Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall: "You mean my whole fallacy is wrong"
354 views
Skip to first unread message
bosod...@gmail.com
Jul 12, 2015, 1:10:07 AM7/12/15
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
Did this line actually mean something or was it a non-sequitur double entendre preposterous double negative?
Did this line actually mean something or was it a non-sequitur double entendre preposterous double negative?
bill van
Jul 12, 2015, 2:12:17 AM7/12/15
to
Peter T. Daniels
Jul 12, 2015, 8:40:39 AM7/12/15
to
On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 1:10:07 AM UTC-4, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
> Did this line actually mean something or was it a non-sequitur double entendre preposterous double negative?
It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
> Did this line actually mean something or was it a non-sequitur double entendre preposterous double negative?
impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
However, since you refuse to put your messages into your messages, you should be
ignored.
pensive hamster
Jul 12, 2015, 12:15:41 PM7/12/15
to
On Sunday, 12 July 2015 13:40:39 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 1:10:07 AM UTC-4, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
>
> > Did this line actually mean something or was it a non-sequitur double entendre preposterous double negative?
>
> It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
> impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
Actually, it sounds like "You mean my whole fallacy is wrong" to me
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 1:10:07 AM UTC-4, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
>
> > Did this line actually mean something or was it a non-sequitur double entendre preposterous double negative?
>
> It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
> impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
too. Either way, "... fallacy ..." is a better line, given the context of
Marshall McLuhan appearing in a Woody Allen movie.
Richard Tobin
Jul 12, 2015, 12:50:03 PM7/12/15
to
In article <1379165c-720c-47b1...@googlegroups.com>,
to it? It's much discussed, see for example:
http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/download/1771/1482
The line was apparently written by McLuhan himself, not Woody Allen.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
>impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
No, there's no doubt that McLuhan says "fallacy" - have you listened
>It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
>impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
to it? It's much discussed, see for example:
http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/download/1771/1482
The line was apparently written by McLuhan himself, not Woody Allen.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
Jul 12, 2015, 1:47:34 PM7/12/15
to
On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <1379165c-720c-47b1...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
> >impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
>
> No, there's no doubt that McLuhan says "fallacy" - have you listened
> to it? It's much discussed, see for example:
I've seen the movie several times and seen that clip many more times.
> In article <1379165c-720c-47b1...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
> >impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
>
> No, there's no doubt that McLuhan says "fallacy" - have you listened
> to it? It's much discussed, see for example:
> http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/download/1771/1482
>
> The line was apparently written by McLuhan himself, not Woody Allen.
sensible people to do -- he published quite a few impenetrable books expounding it.
R H Draney
Jul 12, 2015, 3:10:53 PM7/12/15
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:a5700190-d3cf-4145...@googlegroups.com:
> Even Marshall McLuhan would not brand his work a "fallacy." That was
> left to sensible people to do -- he published quite a few impenetrable
> books expounding it.
"You've reached the office of Marshall McLuhan. I'm not available right
now to take your call. At the sound of the tone, please leave a medium
message."
....r
news:a5700190-d3cf-4145...@googlegroups.com:
> Even Marshall McLuhan would not brand his work a "fallacy." That was
> left to sensible people to do -- he published quite a few impenetrable
> books expounding it.
now to take your call. At the sound of the tone, please leave a medium
message."
....r
Ross
Jul 12, 2015, 4:22:15 PM7/12/15
to
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 5:47:34 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <1379165c-720c-47b1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
> > >impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
> >
> > No, there's no doubt that McLuhan says "fallacy" - have you listened
> > to it? It's much discussed, see for example:
>
> I've seen the movie several times and seen that clip many more times.
Strange what tricks memory can play. You should listen to it again.
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <1379165c-720c-47b1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
> > >impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
> >
> > No, there's no doubt that McLuhan says "fallacy" - have you listened
> > to it? It's much discussed, see for example:
>
> I've seen the movie several times and seen that clip many more times.
IMDb Quotes agrees with the present discussants.
> > http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/download/1771/1482
> >
> > The line was apparently written by McLuhan himself, not Woody Allen.
>
> Even Marshall McLuhan would not brand his work a "fallacy."
Richard Tobin
Jul 12, 2015, 4:30:03 PM7/12/15
to
In article <a5700190-d3cf-4145...@googlegroups.com>,
>> http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/download/1771/1482
>>
>> The line was apparently written by McLuhan himself, not Woody Allen.
>Even Marshall McLuhan would not brand his work a "fallacy."
It's a comedy.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
>> >impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
>> No, there's no doubt that McLuhan says "fallacy" - have you listened
>> to it? It's much discussed, see for example:
>I've seen the movie several times and seen that clip many more times.
Well, you seem to have heard it wrong every time!
>> >It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
>> >impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
>> No, there's no doubt that McLuhan says "fallacy" - have you listened
>> to it? It's much discussed, see for example:
>I've seen the movie several times and seen that clip many more times.
>> http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/download/1771/1482
>>
>> The line was apparently written by McLuhan himself, not Woody Allen.
>Even Marshall McLuhan would not brand his work a "fallacy."
-- Richard
anal...@hotmail.com
Jul 12, 2015, 8:34:34 PM7/12/15
to
'
MAN IN LINE
Oh.
ALVY
(To McLuban)
Tell him.
MCLUHAN
(To the man in line)
I hear-I heard what you were saying.
You-you know nothing of my work. You
mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you
ever got to teach a course in anything is
totally amazing.
ALVY
(To the camera)
Boy, if life were only like this!
'
But every single piece of evidence is wrong, per PTD - it is hard to believe a functioning adult can behave like this.
Peter T. Daniels
Jul 12, 2015, 9:53:09 PM7/12/15
to
it's automatically corrected by the perception mechanism to what it ought to be.
anal...@hotmail.com
Jul 12, 2015, 10:30:29 PM7/12/15
to
Us ordinary mortals make do with what the script was originally and what can be heard fairly clearly.
Peter T. Daniels
Jul 12, 2015, 11:10:23 PM7/12/15
to
On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 10:30:29 PM UTC-4, anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 9:53:09 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Us ordinary mortals make do with what the script was originally and what can be heard fairly clearly.
You have no way of knowing what the script was "originally."
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 9:53:09 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Us ordinary mortals make do with what the script was originally and what can be heard fairly clearly.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Jul 12, 2015, 11:29:17 PM7/12/15
to
Absolutist Linguistician PeteY Daniels told "analyst41":
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
>
> You're so stupid you don't even know that when something anomalous
> is heard, it's automatically corrected by the perception mechanism
> to what it ought to be.
>
Wrong!
> You're so stupid you don't even know that when something anomalous
> is heard, it's automatically corrected by the perception mechanism
> to what it ought to be.
>
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Ross
Jul 12, 2015, 11:38:59 PM7/12/15
to
in his typically indirect manner, that he misheard or misremembered what McLuhan said. Of course he had to phrase it in such a way that it involved
calling somebody else stupid, but still...
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Jul 13, 2015, 1:41:35 AM7/13/15
to
Snippy little bickering bitch [TM] PeteY Daniels weaseled:
desperately trying to save face -- would come up with such a ridiculous
attempt of discrediting his opponent.
>
> anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Us ordinary mortals make do with what the script was originally
>> and what can be heard fairly clearly.
>>
> You have no way of knowing what the script was "originally."
>
Hilarious! Only arch-weasel PeteY -- once again trapped in a corner and
> anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Us ordinary mortals make do with what the script was originally
>> and what can be heard fairly clearly.
>>
> You have no way of knowing what the script was "originally."
>
desperately trying to save face -- would come up with such a ridiculous
attempt of discrediting his opponent.
R H Draney
Jul 13, 2015, 2:16:52 AM7/13/15
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:87cc4394-5602-4fcb...@googlegroups.com:
From what I've heard of Woody Allen, the idea of an "original script" is
risible...Woody, by the accounts of many actors who have worked for him,
tells everyone what is supposed to happen in the scene and lets them have
their head...he trusts for the most part that his casting instincts will
have brought him performers who will make it come out the way he wants
it....r
news:87cc4394-5602-4fcb...@googlegroups.com:
risible...Woody, by the accounts of many actors who have worked for him,
tells everyone what is supposed to happen in the scene and lets them have
their head...he trusts for the most part that his casting instincts will
have brought him performers who will make it come out the way he wants
it....r
Richard Tobin
Jul 13, 2015, 3:00:03 AM7/13/15
to
In article <87cc4394-5602-4fcb...@googlegroups.com>,
revisions of the script which are available for inspection by
researchers. Unfortunately they don't seem to be online.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>You have no way of knowing what the script was "originally."
The link I posted - or something linked from it - referred to several
revisions of the script which are available for inspection by
researchers. Unfortunately they don't seem to be online.
-- Richard
anal...@hotmail.com
Jul 13, 2015, 4:01:24 AM7/13/15
to
If he recedes into the background on this topic in the hope that everybody would simply move on - then perhaps I'll believe it.
anal...@hotmail.com
Jul 13, 2015, 6:36:55 AM7/13/15
to
Peter T. Daniels
Jul 13, 2015, 7:41:50 AM7/13/15
to
I neither misheard nor misremembered.
Peter T. Daniels
Jul 13, 2015, 7:44:01 AM7/13/15
to
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 2:16:52 AM UTC-4, R H Draney wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:87cc4394-5602-4fcb...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 10:30:29 PM UTC-4, anal...@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 9:53:09 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> Us ordinary mortals make do with what the script was originally and
> >> what can be heard fairly clearly.
> > You have no way of knowing what the script was "originally."
>
> From what I've heard of Woody Allen, the idea of an "original script" is
> risible.
Exactly.
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:87cc4394-5602-4fcb...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 10:30:29 PM UTC-4, anal...@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 9:53:09 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> Us ordinary mortals make do with what the script was originally and
> >> what can be heard fairly clearly.
> > You have no way of knowing what the script was "originally."
>
> From what I've heard of Woody Allen, the idea of an "original script" is
> risible.
..Woody, by the accounts of many actors who have worked for him,
> tells everyone what is supposed to happen in the scene and lets them have
> their head...he trusts for the most part that his casting instincts will
> have brought him performers who will make it come out the way he wants
> it....r
Ross
Jul 13, 2015, 7:53:09 AM7/13/15
to
> I neither misheard nor misremembered.
Janet
Jul 13, 2015, 10:00:03 AM7/13/15
to
In article <a5700190-d3cf-4145...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...
Read his lips, if you're hard of hearing.
Janet
gram...@verizon.net says...
>
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <1379165c-720c-47b1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
> > >impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
> >
> > No, there's no doubt that McLuhan says "fallacy" - have you listened
> > to it? It's much discussed, see for example:
>
> I've seen the movie several times and seen that clip many more times.
>
> > http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/download/1771/1482
> >
> > The line was apparently written by McLuhan himself, not Woody Allen.
>
> Even Marshall McLuhan would not brand his work a "fallacy."
Except as a self-mocking joke in a comedy skit about himself.
> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <1379165c-720c-47b1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >It means you need to clean out your ears. It's "my whole philosophy." Maybe his
> > >impenetrably thick Canadian accent threw you.
> >
> > No, there's no doubt that McLuhan says "fallacy" - have you listened
> > to it? It's much discussed, see for example:
>
> I've seen the movie several times and seen that clip many more times.
>
> > http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/download/1771/1482
> >
> > The line was apparently written by McLuhan himself, not Woody Allen.
>
> Even Marshall McLuhan would not brand his work a "fallacy."
Read his lips, if you're hard of hearing.
Janet
tomcam...@gmail.com
Feb 17, 2018, 9:18:08 PM2/17/18
to
On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 1:10:07 AM UTC-4, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
>
> Did this line actually mean something or was it a non-sequitur double entendre preposterous double negative?
Little does anyone know... Pete Daniels teaches a communications class with a focus on noise and distortion at Columbia.
>
> Did this line actually mean something or was it a non-sequitur double entendre preposterous double negative?
0 new messages