousand miles and ends up in a sewer full of mud. A world of Shit.
>
> So your mind is made up? Or not? Who the hell knows?
The Shadow! , )
> > >> But from
> > >> looking at the various credentials of the essay writers in the book and
> > >> some
> > >> writing samples I've found, it looks like just another disgrace to me
> > >> that
> > >> will just agitate me.
So will a washing machine, if you stick your head in it -- which I
wish you would.
> > > Then why not just forget it? Oh... and shut up too.
>
> > Unlike these imposters, I can write how I feel about these kinds of books
> > and I am not going to hide behind academic pretentions, by stating my
> > opinion, in an artificial way. I am also not afraid to state my biased
> > opinions
>
> Why are your opinions biased?
Well, he claims to have seen a cut of "Spartacus" that no one outside
of L.A. in 1960 ever saw, so I guess that makes him more of an expert.
Also, didn't Mr. Buffy claim to have a PhD in some field in some post
not long ago? How does his degree make him different from those with
similar credentials who managed to publish works that appear in this
book?
> > for fear of not sounding academic enough nor would I want to put
> > my words into Sk's thoughts, clothed in phoney intellectualizing.
>
> > ya I am a buddhist by nature.
>
> You continue to fool me...
Maybe he'll set himself on fire on a city street and prove it. , )
Hey, he's already said I'm not worthy to polish Brian Jones' shoes, so
what do I have to lose by making this tasteless joke too, huh? Oh, and
Ravi Shankar did a helluva lot better on a sitar than Brian Jones
could ever do, despite his tragically short life. So there, Mr. Buffy!
Thhppppp!!! , )
> > IMO, SK was influenced on many levels, by
> > ACC's "Cyrpto-Buddhism" and his own 60's LSD experiences.
>
> OMG! Not the acid bath again!
I'm sure the influence was mutual. But if I say anything more about
Clarke, Mr. Buffy will trot out his long, long list of Clarke's
novels, and I don't want to be bored by reading that shit again. , )
> > This kind of
> > influence tends to steer smarter people away from mental masturbation and
go for the real thing! Oh, I guess not... :-(
> > causes people to see things from angles that academics are always at a loss
> > to explain.
The straw man argument again.
> This is not necessarily so, and you have even admitted as much within
> your many contradictions laid out here for all to see.
Oh, come now, Ich. Don't you see he is right? , ) Why else would he
come out of his Tommy Chong-like pot-haze and speak his mind?
> Still I find
> that you are being relatively reasonable for you. And you didn't even
> call me an asshole....
No, he's going to save it for me. , ) Provided he hasn't burst a
vein in his temple by the time he's finished reading this post.
By the way, dc, where did you finally manage to buy your brand
spanking (the monkey) new Buffy box set? Out of the kind of morbid
curiousity, usually reserved for car wrecks, I wanted to find out for
myself and came up empty handed. Or am I just hitting the wrong video
stores?
Boaz
("Jesus H. Christ, you're not a writer, you're a killer!")
ichorwhip
> On Mar 16, 8:12 pm, "ichorwhip" <ichorw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 9:04 pm, "Yawps" <birdshithead...@mrbuffy.net> wrote:
> > > >> Its a pretentious title, implying that these "acadenic" writers are
> > > >> "philosophers" and that they understand Sk's inner thoughts and they are
> > > >> qualified to dissect the work of SK using words.
>
> > > > What qualifies you to make a statement like that Danny?
>
> > > Because I have commonsense and mental masturbators don't.
>
> LOL!!! Oh, yeah! He's been posting since 1996! That must mean
> something, doesn't it, Ich?
It muss mean he got general herpes or sumpin...
>
> > It is blatantly evident that you hold great disdain and occasional
> > hostility (Buddha Where Are You?) for the "academic" type. How is
> > that sensible? Academics have to have discipline to achieve their
> > goals. Why don't you even remotely respect that?
>
> > > SK's work is primarily a visual and non-verbal experience. Even his
> > > dialogue is less about the semantic meanings as it is about conveying a
> > > non-verbal experience. Even the greatest novelists do this as well.
>
> > A nonverbal novel? Sounds like something Criss Angel would "write."
>
> Sounds more like he's full of shit, so much so he just might float
> away.
I think farts would float better... , )
> It sounds like Mr. Buffy believes no one is allowed to talk or
> post about what their impressions of Kubrick's films are, that they
> are an "experience, man! A happening!"
Exactly! The dirty hippy!
> It's the typical excuse people
> used in the '60s and '70 to get around the fact that they were too
> fucking ignorant to formulate an educated opinion on Kubrick's works,
> their brains fried from too much drugs, sex and rock and roll. A lot
> were in college, and if they couldn't figure this stuff out then no
> one else could, right?
Oh right... Well said.
>
> > > Academically dissecting art, turns it into something it is not.
>
> > I submit that the integrity of the art remains the same no matter what
> > someone says about it.
>
> Exactly, Ich. What is said in writings I've read in the past on
> Kubrick's films only help to stimulate a stronger opinion to the one I
> may have formulated myself, whether in agreement or disagreement.
This is exactly so, and this is exactly why certain of us love to
study film in more a of a literary way as I choose to do myself. That
means reading, and guess what? I enjoy reading a lot! So much that I
use this newsgroup as a notebook of sorts. Why on earth some hippy
would want to come along and harass me or "kill my vibe"
in their vernacular when I'm having my fun and picking the brains of
those who have bothered to study liberal arts is way beyond me. This
guy goes gaga over what he thinks is art and only wants to articulate
it "non-verbally." Shut your big mouth trying to be a little
scholarly around here! We can't talk about anything! But we can
slobber and gashwallop all about the "experience" dude.... That's
fine. Pfffffoootttt!
Oh yeah and I got this great idea now that everybody on AMK,
especially you lurkers afraid to chime in, needs to take a hit of LSD
and login under the influence and write a stream of consciousness
piece on Kubrick.... Groovy init? Yelps you go first!
> Yawps doesn't want anyone to burst his bubble, his inner sanctum.
> Otherwise he'll wake up one morning and realize he truly doesn't know
> shit from shamrocks (in honor of St. Patrick's Day -- the shamrocks
> part anyway).
Yeah! Guinness anyone? A day late and a dollar short and hungover
jesslil...
I didn't bite a single Oirish try as I may... "Éireann go Brách"
>
> > > Experiencing art or any subtle experience requires an openess that is only
> > > constricted by a false construct of words and labels. This is not a
> > > revolutionary idea of course. SK himself conveys that attitude. He never
> > > sat down and wrote a book called, "My Philosophy" because that is not what
> > > his "philosophy" is about.
>
> > He never wrote a book! There are most certainly philosophically
> > defineable tendencies and attitudes throughout his films. That is not
> > a revolutionary idea of course.
>
> Forget it, Ich. You are arguing with a brick wall.
I know, but I did knock at least one brick out. Twelve Pound Sledge!
> That comment of his
> is just one more asinine remark in a long line of asinine remarks. You
> can probably trace them back 11 years on AMK.
I don't remember him from seven years ago.
> > > He certainly wasn't about leading people to HIS
> > > conclusions but wanted people to have their own experience of his work,
> > > which is the opposite of what these parasitic, pretentious, idiots are
> > > doing by claiming to be able to pronounce SK's "philosophy," in words.
>
> > But you don't know that these "idiots" tsk tsk are actually doing that
> > until you give them a fair and rational reading. I don't know
> > either. I could quite possibly come to loath this book, but I won't
> > dismiss it off the cuff, therein lies ignorance.
>
> Mr. Buffy is just formulating another series of straw men arguments in
> his feeble attacks. He hasn't read the book, yet he's already made up
> his mind what he thinks of it. Sounds like some other people regarding
> another book on Kubrick's films, doesn't it, Ich? , )
Of course, I don't think Yelph read it. It was too gruesome.
>
> > > Rather then just pointing one to the film and letting them just experience
> > > it, mental masturbators create a meta program of roof brain chatter.
>
> > Your attitude about philosophy in general is skewed and contradictory
> > in my opinion.
>
> Yeah, and notice how he keeps bringing up the word "masturbator"? I
> hope he keeps a bottle of Windex (TM) handy to keep his TV screen
> clean when watching those episodes of Buffy. , ) Didn't Sade sing a
> song about the likes of you: "Smooth Masturbator"?
LOL!!!!! I remember that!
> > > They
> > > are parasitic because they are writing a book and selling it, based on
> > > someone else's art.
>
> > So you are accusing the author of this book of doing it for the money?
> > Big laugh! They should have written yet another slasher flick or
> > dumbshit comedy script instead! I think that the typical author of
> > books on Kubrick's films are in it for wholly different reasons than
> > you insinuate. They are obviously deeply affected and impressed with
> > Kubrick's work. Their motives are very far from what you think they
> > are; that's my educated guess.
>
> A very good educated guess, Ich. How many of these books actualy make
> money for the authors? Ask GC and find out what his royalties are from
> his works on Kubrick. No, I'm sure he still has to subsist on a
> college professor's salary.
Exactly, and what do college professor's do besides teach if they so
desire and are passionate about their studies. They write! Why on
earth do they deserve to be verbally assaulted based on their choice
of profession alone? It's what they do! NUTS!
>
> > > People who might clamor for this kind of mental
> > > masturbation have already missed the point if they have to go looking for
> > > it in books about it.
>
> > A totally insupportable statement... you are lording again...
>
> And there's that word again! Wow, your hand must be pretty sore by
> now, Mr. Buffy, not to mention other extremities. , )
Dr. Nut!
>
> > > Fortunately there have been REAL philosophers
> > > who have grasped and taught
> > > that stopping the mind rather then letting the mind babble incessently,
> > > allows one to intensify experience and have the most fulfulling non-verbal
> > > experience. An artist who works from that kind of premise is also able to
> > > convey experience more capably.
>
> > I follow your point to a certain extent, but nevertheless we all have
> > a philosophy however errant and undisciplined it may be, even you.
>
> Just watch Buffy and no doubt you will find out. , ) Hey, man, the
> secrets of the universe are revealed in those episodes! Don't you
> know?
Yeah that Josh fellar is like the Dolly Llama...
>
> > > >> That whole idea is
> > > >> antithetical to SK's own statements and clothes his art in static words.
>
> > > > "Are you sure?!!!"
>
> > > Yes very sure. You know as well as I do how he reacted when people tried to
> > > pigeon-hole him or his films.
>
> > Well if I knew for a fact that the book in question tried to "pigeon-
> > hole" Kubrick from some sort of imaginary omniscience then I might
> > agree with you. Case in point was Wheat's ridiculously arrogant and
> > insulting views on the allegories in 2001. I can't take that!
>
> Again, the straw man argument, Ich. Who are "these people" he rattles
> on about here?
Nobody, since nobody exists but himself... psst.... you really
didn't write that Yelps!
> > > >> Books like these are written by people that are on the never ending
> > > >> search
> > > >> to label things that cannot be summed up in words and they are so wrapped
> > > >> up
> > > >> in words and roof-brain chatter, they could never be real artists
> > > >> themselves.
>
> > > > I guess this makes you one of them although I wouldn't expect to be
> > > > invited to any cocktail parties...
>
> > > No I am not one of "them." and no I wouldn't be seen at cocktail parties
> > > with pinheads who are going to apply their sophomoric thinking to the work
> > > of great artists and try to sell their tripe, as though they have a right to
> > > do so
>
> > Oh lighten up! Maybe they get high too...
>
> No, he'd rather spend his time in the balcony of a run-down theater in
> downtown L.A., smelling of pussy and pot, as he sleeps through a David
> Lean festival.
AHHHH!!!!!!!! You are killing me here! Maybe thass where dem general
herpes started...
> Bog forbid anyone would want him at a party after all
> of that; they might be inclined to shake his hand, not knowing where
> it's been. , )
I just had a vision of some small child saying to Yarbles, "You smell
like poop!"
> > > >> I will skim the book and see if I actually want to read it.
>
> > > > What on earth for? You have already formed your usual inflexible and
> > > > somewhat ignorant opinion, and I seriously doubt that you'll be
> > > > dissuaded...
>
> > > On the outside chance I might be wrong
>
> > A breakthrough!
>
> I think there is more than an "outside chance." As to the book's
> contents, I'd have to find out on my own, certainly an effort I'd
> rather take than to listen to Mr. Buffy's dismissals.
It's just kind of fun to get the hippydrome to come out of him to a
certain extent. I shall soon leave him hanging as he begins to show
us some of that Buddha-fu.
>
> > > and there might be some writers in
> > > the book that renounce the very idea of pigeon-holing SK-----that have a
> > > deeper understanding. But the first hint is the title.
>
> > Always judge a book by it's cover ---noted
>
> Yeah, ask Steven Berkoff. , )
>
> > > Anyone putting
> > > their writings into a volume with that name sucks---unless a publisher
> > > pulled a fast one on them and changed the title.
>
> > "Roman Ping... Roman Pong."
>
> Speaking of Roman, shouldn't we summon the stone cutter for these
> "pearls of wisdom" from Mr. Buffy? Or will writing on wax do?
Let's write it on her dress with the end of our....
>
> > > I'm sure there will be token efforts with a disclaimer, to make it clear
> > > that Sk's films are nonverbal experiences etc.
>
> > You are not sure!
>
> Of course he's not! It's as if music and paintings, both "non-verbal"
> experiences themselves, are not fit for verbal scrutiny and study.
> Good Bog, how would music and art scholars get through their studies
> with that kind of thinking?
But they are all mental masturbators! Very well! Make the bad man go
away! He won't let us talk about ANYTHING! weeeeee!
>
> > >------but then they will
> > > start with the usual misinformation and mental masturbator tripe---
>
> Again with that word! Are you ambidextrous, Mr. Buffy? Do you keep
> both hands busy equally, so as not to wear them out? , )
prolly
>
> > which is
> > > neither casual discussion (which has to occur in words), experiential, but
> > > instead it will be that phoney, academic style tripe that misses by a
> > > thousand miles and ends up in a sewer full of mud. A world of Shit.
>
> > So your mind is made up? Or not? Who the hell knows?
>
> The Shadow! , )
Can you imagine the Shadow of yelps? That might actually be someone
intellectually honest enough to admit that they smell like poop.
>
> > > >> But from
> > > >> looking at the various credentials of the essay writers in the book and
> > > >> some
> > > >> writing samples I've found, it looks like just another disgrace to me
> > > >> that
> > > >> will just agitate me.
>
> So will a washing machine, if you stick your head in it -- which I
> wish you would.
Better throw in an extra rinse cycle and some bleach. This guy is
crawling with critters...
> > > > Then why not just forget it? Oh... and shut up too.
>>> Unlike these imposters, I can write how I feel about these kinds of books
>>> and I am not going to hide behind academic pretentions, by stating my
>>> opinion, in an artificial way. I am also not afraid to state my biased
>>> opinions
>> Why are your opinions biased?
>Well, he claims to have seen a cut of "Spartacus" that no one outside
>of L.A. in 1960 ever saw, so I guess that makes him more of an expert.
>Also, didn't Mr. Buffy claim to have a PhD in some field in some post
>not long ago?
Are you sure that wasn't a ph value?
>How does his degree make him different from those with
>similar credentials who managed to publish works that appear in this
>book?
He's a failure obviously! An embittered aging hippy who pisses on
what he couldn't hope to accomplish himself.
>>> for fear of not sounding academic enough nor would I want to put
>>> my words into Sk's thoughts, clothed in phoney intellectualizing.
>>> ya I am a buddhist by nature.
>> You continue to fool me...
>Maybe he'll set himself on fire on a city street and prove it. , )
>Hey, he's already said I'm not worthy to polish Brian Jones' shoes, so
>what do I have to lose by making this tasteless joke too, huh? Oh, and
>Ravi Shankar did a helluva lot better on a sitar than Brian Jones
>could ever do, despite his tragically short life. So there, Mr. Buffy!
>Thhppppp!!! , )
Some people think Brian Jones was murdered. Death by misadventure at
best. As constantly drunk and drugged up as he was he should have
been on 24 hour watch.
Yet another tragic member of the 27 club. You can't swim
unconsciously.
>>> IMO, SK was influenced on many levels, by
>>> ACC's "Cyrpto-Buddhism" and his own 60's LSD experiences.
>> OMG! Not the acid bath again!
>I'm sure the influence was mutual. But if I say anything more about
>Clarke, Mr. Buffy will trot out his long, long list of Clarke's
>novels, and I don't want to be bored by reading that shit again. , )
I didn't read it the first time. , )
> > This kind of
> > influence tends to steer smarter people away from mental masturbation and
> > go for the real thing! Oh, I guess not... :-(
> > causes people to see things from angles that academics are always at a loss
> > to explain.
>The straw man argument again.
>> This is not necessarily so, and you have even admitted as much within
>> your many contradictions laid out here for all to see.
>Oh, come now, Ich. Don't you see he is right? , ) Why else would he
>come out of his Tommy Chong-like pot-haze and speak his mind?
To distract us from that which is truly interesting? It's a
subterfuge. He's trying to recruit new hippies! I'll get the
Lysol(TM)!
>> Still I find
>> that you are being relatively reasonable for you. And you didn't even
>> call me an asshole....
>No, he's going to save it for me. , ) Provided he hasn't burst a
>vein in his temple by the time he's finished reading this post.
He may not have even made it through it. I don't see a reply from him
as I finish this up. Lots of fun, and send Yelpers the bill....
"Then chocolate it shall be!"
i
"piop"
Alex May
odd boxes that have just arrived at the University Of The Arts containing
pretty much everything that SK himself kept in storage. And it's all
directly related to his films. But why let this new material hold you back?
With a book like this, as interesting as it might be, by the end of 2007
when we've all had time to digest what the SK Archives throw up, it should
be carefully archived in a shredder. And hopefully a 'New, Improved and
Updated' version will be available.
Alex May
in article 1173894800.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
porti...@yahoo.com at porti...@yahoo.com wrote on 14/3/07 17:53:
ichorwhip
> Impressive, he's written about SK's philosophy before checking out the 1500
> odd boxes that have just arrived at the University Of The Arts containing
> pretty much everything that SK himself kept in storage. And it's all
> directly related to his films. But why let this new material hold you back?
You most certainly don't have to look through those 1500 boxes to find
what he put right in his films, as interesting as it would be.
>
> With a book like this, as interesting as it might be, by the end of 2007
> when we've all had time to digest what the SK Archives throw up, it should
> be carefully archived in a shredder.
This is bullshit. "Is this your final answer?"
> And hopefully a 'New, Improved and
> Updated' version will be available.
>
> Alex May
"Well, I'd like to hold off judgment on a thing like that, sir, until
all the facts are in."
i
"piop"
Yelps
Boaz you're a jerk. I am not in any way saying people cannot discuss
impressions of Kubrick films. I talking about jerks like you who cloth
their "impressions" in fake academic bullsh'**t.
Exactly! The dirty hippy!
> It's the typical excuse people
> used in the '60s and '70 to get around the fact that they were too
> fucking ignorant to formulate an educated opinion on Kubrick's works,
> their brains fried from too much drugs, sex and rock and roll. A lot
> were in college, and if they couldn't figure this stuff out then no
> one else could, right?
Oh right... Well said.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Stupid, moronic, statements.
>
> > > Academically dissecting art, turns it into something it is not.
>
> > I submit that the integrity of the art remains the same no matter what
> > someone says about it.
>
> Exactly, Ich. What is said in writings I've read in the past on
> Kubrick's films only help to stimulate a stronger opinion to the one I
> may have formulated myself, whether in agreement or disagreement.
And make sure you SNIP how I answered Ichorwhip when i answered this:
"Elementary my dear Ichorwhip. that is why it is so stupid to babble about
it in a pseudoscientific and pretentious voice.
People who do not have the capacity to create art do not have the license to
sell books about it and foist on others their own prejudices that really
have nothing to do with the artists intention."
Can you grasp the difference between casual discussion about films and
phoney, pretentious, psuedointellectual dribble? I guess not.
>>>>>>>>>>This is exactly so, and this is exactly why certain of us love to
study film in more a of a literary way as I choose to do myself. That
means reading, and guess what? I enjoy reading a lot! So much that I
use this newsgroup as a notebook of sorts. Why on earth some hippy
would want to come along and harass me or "kill my vibe"
in their vernacular when I'm having my fun and picking the brains of
those who have bothered to study liberal arts is way beyond me. This
guy goes gaga over what he thinks is art and only wants to articulate
it "non-verbally." Shut your big mouth trying to be a little
scholarly around here! We can't talk about anything! But we can
slobber and gashwallop all about the "experience" dude.... That's
fine. Pfffffoootttt!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Do you really like paying money for books that are written about SK that you
know are crap?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh yeah and I got this great idea now that everybody on AMK,
especially you lurkers afraid to chime in, needs to take a hit of LSD
and login under the influence and write a stream of consciousness
piece on Kubrick.... Groovy init? Yelps you go first!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It is incredibly Naive to think that the 2001 ending is not inspired by Sk's
own LSD experiences in the 60's.
> Yawps doesn't want anyone to burst his bubble, his inner sanctum.
> Otherwise he'll wake up one morning and realize he truly doesn't know
> shit from shamrocks (in honor of St. Patrick's Day -- the shamrocks
> part anyway).
And your remarks are so low level they resort to "Mr. Buffy" and "Yamps"
Because really you have nothing to say or any value. You can't discuss the
points---because yo8u head is all the way up your ass and you can;t get the
sh*t out of your mouth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah! Guinness anyone? A day late and a dollar short and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hungover
jesslil... I didn't bite a single Oirish try as I may... "Éireann go
Brách"<<<<<<<<<
Kiss ass.
>
> > > Experiencing art or any subtle experience requires an openess that is
> > > only
> > > constricted by a false construct of words and labels. This is not a
> > > revolutionary idea of course. SK himself conveys that attitude. He
> > > never
> > > sat down and wrote a book called, "My Philosophy" because that is not
> > > what
> > > his "philosophy" is about.
>
> > He never wrote a book! There are most certainly philosophically
> > defineable tendencies and attitudes throughout his films. That is not
> > a revolutionary idea of course.
>
> Forget it, Ich. You are arguing with a brick wall.
Make sure you don't pay any attention to what is said, just be little bitch.
I know, but I did knock at least one brick out. Twelve Pound Sledge!
> That comment of his
> is just one more asinine remark in a long line of asinine remarks.
Exactly what 'remark' i made is SO assinine? Are you guys bed buddies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>You
> can probably trace them back 11 years on AMK.
I don't remember him from seven years ago.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That because you guys are bed buddies and don't pay attention. For years I
didn't bother arguing with the cliquish crap posted here.
o have their own experience of his work,
> > > which is the opposite of what these parasitic, pretentious, idiots
> > > are
> > > doing by claiming to be able to pronounce SK's "philosophy," in words.
>
> > But you don't know that these "idiots" tsk tsk are actually doing that
> > until you give them a fair and rational reading. I don't know
> > either. I could quite possibly come to loath this book, but I won't
> > dismiss it off the cuff, therein lies ignorance.
>
> Mr. Buffy is just formulating another series of straw men arguments in
> his feeble attacks. He hasn't read the book, yet he's already made up
> his mind what he thinks of it. Sounds like some other people regarding
> another book on Kubrick's films, doesn't it, Ich? , )
Hey Boaz how are your student loans? Ever get those buggers paid off? You
still don't get it do you--as to why you never met any of your film or
writing goals. Because you are a stuffy, pretentious prig with his head up
his ass.
Of course, I don't think Yelph read it. It was too gruesome.
>
> > > Rather then just pointing one to the film and letting them just
> > > experience
> > > it, mental masturbators create a meta program of roof brain chatter.
>
> > Your attitude about philosophy in general is skewed and contradictory
> > in my opinion.
>
> Yeah, and notice how he keeps bringing up the word "masturbator"? I
> hope he keeps a bottle of Windex (TM) handy to keep his TV screen
> clean when watching those episodes of Buffy. , ) Didn't Sade sing a
> song about the likes of you: "Smooth Masturbator"?
Nive imagination prig. Using the phrase "mental masturbation" applies to
you. Your obsessions and and your sexual problems have nothing ot do with
my great reviews of Buffy
>>>>>>>>>LOL!!!!! I remember that!<<<<<<<
ass kisser.
> > > They
> > > are parasitic because they are writing a book and selling it, based on
> > > someone else's art.
>
> > So you are accusing the author of this book of doing it for the money?
> > Big laugh! They should have written yet another slasher flick or
> > dumbshit comedy script instead! I think that the typical author of
> > books on Kubrick's films are in it for wholly different reasons than
> > you insinuate. They are obviously deeply affected and impressed with
> > Kubrick's work. Their motives are very far from what you think they
> > are; that's my educated guess.
>
> A very good educated guess, Ich. How many of these books actualy make
> money for the authors? Ask GC and find out what his royalties are from
> his works on Kubrick. No, I'm sure he still has to subsist on a
> college professor's salary.
Just can't leave my comments intact can your wormy.
>>>>>>>>>>Exactly, and what do college professor's do besides teach if they
>>>>>>>>>>so
desire and are passionate about their studies. They write! Why on
earth do they deserve to be verbally assaulted based on their choice
of profession alone? It's what they do! NUTS!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You know what is said about-----"those who can't do"
>
> > > People who might clamor for this kind of mental
> > > masturbation have already missed the point if they have to go looking
> > > for
> > > it in books about it.
>
> > A totally insupportable statement... you are lording again...
>
> And there's that word again! Wow, your hand must be pretty sore by
> now, Mr. Buffy, not to mention other extremities. , )
Dr. Nut!
I am equating the low grade, mechanical masturbation of animals, with
people like you Boaz who pretends to be an academic as you wallow in fellow
priggish masturbatory crap and praising psuedointellectual tripe and
"critical' reviews. F off.
>
> > > Fortunately there have been REAL philosophers
> > > who have grasped and taught
> > > that stopping the mind rather then letting the mind babble
> > > incessently,
> > > allows one to intensify experience and have the most fulfulling
> > > non-verbal
> > > experience. An artist who works from that kind of premise is also
> > > able to
> > > convey experience more capably.
>
> > I follow your point to a certain extent, but nevertheless we all have
> > a philosophy however errant and undisciplined it may be, even you.
>
> Just watch Buffy and no doubt you will find out. , ) Hey, man, the
> secrets of the universe are revealed in those episodes! Don't you
> know?
Yeah that Josh fellar is like the Dolly Llama...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ass kisser.
If either of you would get off your f..ing high horses and actually watch
Buffy, you might change your minds. It is as great as anything Sk has done.
Even fiunnier then Sk at his funniest. Its called UNPRETENTIOUS. Try it
some time.
>
> > > >> That whole idea is
> > > >> antithetical to SK's own statements and clothes his art in static
> > > >> words.
>
> > > > "Are you sure?!!!"
>
> > > Yes very sure. You know as well as I do how he reacted when people
> > > tried to
> > > pigeon-hole him or his films.
>
> > Well if I knew for a fact that the book in question tried to "pigeon-
> > hole" Kubrick from some sort of imaginary omniscience then I might
> > agree with you. Case in point was Wheat's ridiculously arrogant and
> > insulting views on the allegories in 2001. I can't take that!
>
> Again, the straw man argument, Ich. Who are "these people" he rattles
> on about here?<<<<<<<<<<<<
People who write idiot books you drool over prig.
Nobody, since nobody exists but himself... psst.... you really
didn't write that Yelps!<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Make sense. Write what? Is coherency possible here?
> > > >> Books like these are written by people that are on the never ending
> > > >> search
> > > >> to label things that cannot be summed up in words and they are so
> > > >> wrapped
> > > >> up
> > > >> in words and roof-brain chatter, they could never be real artists
> > > >> themselves.
>
> > > > I guess this makes you one of them although I wouldn't expect to be
> > > > invited to any cocktail parties...
>
> > > No I am not one of "them." and no I wouldn't be seen at cocktail
> > > parties
> > > with pinheads who are going to apply their sophomoric thinking to the
> > > work
> > > of great artists and try to sell their tripe, as though they have a
> > > right to
> > > do so
>
> > Oh lighten up! Maybe they get high too...
>
> No, he'd rather spend his time in the balcony of a run-down theater in
> downtown L.A., smelling of pussy and pot, as he sleeps through a David
> Lean festival.<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are just low grade and stupid. Lording over SK's newsgroup like you own
it.
>>>>>>>>>AHHHH!!!!!!!! You are killing me here! Maybe thass where dem
>>>>>>>>>general
herpes started...
> Bog forbid anyone would want him at a party after all
> of that; they might be inclined to shake his hand, not knowing where
> it's been. , )
I just had a vision of some small child saying to Yarbles, "You smell
like poop!"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Fantasy time for bed buddies.
> > > >> I will skim the book and see if I actually want to read it.
>
> > > > What on earth for? You have already formed your usual inflexible
> > > > and
> > > > somewhat ignorant opinion, and I seriously doubt that you'll be
> > > > dissuaded...
>
> > > On the outside chance I might be wrong
>
> > A breakthrough!
>
> I think there is more than an "outside chance." As to the book's
> contents, I'd have to find out on my own, certainly an effort I'd
> rather take than to listen to Mr. Buffy's dismissals.
It's just kind of fun to get the hippydrome to come out of him to a
certain extent. I shall soon leave him hanging as he begins to show
us some of that Buddha-fu.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ass kisser.
You guys don't even deserve to be fans of SK's films. You are acting like
the kinds of people Sk made fun of in his films. You are both caricatures
of Alex's probation officer. While Ichorwhip might be redeemable Boaz is a
lost cause.
>
> > > and there might be some writers in
> > > the book that renounce the very idea of pigeon-holing SK-----that have
> > > a
> > > deeper understanding. But the first hint is the title.
>
> > Always judge a book by it's cover ---noted
>
> Yeah, ask Steven Berkoff. , )
>
> > > Anyone putting
> > > their writings into a volume with that name sucks---unless a publisher
> > > pulled a fast one on them and changed the title.
>
> > "Roman Ping... Roman Pong."
>
> Speaking of Roman, shouldn't we summon the stone cutter for these
> "pearls of wisdom" from Mr. Buffy? Or will writing on wax do?
Let's write it on her dress with the end of our....<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sick puppies.
>
> > > I'm sure there will be token efforts with a disclaimer, to make it
> > > clear
> > > that Sk's films are nonverbal experiences etc.
>
> > You are not sure!
>
> Of course he's not! It's as if music and paintings, both "non-verbal"
> experiences themselves, are not fit for verbal scrutiny and study.
> Good Bog, how would music and art scholars get through their studies
> with that kind of thinking?
But they are all mental masturbators! Very well! Make the bad man go
away! He won't let us talk about ANYTHING! weeeeee!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So it's either phoney academic reviews or moronic attacks--but please no
coherent or congruent discussion---- you guys are pathetic.
prolly
Moronic. Sk would think you are pretentious, ass kissing idiots..
> > > > Then why not just forget it? Oh... and shut up too.
>>> Unlike these imposters, I can write how I feel about these kinds of
>>> books
>>> and I am not going to hide behind academic pretentions, by stating my
>>> opinion, in an artificial way. I am also not afraid to state my biased
>>> opinions
>> Why are your opinions biased?
>Well, he claims to have seen a cut of "Spartacus" that no one outside
>of L.A. in 1960 ever saw, <<<<<<<<<<<
Well Duh. I wasn't outside of LA It showed for a few days.
>>>>>>>>>>so I guess that makes him more of an expert.
>Also, didn't Mr. Buffy claim to have a PhD in some field in some post
>not long ago?
Are you sure that wasn't a ph value?
>How does his degree make him different from those with
>similar credentials who managed to publish works that appear in this
>book?
So pathetic that a newsgroup to discuss Sk's films is dominted by Boaz and
his submissives. It's all so inauthentic.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<He's a failure obviously! An embittered aging hippy who pisses
on
what he couldn't hope to accomplish himself.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No dude that is what I am saying YOU and these airhead "critics" are and you
know it.
>>> for fear of not sounding academic enough nor would I want to put
>>> my words into Sk's thoughts, clothed in phoney intellectualizing.
>>> ya I am a buddhist by nature.
>> You continue to fool me...
>Maybe he'll set himself on fire on a city street and prove it. , )
>Hey, he's already said I'm not worthy to polish Brian Jones' shoes, so
>what do I have to lose by making this tasteless joke too, huh? Oh, and
>Ravi Shankar did a helluva lot better on a sitar than Brian Jones
>could ever do, despite his tragically short life. So there, Mr. Buffy!
>Thhppppp!!! , )<<<<<<<<
loser. pretentious scum.
>>>>>>>>>Some people think Brian Jones was murdered. Death by misadventure
>>>>>>>>>at
best. As constantly drunk and drugged up as he was he should have
been on 24 hour watch.
Yet another tragic member of the 27 club. You can't swim
unconsciously.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
F off. Loser.
>>> IMO, SK was influenced on many levels, by
>>> ACC's "Cyrpto-Buddhism" and his own 60's LSD experiences.
>> OMG! Not the acid bath again!
>I'm sure the influence was mutual. But if I say anything more about
>Clarke, Mr. Buffy will trot out his long, long list of Clarke's
>novels, and I don't want to be bored by reading that shit again. , )
I didn't read it the first time. , )<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Try reading for content and conversation you idiots. Might learn something.
Boaz makes pronouncement, and Ichorwhip tries to babble humorously.
> > This kind of
> > influence tends to steer smarter people away from mental masturbation
> > and
> > go for the real thing! Oh, I guess not... :-(
> > causes people to see things from angles that academics are always at a
> > loss
> > to explain.
>The straw man argument again.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Prig. YOU are straw. Your entire mentality is straw.
>> This is not necessarily so, and you have even admitted as much within
>> your many contradictions laid out here for all to see.
>Oh, come now, Ich. Don't you see he is right? , ) Why else would he
>come out of his Tommy Chong-like pot-haze and speak his mind?
To distract us from that which is truly interesting? It's a
subterfuge. He's trying to recruit new hippies! I'll get the
Lysol(TM)!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Why bother. its like talking to male bitches.
>> Still I find
>> that you are being relatively reasonable for you. And you didn't even
>> call me an asshole....
>No, he's going to save it for me. , ) Provided he hasn't burst a
>vein in his temple by the time he's finished reading this post.<<<<<<<<<<<<
Just disgust.
<<<<<<<<<<He may not have even made it through it. I don't see a reply from
him
as I finish this up. Lots of fun, and send Yelpers the bill....
"Then chocolate it shall be!"
i
"piop"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ichorwhip stop kiss your bed buddy's ass.
dc
ichorwhip
bitter reply:
I swear! I'd have more patience with you if you could just learn how
to post on a newsgroup with at least the basest proficiency of NASA's
best-trained chimpanzees....
First reply:
> Boaz you're a jerk. I am not in any way saying people cannot discuss
> impressions of Kubrick films.
Didn't anyone ever tell you not to use no double negatives?
> I talking about jerks like you who cloth
> their "impressions" in fake academic bullsh'**t.
How fun king stupid...
> > It's the typical excuse people
> > used in the '60s and '70 to get around the fact that they were too
> > fucking ignorant to formulate an educated opinion on Kubrick's works,
> > their brains fried from too much drugs, sex and rock and roll. A lot
> > were in college, and if they couldn't figure this stuff out then no
> > one else could, right?
>
> Stupid, moronic, statements.
What's so stupid and moronic about it? There are still plenty of
people today who take their half-baked inspirations from water bongs
and lightbulbs and diving to the bottom of 40s... You think all the
answers lie in poisoning yourself? Don't answer that!
> Do you really like paying money for books that are written about SK that you
> know are crap?
No!
> It is incredibly Naive to think that the 2001 ending is not inspired by Sk's
> own LSD experiences in the 60's.
"Naive" with a capital "N" huh? Well that changed my mind! Break out
the Windowpane! All this fancy book learnin' is for the turds....
> > Yawps doesn't want anyone to burst his bubble, his inner sanctum.
> > Otherwise he'll wake up one morning and realize he truly doesn't know
> > shit from shamrocks (in honor of St. Patrick's Day -- the shamrocks
> > part anyway).
>
> And your remarks are so low level they resort to "Mr. Buffy" and "Yamps"
Who in the Jesus H Christ called him "Yamps?" Nobody huh? The fairy
fucking goddammotherhubbard didwit!
> Because really you have nothing to say or any value.
You are no value...
> You can't discuss the
> points---because yo8u head is all the way up your ass and you can;t get the
> sh*t out of your mouth.
Man, can this guy hurl an insult or twat?
>> Yeah! Guinness anyone? A day late and a dollar short and
>> hungover jesslil... I didn't bite a single Oirish try as I may... "Éireann go
>> Brách"
>
> Kiss ass.
And now he hates the Irish! Bad Buddhist BAD!
> > Forget it, Ich. You are arguing with a brick wall.
>
> Make sure you don't pay any attention to what is said, just be little bitch.
Okay, I'll just be little.... PRESTO! Now I'm an elephant!
> Exactly what 'remark' i made is SO assinine?
How about the one you just made where you misspelled asinine?
> Are you guys bed buddies?
I've never met Boaz, and I'm not a homosexual, so no.
> > Yeah, and notice how he keeps bringing up the word "masturbator"? I
> > hope he keeps a bottle of Windex (TM) handy to keep his TV screen
> > clean when watching those episodes of Buffy. , ) Didn't Sade sing a
> > song about the likes of you: "Smooth Masturbator"?
>
> Nive imagination prig. Using the phrase "mental masturbation" applies to
> you. Your obsessions and and your sexual problems have nothing ot do with
> my great reviews of Buffy.
Buffy just called and said she wanted her reviews back; you're too
gruesome.
>>LOL!!!!! I remember that!
>
> ass kisser.
When I "LOL" it's for real and not for asskissing purposes.
> Just can't leave my comments intact can your wormy.
My wormy can!
>> Dr. Nut!
>
> I am equating the low grade, mechanical masturbation of animals, with
> people like you Boaz who pretends to be an academic as you wallow in fellow
> priggish masturbatory crap and praising psuedointellectual tripe and
> "critical' reviews. F off.
Go F a bedgud assininesavestime prigolo...
>> Yeah that Josh fellar is like the Dolly Llama...
>
> Ass kisser.
Llama labia lapper... Now THAT was an expensive shot! Petrona with
no salt on the stinking glass!
> If either of you would get off your f..ing high horses and actually watch
> Buffy, you might change your minds.
I have watched at this juncture many excerpts of Buffy and still stand
stupified as to why I am supposed to like it. The one thing I thought
was kind of funny was that stupid musical episode. It made me LOL out
loud...
> It is as great as anything Sk has done.
Uh huh...
> Even fiunnier then Sk at his funniest. Its called UNPRETENTIOUS. Try it
> some time.
OMG! Does that stand for Old Man's Gonads? Ain' fo shur....
> Make sense. Write what? Is coherency possible here?
Not with you around...
> You are just low grade and stupid. Lording over SK's newsgroup like you own
> it.
So HE has the deed! Damnit!
> You guys don't even deserve to be fans of SK's films.
What a stupid douchewad thing to say.... You slam the "elitists" by
being an elitist yourself?
> You are acting like
> the kinds of people Sk made fun of in his films.
LOL!!!!!!!!!! "When you point one finger, three point back at you."
Maybe you ought to wash your hands now...
> You are both caricatures
> of Alex's probation officer. While Ichorwhip might be redeemable Boaz is a
> lost cause.
Redeem me! I can take LSD, and you can piss on me lying in an
antique, clawfooted bathtub with a bank of monitors walling the rooms
showing endless Buffy. "I'm cured, praise Bog!"
> Sick puppies.
Yeah, there's a lot of them now. Be careful what you feed your dogs
everybody! Mind the recalls!
> Moronic. Sk would think you are pretentious, ass kissing idiots..
Neah, he'd be laughing seeing this all as a logical outcome to this
pointless, mean-spirited(mainly on your part) argument. Kubrick had a
wicked sense of humor and did not suffer fools well. That's a fact.
> So pathetic that a newsgroup to discuss Sk's films is dominted by Boaz and
> his submissives. It's all so inauthentic.
You said it! The inauthenticity of what you just said is quite
accurate.
>>Some people think Brian Jones was murdered. Death by misadventure
>> at best. As constantly drunk and drugged up as he was he should have
>> been on 24 hour watch. Yet another tragic member of the 27 club. You can't swim
>> unconsciously.
>
> F off. Loser.
Can't figure why I got an "F off. Loser" for that. Anyone? Anyone?
> Try reading for content and conversation you idiots.
More of that NeoBuddhist speak...
> Might learn something.
prolly not
> Boaz makes pronouncement, and Ichorwhip tries to babble humorously.
"I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like
I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse
you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?"
> Why bother. its like talking to male bitches.
How much does that cost ya anyways?
> Ichorwhip stop kiss your bed buddy's ass.
Kiss... you... old balls>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fartdick....
"You needn't take it any further, sir."
i
"piop"
Yelps
> You guys don't even deserve to be fans of SK's films.
>>Some people think Brian Jones was murdered. Death by misadventure
>> at best. As constantly drunk and drugged up as he was he should have
>> been on 24 hour watch. Yet another tragic member of the 27 club. You
>> can't swim
>> unconsciously.
>
> F off. Loser.
Can't figure why I got an "F off. Loser" for that. Anyone? Anyone?
Why do you think? Does maiking fun of the death of pop stars in the 60's
thirll you?
> Try reading for content and conversation you idiots.
More of that NeoBuddhist speak...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Content and conversation? IS buddhism? I thought it was just normal people
talking?
> Might learn something.
prolly not<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Can't help but keep trying. Try not to stay pinheads forever, that's all I
ask.
> Boaz makes pronouncement, and Ichorwhip tries to babble humorously.
"I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like
I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse
you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?"
> Why bother. its like talking to male bitches.
How much does that cost ya anyways?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Perhaps there is a certain element of the lumpen literati that is so
dogmatically atheist and materialist and
Earth-bound that it finds the grandeur of space and the myriad mysteries of
cosmic intelligence anathema, But film critics,
fortunately, rarely have any effect on the general public..."
> Ichorwhip stop kiss your bed buddy's ass.
Kiss... you... old balls>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fartdick....
"You needn't take it any further, sir."
i
"piop"
"........................beings of pure energy and spirit. Their
potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence
ungraspable by humans."--
dc
ichorwhip
> "ichorwhip" <ichorw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174527767.1...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You guys don't even deserve to be fans of SK's films.
> >>Some people think Brian Jones was murdered. Death by misadventure
> >> at best. As constantly drunk and drugged up as he was he should have
> >> been on 24 hour watch. Yet another tragic member of the 27 club. You
> >> can't swim
> >> unconsciously.
>
> > F off. Loser.
>
> Can't figure why I got an "F off. Loser" for that. Anyone? Anyone?
>
> Why do you think? Does maiking fun of the death of pop stars in the 60's
> thirll you?
Show me where I made fun of Jones' death. I merely made an
observation about the mysterious circumstances surrounding it. I
think he got wasted all by himself, passed out into the pool and
drowned. A terrible shame, he was highly talented even if
irretrievably fucked up. In any event, Jones or any other dead 60's
pop stars are not immune from a little tasteless humor as long as it
doesn't go overboard like Natalie Wood or something....
"Don't you laugh, damn you, don't you laugh."
i
"piop"
Yelps
BBB--your bed buddy boaz started with the joke about Brian Jones then you
elaborated. You were just making your club dues offering to Boaz.
dc
ichorwhip
>
> - Show quoted text -
I elaborated on the manner of his death you bedpan gulping pinhead!
My tasteless joke was on Natalie Wood, which I feel bad about now
because I actually liked her, but that, just like the briny sea, went
right over your sieve of a head...
"Don't wash much do you? Judging by the horrible smell..."
i
"piop"
Yelps
And just what did Brian Jones's death have to do with the conversation?
Just a chance for Boar-azzz, to do his sniddity and for you to kiss his ass
and further the banality, Now you are using poor Natalie Wood as a
diversion. Shame on you.
The Boar-az mor-ass:
What I said to Boar-azz:
"Its not a 'sense of humor" to make a bad joke about the youthful death of
Brian Jones. Its just bad taste, and just in the context of your typical
snide-ness which you have plenty of. You aren't good enough to even mention
Brian Jones's name, much less make a joke about his death.
He plays his sitar in Full Metal Jacket and frankly it is the most powerful
and meaningful moment in the film.
You aren't qualified to critique anyone or anything but yourself, because
you are devoid of any real intelligence or humanity."
Ichorwhip jumping Threads writes:
:
First reply:
How fun king stupid...
No!
You are no value...
My wormy can!
Uh huh...
Not with you around...
> You guys don't even deserve to be fans of SK's films.
What a stupid douchewad thing to say.... You slam the "elitists" by
being an elitist yourself?
> You are acting like
> the kinds of people Sk made fun of in his films.
LOL!!!!!!!!!! "When you point one finger, three point back at you."
Maybe you ought to wash your hands now...
> You are both caricatures
> of Alex's probation officer. While Ichorwhip might be redeemable Boaz is a
> lost cause.
Redeem me! I can take LSD, and you can piss on me lying in an
antique, clawfooted bathtub with a bank of monitors walling the rooms
showing endless Buffy. "I'm cured, praise Bog!"
> Sick puppies.
Yeah, there's a lot of them now. Be careful what you feed your dogs
everybody! Mind the recalls!
> Moronic. Sk would think you are pretentious, ass kissing idiots..
Neah, he'd be laughing seeing this all as a logical outcome to this
pointless, mean-spirited(mainly on your part) argument. Kubrick had a
wicked sense of humor and did not suffer fools well. That's a fact.
> So pathetic that a newsgroup to discuss Sk's films is dominted by Boaz and
> his submissives. It's all so inauthentic.
You said it! The inauthenticity of what you just said is quite
accurate.
>>Some people think Brian Jones was murdered. Death by misadventure
>> at best. As constantly drunk and drugged up as he was he should have
>> been on 24 hour watch. Yet another tragic member of the 27 club. You
>> can't swim
>> unconsciously.
>
> F off. Loser.
Can't figure why I got an "F off. Loser" for that. Anyone? Anyone?
> Try reading for content and conversation you idiots.
More of that NeoBuddhist speak...
> Might learn something.
prolly not
> Boaz makes pronouncement, and Ichorwhip tries to babble humorously.
"I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like
I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse
you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?"
> Why bother. its like talking to male bitches.
How much does that cost ya anyways?
> Ichorwhip stop kiss your bed buddy's ass.
Boaz
> And just what did Brian Jones's death have to do with the conversation?
> Just a chance for Boar-azzz, to do his sniddity and for you to kiss his ass
> and further the banality, Now you are using poor Natalie Wood as a
> diversion. Shame on you.
>
> The Boar-az mor-ass:
>
> What I said to Boar-azz:
>
> "Its not a 'sense of humor" to make a bad joke about the youthful death of
> Brian Jones. Its just bad taste, and just in the context of your typical
> snide-ness which you have plenty of. You aren't good enough to even mention
> Brian Jones's name, much less make a joke about his death.
>
> He plays his sitar in Full Metal Jacket and frankly it is the most powerful
> and meaningful moment in the film.
>
> You aren't qualified to critique anyone or anything but yourself, because
> you are devoid of any real intelligence or humanity."
Yelps, give it a rest. Your pompous, sanctimonious ravings are truly
insufferable. And so are you.
You live in this fantasy world of Buffy and long dead '60s rock stars,
as if they were your personal friends, not something you like and wish
to share with others on this group. Your idea of expressing conviction
is to shove your views down our throats, as if they were vegetables
that are good for us, arguing endlessly until one party or the other
gives in or gives up. I don't mind a discussion where strong opinions
are prevalent, but you contstantly act like a petulant child, as if
your mid-life crisis has kicked into high gear and has stayed there.
You won't shut the fuck up until you come out on top and you are right
-- even if you have to beat your point into our heads.
I like to post with Ichorwhip because he doesn't take this newsgroup
so seriously to the point of acting like some tight-assed sister in a
parochial school who will smack one up the side of the head if they so
much as crack the slightest smile in class. Like me, he respects
Kubrick and his films, but we also appreciate Kubrick penchant for
dark humor in his films. We do not regard his films as some sort of
liturgy where we have to kneel and genuflect before entering this
newsgroup.
We also try to remain open minded to any new books and theses that
provide different insights into Kubrick's films. Many of us (myself
included) felt there would be nothing new to be discussed on AMK after
Kubrick died, or at least after EWS had run its course. Fortunately
new books and studies keep appearing that allows one to see Kubrick's
films from yet another fresh perspective (Professor Cocks' books being
one example).
But for some reason that goes against your worldview. I no sooner post
something to give greater insight and to create a dialogue with others
(not you) to the screenwriting process of "Spartacus" and you
immediately take a shit all over me without wanting to engage in an
otherwise intelligent discussion. To you I was wrong and you weren't
about to let my words go past without your censoring them first.
Now you are so moronic with your idiotic, sanctimonious harpings about
a long dead rock musician, dead for over 40 years, as if you were some
Bible thumping fuckhead and I just made a joke about Jesus. Fuck you,
Yelps. Fuck you and your fucking sanctimonious blather about Brian
Jones, Buffy and any other mastubatory interests you have and feel
compelled to force feed us on AMK. I am sick to death of you. You are
either in the early stages of dementia or you are yet another one of
those boomers who just can't accept advancing age, which is taking its
toll on you.
A few weeks ago, I was over at the Borders on La Cienega, on a Friday
night. I saw some guy who looked to be in his early 60s; he was about
six feet in height, had white hair and beard, wore glasses and had on
a black t-shirt and black shorts that looked too tight on his fat
assed frame. He was asking the clerk about the latest Buffy boxed set.
He seemed so enthusiastic about it and was being so bothersome to this
clerk that I couldn't help but wonder if it was YOU. Of course, if it
was you'll deny it vehemently here. If there are more sixty-somethings
than you who are so enamored of Buffy, then Bog help us all.
I will continue to post here as long as I wish, and make as many bad
jokes as long as I wish, and I don't give one fuck about what some
insufferable, sanctimonius bastard like you thinks.
Boaz
blue
Yelps
"blue" <ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:F2vNh.77892$MR6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
You're a plunked, simian, f**up. One of your underlings reposted you in
support. ya you are openminded to your crap Boaz, but closed minded to
anything that challenges your nerdy little book reports and apparently
Haunted by Buffy fans all around you.
Your snide, meaningless prigardly prattle is sickening. You are apparently
a defective fan of SK who wallows in pretentious nausea, ad infinitum and
has no perspective on anything but your own imaginary demons which you
conjure regularly with morbid little posts.
Yes you are free to plonk me and ignore anything I might write. I chose to
Plonk you, but even though I wasn't answering your further ravings and
fantasies you are still at it.
Sanctimonius? Pot kettle? After watching you post your sanctimonious
bullcrap and insults against anything that isn't Stanley Kubrick as seen
through your narrow eyes wide shut, for many years now, you, using the
insult "sanctimonius" is like so disingenuous that somewhere an angel must
be dying from digust.
The reason you resort to personal attacks and prissy and flimsy ridicule,
aimed at anything challenging your feeble, self important, little book
reports, is because you have no back bone. If it's not in your little
Stanley Kubrick trivia notes and not written in a priggish book, it doesn't
exist.
You best take care of those Student Loans and stop spending so much time at
Starbucks with your trivia.
"New Studies" what a laugh. Take your "New Studies" and shove them up your
stupid ass. You pimp for failed hacks.
dc
Tobasco
So this is the thread that Itchy is so enamoured of - the long storied
Pie Fight scene, no wonder Kubrick left it out...
Tobasco
Like me, he respects
> Kubrick and his films, but we also appreciate Kubrick penchant for
> dark humor in his films. We do not regard his films as some sort of
> liturgy where we have to kneel and genuflect before entering this
> newsgroup.
>
Boaz, I don't know anything about this rhubarb but I do have one
question on all this - does this mean that Ann Margeret still isn't
cumming? Maybe she needs a new rabbit.
Oh, moon of Alabama
We now must say goodbye
We've lost our good old mama
And must have whisky, oh, you know why
Wait a minute that's not from Fidelio... but I bet the password for
the house is in there somewhere.
blue
that making a joke about a dead person is sick then I'm afraid that you
don't have a sense of humour no matter how much you think otherwise.
Do you think that Jones would mind? The only person on this planet that
comment offended was you and if we all had to watch what we said in case
we offended a single person comedy wouldn't exist at all. So therefore
not only do you not have a sense of what humour is, but have no clue as
to why or how it fucntions.
ichorwhip
> On Mar 25, 7:46 am, blue <b...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> So this is the thread that Itchy is so enamoured of -
Enamoured of? Tobs! I deserve better than that. What in the hell
did I ever do to make you fart on me so?
> the long storied
> Pie Fight scene, no wonder Kubrick left it out...
MMMhmmm
"I will have poached eggs."
i
"piop"
ichorwhip
> On Mar 25, 12:07 am, "Boaz" <boaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Like me, he respects
>
> > Kubrick and his films, but we also appreciate Kubrick penchant for
> > dark humor in his films. We do not regard his films as some sort of
> > liturgy where we have to kneel and genuflect before entering this
> > newsgroup.
>
> Boaz, I don't know anything about this rhubarb but I do have one
> question on all this - does this mean that Ann Margeret
Prolly coz you raped her name... Thass Ann-Margret for all those
keeping score at home.
> still isn't
> cumming?
ewww! I'll bet Ollie Reed made her in "Tommy."
>Maybe she needs a new rabbit.
Hare hare!
> Oh, moon of Alabama
> We now must say goodbye
> We've lost our good old mama
> And must have whisky, oh, you know why
>
> Wait a minute that's not from Fidelio... but I bet the password for
> the house is in there somewhere.
I saw you today in the soft parade. Nice!
"Proud to be a part of this number!"
i
"piop"
Tobasco
Mahagonny, we do have standards you see.
See?
ichorwhip
Hey Boaz can you translate WTF he's talking about?
Boaz
I believe it is a reference to Brecht and Weill's opera "The Rise and
Fall of the City of Mahagonny." It's been years since I saw it on PBS.
I believe it is about the denizens of a city of thieves, a more
ambitious vision than "Threepenny Opera." But since it has been a long
time since I've seen it I may have some of the details wrong. There
are no dead rock musicians or teenagers wielding wooden stakes, so I
would recommend it.
Boaz
("Sings the roof off lovely, he does that.")
ichorwhip
Ah! I stand enlightened.
"Thank you!"
i
"piop"
Yelps
It's not just one Brian Jones bad taste joke--thats just one in a context of
Snide remarks that Boaz tosses out.
This series of flames all began some time back, when I commented on one of
Boaz's BookReports, --not attacking or flaming Boaz----- but politley
commenting how I dislike books like the ones he is forever commenting about
and writing up Book reports on. His response was to flame me and go for
personal attacks.
He is often tossing out personal attacks and they are always snide and
passive aggressive. Who is he that he can ridicule Brian Jones or Joss
Whedon or many others he attacks,---just like his favorite authors of all
those stinky, critiques on Stanley Kubrick.--they fancy themselves
experts--academics and "philosophers." and imagine they could make better
art or better cinema about the people there are pompously analyzing.
"Those who can't do...."
Boaz will casually throw out how this or that director or this or that film
is no good, based on some imaginary Club of Orthodoxy. Boaz isn't qualified
to shine the shoes of, Brian Jones, Joss Whedon, Kirk Douglas, Arthur
Clarke, Linda Blair, David Lean, and a long list (these are just some
recent ones) of people he smugly insults. including anyone on this group
not buying into his smug and priggity claptrap. Its all Gang-turf on AMK.
Apparently the LESSONS SK was trying to teach in his films, has fallen by
the wayside on AMK.
The insults to LB who was far more entertaining then Boaz. Jackson, who
apparently blew his stack over AMK, during a time when I wasn't reading this
board much, and the unkind remarks aimed at Matthew Dickinson.
And then Ichorwhip, who has this absurd defense of Boaz such as this old
2005 exchange between him and Mike Jackson.
> I'm just tired of Boaz's constant drip of LA smugness. I must have nodded
> off reading his convoluted post about Willis and my reply was enough for
> Mr. Anal to pounce. Apparently he read something about Foote once and
> wants to indulge in it. Whatever.
All sounds pretty poisonal to me. This "smugness" you speak of I don't
really see, but I will say that on AMK Boaz is more disciplined and
sticks to the point while you are rather casual and tend to wander from
one thing to another to the point of non sequitor commentary. So, your
styles conflict, big deal. Also I have to give credit to Boaz as
having the most detailed knowledge of Kubrick's films frame for frame
of anyone I know. He has seen them all, paid strict attention and read
the books, articles and essays. What's wrong with that? We are all
fallible, but Boaz is 99% on target when discussing Kubrick. He's rare
in that he knows what he's talking about around here. I guess you just
see that as being tedious, but I can't believe that you, a fellow
Kubrick afficianado, don't value what he has to say at all. I know I
do, even when I disagree with him, which is rare. There, I said my
peace, even if it isn't my profession."<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<'
Now if Ichorwhip isn't Boaz's little bed buddy that what the hell is this
major malfunction and woshippful shit?
No Boaz is no where near "99% on target" about SK or anything else--nor
are the authors of any of these smug, psuedo intellectual "film books" that
are in fact 99% wrong and written by arrogant and trite people who have
never created a film or art themselves or ever been able to create anything
significant---so all they can do is critique others and fit round pegs in
square holes using words and pretense.
Sk was making films, not just for arts sake, but to make people think and
experience. His films and art despise arrogance. His films have an implicit
dislike of smuggity. Smug hollywood. Smug critics. SK wanted to be far away
from that. Boaz fancies himself, an expert on film and SK and anything
contrary to how he sees SK or SK's films, or other films other people might
love---- he will insult and ridicule--yet when it comes to the insults of
critics in his phoney "academic" film books to SK----- he still rolls their
turds around and supports that cottage industry out to suck life from SK's
or other's art.
dc
ichorwhip
> Boaz's BookReports, --not attacking or flaming Boaz----- but politley
> commenting how I dislike books like the ones he is forever commenting about
> and writing up Book reports on. His response was to flame me and go for
> personal attacks.
So now you're going to justify this majorly erroneous, overblown
personal attack on that conviction. Vendetta. Nice.
>
> He is often tossing out personal attacks and they are always snide and
> passive aggressive.
He was only trying to fit in... You are one of the most passive
aggressive creatures I have ever observed, and that's......okay.
> Who is he that he can ridicule Brian Jones
Wait a minute! Ridiculing Brian Jones has to go way beyond one cheap
shot. I'm sure Boaz likes the Jones Stones. Who doesn't? So why
don't you go take your mother's little yelper and yip off to yowl at
the moon?
> or Joss
> Whedon or many others he attacks,
How do you know that Joss Whedon doesn't like it?
>---just like his favorite authors of all
> those stinky, critiques on Stanley Kubrick.--they fancy themselves
> experts--academics and "philosophers." and imagine they could make better
> art or better cinema about the people there are pompously analyzing.
> "Those who can't do...."
Got yer blinders on, no point trying to penetrate that farce field....
>
> Boaz will casually throw out how this or that director or this or that film
> is no good, based on some imaginary Club of Orthodoxy. Boaz isn't qualified
> to shine the shoes of, Brian Jones, Joss Whedon, Kirk Douglas, Arthur
> Clarke, Linda Blair,
was that one a joke?
> David Lean, and a long list (these are just some
> recent ones) of people he smugly insults. including anyone on this group
> not buying into his smug and priggity claptrap. Its all Gang-turf on AMK.
Boaz has a strong opinion, so what?
> Apparently the LESSONS SK was trying to teach in his films, has fallen by
> the wayside on AMK.
Here we go! You miss out on half of the Kubrick reveries on the group
because you can't see them from your mole's den.
>
> The insults to LB who was far more entertaining then Boaz.
He bowed out of the group for personal reasons. LB is fireproof, I've
only ever seared him I swear it!
> Jackson, who
> apparently blew his stack over AMK, during a time when I wasn't reading this
> board much,
This is all pretty incoherent, but I've noticed Jackson back around
here. If he wants to rant about AMK's condition instead of posting on-
topic that's his business. I just tend to try and ignore much of the
bitching myself, but since you are calling me out by name to hell with
it....
>and the unkind remarks aimed at Matthew Dickinson.
Matthew doesn't give a shit! He laughs off most of the worst things
ever said about him I guarantee it. It's called having skin, look
into it.
> And then Ichorwhip, who has this absurd defense of Boaz such as this old
> 2005 exchange between him and Mike Jackson.
>
> > I'm just tired of Boaz's constant drip of LA smugness. I must have nodded
> > off reading his convoluted post about Willis and my reply was enough for
> > Mr. Anal to pounce. Apparently he read something about Foote once and
> > wants to indulge in it. Whatever.
>
> All sounds pretty poisonal to me. This "smugness" you speak of I don't
> really see, but I will say that on AMK Boaz is more disciplined and
> sticks to the point while you are rather casual and tend to wander from
> one thing to another to the point of non sequitor commentary. So, your
> styles conflict, big deal. Also I have to give credit to Boaz as
> having the most detailed knowledge of Kubrick's films frame for frame
> of anyone I know. He has seen them all, paid strict attention and read
> the books, articles and essays. What's wrong with that? We are all
> fallible, but Boaz is 99% on target when discussing Kubrick. He's rare
> in that he knows what he's talking about around here. I guess you just
> see that as being tedious, but I can't believe that you, a fellow
> Kubrick afficianado, don't value what he has to say at all. I know I
> do, even when I disagree with him, which is rare. There, I said my
> peace, even if it isn't my profession."<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<'
>
> Now if Ichorwhip isn't Boaz's little bed buddy than what the hell is this
> major malfunction and worshippful shit?
If you're trying to get me to turn on Boaz, I won't. We go back a
long ways on this forum.
We've fucking argued at each others throats before in fact. I just
like him way better than
I do you, and you're fucking jealous like a bitch out in the cold ya
fucking homophobe....
> No Boaz is no where near "99% on target" about SK or anything else--nor
> are the authors of any of these smug, psuedo intellectual "film books" that
> are in fact 99% wrong and written by arrogant and trite people who have
> never created a film or art themselves or ever been able to create anything
> significant---so all they can do is critique others and fit round pegs in
> square holes using words and pretense.
>
> Sk was making films, not just for arts sake, but to make people think and
> experience. His films and art despise arrogance. His films have an implicit
> dislike of smuggity.
SMUGsmuggittySMUGsmuggitySMUGSMUGGEROO!
> Smug hollywood. Smug critics. SK wanted to be far away
> from that. Boaz fancies himself, an expert on film and SK and anything
> contrary to how he sees SK or SK's films, or other films other people might
> love----
You are really getting deranged with this Danny. You'd best break out
a party pack
and get a grip on yourself. This kind of projecting could lead to a
burned out bulb...
> he will insult and ridicule--yet when it comes to the insults of
> critics in his phoney "academic" film books to SK----- he still rolls their
> turds around and supports that cottage industry out to suck life from SK's
> or other's art.
dc, or Dizzy you are, I hope you are satisified now that you've gone
and totally crushed
Boaz with a mighty wind.... BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
"Danny! Mind what I say!"
i
"piop"
Yelps
This really is getting disturbing.. Damn me for liking Spartacus or Buffy
the Vampire Slayer or thinking critics and "academic" movie critics are
phoeny leeches, or that 2001's ending is LSD related.
I guess that must make me a homophobe, since I notice a pronounced bed
buddyness between Boaz and Ichorwhip.
dc
Boaz
> > This series of flames all began some time back, when I commented on one of
> > Boaz's BookReports, --not attacking or flaming Boaz
Oh, right. Play the innocent victim here. It's not like you haven't
been doing that elsewhere on this newsgroup.
> ----- but politley
> > commenting how I dislike books like the ones he is forever commenting about
> > and writing up Book reports on.
Oh, bullshit, Yelps. Anyone with half a brain can just check the
initial posts you made after Genevieve had the courtesy to mention
this book and they can see you were working your way towards pissing
all over the very idea of yet another book that dares to provide more
analysis on Kubrick's films. Does the bad book fairy come to you at
night and whisper into your ear about all the books on Kubrick that
are wrong? Is that how it works, Yelpsy?
> His response was to flame me and go for
> > personal attacks.
>
> So now you're going to justify this majorly erroneous, overblown
> personal attack on that conviction. Vendetta. Nice.
What a wimp. He attacks anyone who wants to discuss Kubrick's films,
or books that analyze Kubrick's films. What's happened is that some
people have run away than to argue with this nit-wit. You and I, Ich,
stand up to this pretentious, sanctimonious jerk and he gets all bent
out of shape about it.
For someone who claims to hold a PhD (where do you hold it, Yelpsy,
between your butt cheeks?) you don't seem to care much for scholarly
discussion or analysis of Kubrick's films -- or anything else for that
matter. Just your moronic fascination with Buffy.
> > He is often tossing out personal attacks and they are always snide and
> > passive aggressive.
>
> He was only trying to fit in... You are one of the most passive
> aggressive creatures I have ever observed, and that's......okay.
"I'm OK, you're OK -- as long as you agree with me." Isn't that Yelps'
philosophy? Oh, right, he doesn't believe in philosophy, at least not
what is published in any books. The bad book fairy told him that.
> > Who is he that he can ridicule Brian Jones
>
> Wait a minute! Ridiculing Brian Jones has to go way beyond one cheap
> shot. I'm sure Boaz likes the Jones Stones. Who doesn't? So why
> don't you go take your mother's little yelper and yip off to yowl at
> the moon?
Was Brian Jones a personal friend of yours, Yelpsy? If not, give it a
rest. No one else here on AMK gives two shits about it.
> > or Joss
> > Whedon or many others he attacks,
>
> How do you know that Joss Whedon doesn't like it?
Is Joss Whedon a personal friend of yours too, Yelpsy? Does the sun
rise and set in his ass? Or does it just look that way whenever you
have one of your acid flashbacks?
> >---just like his favorite authors of all
> > those stinky, critiques on Stanley Kubrick.--they fancy themselves
> > experts--academics and "philosophers." and imagine they could make better
> > art or better cinema about the people there are pompously analyzing.
> > "Those who can't do...."
>
> Got yer blinders on, no point trying to penetrate that farce field....
As for "stinky critiques" (I eliminated the comma, Yelpsy, because it
was a grammatical error; I guess typos are commonplace in doctoral
theses) you don't have much respect for your fellow academians -- or
maybe you're a macadamian, since you appear to be a nut with all of
this ranting about nothing, except your personal bubble being burst.
> > Boaz will casually throw out how this or that director or this or that film
> > is no good, based on some imaginary Club of Orthodoxy.
Cite some examples, Yelpsy. Give us all here on AMK clear, concise
examples: Which director? Which film? This is nothing more than straw
man arguments from you.
> Boaz isn't qualified
> > to shine the shoes of, Brian Jones, Joss Whedon, Kirk Douglas, Arthur
> > Clarke, Linda Blair,
>
> was that one a joke?
No, Linda Blair wears shoes. But I'm assuming she's particular as to
who cleans off the green vomit from them. , )
> > David Lean, and a long list (these are just some
> > recent ones) of people he smugly insults.
You are a lying sack of shit, Yelpsy. I DO NOT insult David Lean. I DO
insult idiots like you who seem to have tapped into the psyche of such
directors and just seem to know exactly what they are thinking when
they made "Ryan's Daughter," or "Doctor Zhivago." And, of course, this
is without actually learning anything about the man, such as reading
ANOTHER BOOK, this one being Kevin Brownlow's excellent and
exhaustively researched biography on Lean. For someone who claims to
have a PhD you seem to anti-book.
> including anyone on this group
> > not buying into his smug and priggity claptrap. Its all Gang-turf on AMK.
>
> Boaz has a strong opinion, so what?
I guess that's a bad thing to Yelpsy. I suppose he's the only one
entitled to have one. Just another straw man argument.
> > Apparently the LESSONS SK was trying to teach in his films, has fallen by
> > the wayside on AMK.
>
> Here we go! You miss out on half of the Kubrick reveries on the group
> because you can't see them from your mole's den.
I can think of places around the world where the lessons of Kubrick's
films that are of far greater consequence than this newsgroup.
Oh, by the way Yelpsy, just what ARE the LESSONS Kubrick taught in his
films? You claim to be such an expert without consulting any of those
big, bad books. Please, enlighten us, O toothless one, with the foul
and evil breath. , )
> > The insults to LB who was far more entertaining then Boaz.
>
> He bowed out of the group for personal reasons. LB is fireproof, I've
> only ever seared him I swear it!
Really, Yelpsy? You really think that the shitstorm LB created so many
years back here on AMK was far more "entertaining"? You mean to say
you just sat back and enjoyed the "spectacle" of seeing Katharina
being upset as she tried to defend her famous stepfather, with other
members of the family jumping in to assist? You actually enjoyed LB
casting nasty aspersions on Kubrick's memory and his legacy? You
enjoyed reading LB's nasty remarks that suggested Kubrick was the
worst human being to walk the face of the earth? I guess this is who
you really are, Yelpsy. That statement says it all about you.
> > Jackson, who
> > apparently blew his stack over AMK, during a time when I wasn't reading this
> > board much,
>
> This is all pretty incoherent, but I've noticed Jackson back around
> here. If he wants to rant about AMK's condition instead of posting on-
> topic that's his business. I just tend to try and ignore much of the
> bitching myself, but since you are calling me out by name to hell with
> it....
>
> >and the unkind remarks aimed at Matthew Dickinson.
>
> Matthew doesn't give a shit! He laughs off most of the worst things
> ever said about him I guarantee it. It's called having skin, look
> into it.
Matthew can defend himself on this newsgroup, if necessary.
Of course, let's not forget that Matthew also made a serious threat to
shoot the president, thus prompting a visit from the Secret Service to
his family's home. You choose some rather interesting people to
defend, Yelpsy. If you were an attorney you would have been a perfect
member of O.J.'s defense team.
"Ichorwhip is silly and he's ignorant, but he's got guts, and guts is
enough!" But, seriously, Ichorwhip is a unique voice here on AMK. He
may say things that rub a lot of people the wrong way, but I can see
where he is coming from. He doesn't attack just anyone; he goes after
the phony assholes who suddenly become indignant regarding jokes about
dead rock musicians. Ichorwhip greatly admires Kubrick's films, and
he's open minded to any books or studies that further goes into
analysis of the meaning of Kubrick's films. There are a lot of layers,
and it always helps to read someone else's perspective; it's like a
classroom situation where ideas and interpretations are tossed about,
and one sees things more clearly than if they hadn't been part of the
discussion.
In fact, what's the point of discussing Kubrick's films on this
newsgroup if we aren't supposed to be discussing his films on this
newsgroup, according to Yelpsy's laws? What are we supposed to do,
just pop in and read your bullshit and mental mastubatory fantasies
about Jean Simmons or Sue Lyon? Or maybe we should just sit around
like a bunch of obedient Kool-Aid drinkers as you regale us with your
comments on the latest Buffy Boxed Set. (You still haven't confirmed
or denied that it was you I saw at that Borders a few weeks ago,
Yelpsy.) Or maybe we're supposed to ignore my comments on the
screenplay to "Spartacus," which defended the point that Dalton Trumbo
did not have the authority that Yelpsy insisted he had, and then
diverted the discussion about his own personal experience on having
seen a much longer cut back in 1960. So why not just begin your own
thread on such a topic and stay out of what I had to say? Or is it
that you want to control and even censor what everyone else says if it
doesn't conform to your liking?
> > No Boaz is no where near "99% on target" about SK or anything else--
Prove it, Yelpsy. Prove it. Give me specific examples, and make sure
you can use more than one source to prove your point. Otherwise you
are just blowing smoke out of your ass again, as usual.
> nor
> > are the authors of any of these smug, psuedo intellectual "film books" that
> > are in fact 99% wrong and written by arrogant and trite people who have
> > never created a film or art themselves or ever been able to create anything
> > significant---
So, just how are these books wrong, Yelpsy? You never seem to offer up
any alternative views on anyone's posts. You just try to shut them up
and then try to play victim. Enlighten us! Tell us the deep secrets
that you see in Kubrick's films, and show us just WHERE these books --
books that you haven't even read yet -- are wrong!
> so all they can do is critique others and fit round pegs in
> > square holes using words and pretense.
>
> > Sk was making films, not just for arts sake, but to make people think and
> > experience.
Oh, wow, man! They're a happening! Oh, wow, that's so trippy! Far out,
man!
> His films and art despise arrogance. His films have an implicit
> > dislike of smuggity.
>
> SMUGsmuggittySMUGsmuggitySMUGSMUGGEROO!
Isn't that from a '50s song, "Smuggity, smuggity, smuggity, smuggity,
smuggity, smuggity, shoo!"
> > Smug hollywood. Smug critics. SK wanted to be far away
> > from that.
Since you also live in L.A., perhaps Kubrick wanted to get the hell
away as far as he could from you.
> Boaz fancies himself, an expert on film and SK and anything
> > contrary to how he sees SK or SK's films, or other films other people might
> > love----
>
> You are really getting deranged with this Danny.
He's just projecting himself here, Ich. HE'S the expert! He's so much
an expert that he doesn't even want to share his expertise with us,
just shoot us down with negative remarks, telling us we are wrong
without backing up his remarks with anything that sounds remotely like
an intelligent argument. Of course, the truth is that he has no way of
backing up his argument.
> You'd best break out
> a party pack
> and get a grip on yourself. This kind of projecting could lead to a
> burned out bulb...
We can only hope that he blows a gasket.
> > he will insult and ridicule--yet when it comes to the insults of
> > critics in his phoney "academic" film books to SK----- he still rolls their
> > turds around and supports that cottage industry out to suck life from SK's
> > or other's art.
Give me some specific examples, Yelpsy. I try to post something to
engage a discussion and then you come along and shit all over it to
where no one else wants to join in. You spoiled the party. Who wants
to offer their views after you've come in to ruin everything? That
stuff about "Spartacus" is why I have no mercy towards you, Yelpsy.
I've tolerated your bullshit up until that point. But you kept
flailing about the thread, saying I was "wrong, wrong, wrong" without
providing any arguments as to why I was wrong. You are an asshole,
Yelps, a phony and a sanctimoniuos prick.
> dc, or Dizzy you are, I hope you are satisified now that you've gone
> and totally crushed
> Boaz with a mighty wind.... BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Maybe he should light one and do us all a favor.
Boaz
Jan Bielawski
> "Wordsmith" <wordsm...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174077239....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 2:14 pm, "Yelps" <birdsmesty...@worldsiliyeti.net> wrote:
> >> <portia_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1173894800.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick (The Philosophy of Popular Culture)
> >> > by Jerold J. Abrams (Editor) will be available in May 2007. You can
> >> > "search inside" on Amazon.com and there is a table of contents.
>
> >> > M. Genevieve
>
>
> >> dc
>
> > He didn't need to. His films are his philosophy.
>
> > W : )
>
> Its a pretentious title, implying that these "acadenic" writers are
> "philosophers" and that they understand Sk's inner thoughts and they are
> antithetical to SK's own statements and clothes his art in static words.
I think you are exaggerating a bit. There is nothing inherently wrong
with _discussing_ art - I mean Bach's own son wrote a _book_
_discussing_ his father's techniques in detail. And music is
completely nonverbal compared to film.
> Books like these are written by people that are on the never ending search
> to label things that cannot be summed up in words and they are so wrapped up
> in words and roof-brain chatter, they could never be real artists
> themselves.
Not necessarily, it's just a different sort of aptitude. Having said
all that, I sympathise with your frustration in that a lot of research
of this sort is garbage. The difficulty of being a good art critic is
that mere knowledge is not enough - the critic must have experienced
something himself and speak from this experience. Otherwise you get
those endless dissections of supposed meanings of microscopic
irrelevancies which is all about studying the surface while art is
about the deep sources it represents.
> I will skim the book and see if I actually want to read it. But from
> looking at the various credentials of the essay writers in the book and some
> writing samples I've found, it looks like just another disgrace to me that
> will just agitate me.
We'll see.
--
Jan Bielawski
Yelps
"Jan Bielawski" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175103593....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I am open to anything about the deep source of art and philosophy.
Unfortunately the 'garbage" outweighs the "deep source" in most of these
"academic" filmdom books, by many tons.
dc
Jan Bielawski
> "Jan Bielawski" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> [...]
> > Not necessarily, it's just a different sort of aptitude. Having said
> > all that, I sympathise with your frustration in that a lot of research
> > of this sort is garbage. The difficulty of being a good art critic is
> > that mere knowledge is not enough - the critic must have experienced
> > something himself and speak from this experience. Otherwise you get
> > those endless dissections of supposed meanings of microscopic
> > irrelevancies which is all about studying the surface while art is
> > about the deep sources it represents.
>
> I am open to anything about the deep source of art and philosophy.
> Unfortunately the 'garbage" outweighs the "deep source" in most of these
> "academic" filmdom books, by many tons.
Yes, compared to other (older) arts film criticism is quite
sophomoric. Also certain artists in general are more easily
"dissectable" that way than the others. In literature the level of
idiotic dissection of James Joyce's works represents probably the
nadir of pointless pedantry. Kubrick of course is a sophomore's dream
because of all the intellectual connotations and intellect is the
easiest thing in the world to play with. OTOH someone like Robert
Bresson, well, I haven't seen anyone debating the fur texture on the
donkey yet (but who knows)...
--
Jan Bielawski
Yelps
lol. Exaxctly.
dc
>
kelpzoidzl
lol. exactly.
MickeyMoop
you can say that again. lol. exactly. Bracelets of power, paintings of sublimity and no attention paid to the Dynamoe who provokes these Raves. On to THE BRONX IS NOT BURNING, N'YAH.
kelpzoidzl
> On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:05:35 AM UTC-4, kelpzoidzl wrote beaTitudes:
> you can say that again. lol. exactly. Bracelets of power, paintings of sublimity and no attention paid to the Dynamoe who provokes these Raves. On to THE BRONX IS NOT BURNING, N'YAH.
Academic, I teach but can't do.... I teach poindexters how to Poin to
further the cause of poindexterism intenationally.
The Postmoroons know the way to sublime pinheadism.
MickeyMoop
> On Apr 22, 3:26 pm, MickeyMoop <farfe...@yahoo.com> doesn't think he ever was Mickey Spillaine or Woodstein or Bernward:
> > On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:05:35 AM UTC-4, kelpzoidzl wrote beaTitudes:
>
> > you can say that again. lol.
>
>
>
MickeyMoop
"If you don't walk the walk and just talk the talk, you won't win the hearts and minds of the local people." - Gao Mingbo, crypto-commiecrapitalist, "Political Division," Chinese Embassy, Yangon, "Burma".. ... ...come back Geoff..."they don't feel, they can't love like you, when I came aboard... Janice..."
kelpzoidzl
> Kinda slow around here, hey, Nina?
>
> "If you don't walk the walk and just talk the talk, you won't win the hearts and minds of the local people." - Gao Mingbo, crypto-commiecrapitalist, "Political Division," Chinese Embassy, Yangon, "Burma".. ... ...come back Geoff..."they don't feel, they can't love like you, when I came aboard... Janice..."
designed for those who seek thrilling oddness and Sk references.
Don Stockbauer
kelpzoidzl
On the other hand people who feel joy see VALUE in life. People who create value are happy and seek real enlightenment.
But some, dark souls are like monkeys in the trees, throwing shit. They have nothing to offer to anyone and live in dark shadows. They are like wind up toys running down and sputtering.
Prostrate yourself to the shining law of the universe and eradicate the inner Mara.
MickeyMoop
Don Stockbauer
Don Stockbauer
MickeyMoop
> You take the good with the bad.
Don Stockbauer
kelpzoidzl
kelpzoidzl
When the embarssed idealist repents his previously naive marxist/
utopian ways and after rebirth is ashamed by how stupid it was, His
own hero, fought to save the sheep from the evil underground mutants.
MickeyMoop
>
>
>
> The Mind at the End of it's Tether.
>
>
>
> When the embarssed idealist repents his previously naive marxist/
>
> utopian ways and after rebirth is ashamed by how stupid it was, His
>
> own hero, fought to save the sheep from the evil underground mutants.
kelpzoidzl
Southern, all herders themselves. All herder's herders.
All documented with pristine, optics. Sk the Superherder
Don Stockbauer
kelpzoidzl
> If they raised sheep or goats or cattle at least they did something useful for Humanity.
How do you think those beasts got that way?
MickeyMoop
Don Stockbauer
Wouldn't that be nice?
- Clapton
kelpzoidzl
doubling up the metamorphisis.