Kind of off topic…but we’ve been off topic for a while…(300+ comments in a posting called Offered Without Comment–the Gods of Irony smile) did anyone see LOST?
HO-ly šhìŧ!
That twist….!
HO-ly šhìŧ!
Whadawho, I mean, wha…
HO-ly šhìŧ!
I didn’t even point the gun at him!
HO-ly šhìŧ!
Maybe he had a heart attack.
HO-ly šhìŧ!
So Bill Mulligan is shocked at the departure of this string from anything like its original topic? Silly boy. We’re an unruly mob – really reprehensible. I’m so ashamed. More seriously, this stream of consciousness (if “consciousness” is really the right word for some of it) seems to be the most common direction these strings take. Some of them are pretty rewarding.
What is your goal here, Mike? Not a threat or an attempt at coercion, or an implication that you should not be here, or anything else nefarious or hidden agenda-like. Just honest curiosity.
Some of you have referred to Joss Whedon as to demonstrate your high esteem of him. He has no weblog, but over the weekend he posted a rant on a fan site dedicated to him that prompted me to reconsider Patrick’s question in relation to it:
…it’s no longer enough to be a decent person. It’s no longer enough to shake our heads and make concerned grimaces at the news. True enlightened activism is the only thing that can save humanity from itself. I’ve always had a bent towards apocalyptic fiction, and I’m beginning to understand why. I look and I see the earth in flames. Her face was nothing but red.
All I ask is this: Do something. Try something. Speaking out, showing up, writing a letter, a check, a strongly worded e-mail. Pick a cause – there are few unworthy ones. And nudge yourself past the brink of tacit support to action. Once a month, once a year, or just once. If you can’t think of what to do, there is this handy link. Even just learning enough about a subject so you can speak against an opponent eloquently makes you an unusual personage. Start with that.
Well,
My presence here complies with the spirit of Whedon’s call to exceed the the qualifications of being a decent person.
I’ve progressively distilled my thinking to, for example, observe a family of conventionally accepted behavior that nurtures no virtue but naked coercion: hypocrisy when employing persuasion and ridicule for the sole purpose of taking someone’s shame hostage (as opposed to satire, which strips the pretense from the true effects of our behavior), if not the outright venting of disgust (by, for example, someone who hones this skill from their experience as an authority figure in his local environment). As far as I speak publicly of such incidents, any observer is free to dismiss the common practice of such coercion by referring to or tailoring for themselves my simple reasoning.
While I’ve never denied the authenticity of the offense others have taken by my presence, I can now refer to an outside observation to disqualify it.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at May 15, 2007 04:49 PM: His logic is like an Escher. It works because…well, you can’t really tell how or why it makes sense in any way that your brain recognizes as sense, but when you look at it, you just can’t see anything wrong with it. Other than knowing that it’s wrong.
As far as no one can find anything wrong with what I say, I am disqualified from any accusation of being a troll or an idiot. It’s that simple.
There are a number of clichés concerning how the manner with which we conduct our lives determines the honor our souls receive in the afterlife — at their core they are metaphors for being judged with absolute objectivity. At the end of my life, it will fall neatly within the scope of a purely objective arbiter to ask me to address the accusations against me that I am a troll and an idiot. As far as I can say no such accusation depends on anyone finding anything wrong with the logic and reason that directed my actions, I am not afraid of any purely objective judgment.
For those of you who have been observed employing hypocrisy in persuasion and ridicule (if not the outright venting of disgust) for the purpose of coercing others — well, that qualification doesn’t seem to apply to you, does it?
Mike: No one is “disqualified from any accusation of being a troll or an idiot.” “It’s that simple.” The freedom to think and say whatever one pleases, which you otherwise champion, gives anyone who thinks you are deranged the right to say so! Trumpeting one’s own virtue is very rarely effective (Trust me: I know something about this.), and championing others doesn’t have a tremendous track record. What all of us post here will just be weighed as anyone pleases. Pronouncements in an artificial and impenetrable language are perceived as bizarre: You should know this already.
Saying “As far as no one can find anything wrong with what I say, I am disqualified from any accusation of being a troll or an idiot” does not restrict in principle anyone’s right to make an arbitrary accusation. It’s that simple.
As far as I can say any such accusation does not depends on anyone finding anything wrong with the logic and reason that have directed my actions, I am not afraid of any purely objective judgment.
I am filled with pity for you Mike. I wish I knew of a way to help you, but I don’t.
Wow.
That’s Totally Normal Psychology (TM)
Mike, if you were disqualified from accusations (any variety of accusations at all) of being a troll or an idiot, people could not make such accusations. They can make them, do make them, are correct in making them, and will continue to make them: so what you say is nonsense – proven wrong by the facts.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 24, 2007 12:21 PM
They can make them, do make them, are correct in making them, and will continue to make them: so what you say is nonsense – proven wrong by the facts.
Sigh… I knew I said I’d stay out of this, but…
Jeffrey, as Peter and others have already suggested: you are wasting your breath. Mike’s mind is unbound by the constraints of logic.
It was unfair of me to lump you in with Mike. You can be overly combative at times but you’re at least willing to change your mind. Mike cannot do that.
Something is indeed very wrong with Mike. I’ve often wondered if he is autistic, or had been abused as a child, or if there’s something else going on. Still, none of us are in a position to help him. We can, however, help ourselves and each other by remembering that we needn’t respond to his provocations.
Mike is playing a game. It’s really very simple: he dares us to prove him wrong, but then rejects such proof when it is provided. This is infuriating, so we continue to offer rock-solid logic and irrefutable evidence, and he continues to steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. He’s got us playing his game, by his rules.
Here’s the thing: we don’t have to play.
It’s really that simple.
Bill Myers: I know that you are right that anything I say is not going to have any effect on Mike. I continue to address this for two reasons, one of which is quite negative, and the other – I don’t know, maybe neutral. The negative: I like to argue (no, don’t deny it, you did know that). The other: The way my mind operates (and you do so much want to know) I get a much clearer idea of what I think by expressing it in writing. Whether that makes it worthwhile, I couldn’t say. There’s also an outside possibility what I write will help clarify someone else’s mind, but that might not be much of a reason.
Jeffrey, anything I suggest with regard to Mike is my own opinion: nothing more, nothing less. It seems you’re well aware of the futility of reasoning with Mike, but find some intrinsic rewards in the attempt. Hey, it’s your time to spend as you please. 🙂
I’m going to try very hard to make this my last word on the subject, though. I’m only announcing that so others won’t think me rude if I ignore any conversations with or pertaining to Mike in the future. My interest level in Mike’s antics has waned to a level where it is painful to even contemplate writing about them. Your mileage may vary, but this is where I’m at.
Later, all.
Bill Myers: Yes, that’s clear enough – almost – gentlemanly!? Good God.
Posted by Bill Myers at May 24, 2007 02:46 PM
“I’m going to try very hard to make this my last word on the subject, though. I’m only announcing that so others won’t think me rude if I ignore any conversations with or pertaining to Mike in the future. My interest level in Mike’s antics has waned to a level where it is painful to even contemplate writing about them. Your mileage may vary, but this is where I’m at.”
Gods, Bill, that’s almost civil. You alright?;p
Still, must agree. This meeting of V.O.M.I.T is adjourned until the little chimp (thanks Micha) starts flinging verbal and intellectual feces against our wall.
Like tomorrow.
Posted by: Manny at May 24, 2007 08:31 PM
Gods, Bill, that’s almost civil. You alright?;p
I hope you’re joking. If I’m truly earning a reputation for being un-civil, I’ll do my best to un-earn it.
I can’t speak for Manny, but I was joking. One of the drawbacks of having a bad history is the hypocrisy of flaming any but the truly disgraceful. (So, to the next person I flame, I guess you’ll know what I think of you.)
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at May 15, 2007 04:49 PM: His logic is like an Escher. It works because…well, you can’t really tell how or why it makes sense in any way that your brain recognizes as sense, but when you look at it, you just can’t see anything wrong with it. Other than knowing that it’s wrong.
As far as no one can find anything wrong with what I say, I am disqualified from any accusation of being a troll or an idiot. It’s that simple.
Mike, if you were disqualified from accusations (any variety of accusations at all) of being a troll or an idiot, people could not make such accusations.
Jeffrey, when I say “As far as” n, I am establishing the parameter in which my statement is true.
I never said I was disqualified from arbitrary accusations, such as yours, Micha’s, the Bills’, and Manny’s subsequent to my post — there’s no defense from them. That’s why we are free to disregard them every day of the week, and twice on Wednesday. As far as your accusation depends on pretending I made no such qualification — which is the case — you are wrong. It’s not rocket surgery.
Mike, when you say ANYTHING you are just alerting us that you’re going to dance a private dance to an orchestra in your hindbrain. In order to communicate effectively, you and your audience must be in agreement on the meaning of your words. Saying “Fire is wet” just because its your secret that “wet” is really “hot” may be entertaining to you, but not to anyone else.
I wasn’t sure my response was adequate, but then I reread Mike’s post:
“rocket surgery”
Nothing more is required.
Mike, do you know who Escher is? Do you know what kind of artist he is? What kind of pictures he draws?
Hi, Bill. Yup, just kiddin’. Let’s say sometimes your post have a certain je ne c’est pas that reeks, on first glance, of pure nasty, put later the pure perfume of dry curmudgeonly wit emerges like a ray of sunshine. (In other words, when you good, you good.)
“Saying “Fire is wet” just because its your secret that “wet” is really “hot” may be entertaining to you, but not to anyone else.”
That’s not a good metaphor. If Mike said ‘Fire is wet, and in his language ‘wet’ meant ‘hot,’ he would be making a true statement. A better metaphor would be that he is saying ‘water is wet’, believes it is wet, and is saying it in some roundabout way, like ‘the moisture of the blaze is plainly observable.’
Bu the way, if we’re on metaphors: for Mike the phrase ‘the grass is green’ would mean the marjuana is inexperienced.
(I’m sorry Bill, I haven’t seen Lost yet, and I don’t have the legal understnding to comment meaningfully anout Bush’s new law, so I’m just passing the time).
I haven’t seen Lost yet…
You’re not alone. After getting tired of the last of the season string alongs, I recorded the last four eps. on DVR to watch as one streaming mass of Lost. Now I’m stuck ducking the hottest thread right now until at least Saturday night.
The good news is that the show started moving along from the chapters I’ve seen, but I’m yet to see the last two.
What about Veronica Mars?
Not a fan of it. Couldn’t tell you.
I like to argue (no, don’t deny it, you did know that)….
Saying “Fire is wet” just because its your secret that “wet” is really “hot” may be entertaining to you, but not to anyone else.
First you remove the qualifier from my statement you attack, then you admit to indulging in antagonism, now your antagonism depends on attributing false quotes to me. You got nothing.
Mike, do you know who Escher is? Do you know what kind of artist he is? What kind of pictures he draws?
Yeah, I do. Do you, like, hate him or something?
I should also tell yu that, as I look at different aspects of my life, smacking you around now and again falls under the category of guilty pleasures….
I am filled with pity for you Mike. I wish I knew of a way to help you, but I don’t.
Your hypocrisy is worth noting.
Mike, if you were disqualified from accusations (any variety of accusations at all) of being a troll or an idiot, people could not make such accusations.
I never said I was disqualified from arbitrary accusations…
Now that I think about it more formally, yes, we have the right disqualify ourselves from arbitrary accusations. The meritlessness of arbitrary accusation is canonized in our bill of rights, where all citizens have the right to offer account for the evidence against them and cross examine witnesses against them. Where an accusation is demonstrated to be arbitrary, it has no merit.
Bobb submitted his own fact: no one can find anything wrong with what I say. This disqualifies me from any accusation of being a troll or an idiot. It was simple when I first said it, and it is no less so now.
Micha: “Mike, do you know who Escher is? Do you know what kind of artist he is? What kind of pictures he draws?”
Mike: “Yeah, I do. Do you, like, hate him or something?”
No, I like him. He paints pictures of things that look like reality but are not real (surreal) — which was Bobb’s point when he compared you to Escher.
And Mike, one of the reasons smacking you around is a guilty pleasure is because I realize that I should pity you. hence the guilt. Admiting it is the opposite of hypocracy. Unlike coming to a blog of a writer, where people come to chat with each other, picking a fight with anybody and everybody, and then accusing them of having a ‘predatory agenda’ and casting oneself as a somebody fullfilling a noble role. Now that’s hypocracy.
Micha – You’re right. I’ll try again.
Him: Fire is hot.
Us: No, that’s stupid.
Him: By “hot” I mean “breathes with gills.”
Us: Fire doesn’t breathe with gills.
Him: By “fire” I mean “leopard seals.”
Us: Leopard seals don’t breathe with gills.
Him: Why are you misquoting me!?
Us: Why, you…
Him: You’re against me.
That’s better. Only in the first line you wanted to say that fire is wet. You got confused and said something which actually does make sense. That’s why you can never acheive what Mike has acheived and say something that is obviously absurd without getting confused even once. That’s talent.
No, I like him. He paints pictures of things that look like reality but are not real (surreal) — which was Bobb’s point when he compared you to Escher.
There’s a famous story of a US GI at the end of WWII asking Picasso how he could stand to make artwork that deviated from reality. Picasso asked to see a picture of his girlfriend and asked him if she was really as small as the snapshot that fit in his hand.
Micha, I have news for you: all words and pictures deviate from reality. What you say of Escher is true of everyone who writes or draws anything.
Micha – You’re right. I’ll try again.
[Jeffrey literally fabricates more false quotes — he seems to need to]
You got nothing.
That’s Totally Normal Psychology (TM)
Bill Mulligan, just so you know, all the times I commented “That’s Totally Normal Psychology™” to something you said, I wasn’t deriding you for your psychological deviancy, I was citing your hypocrisy.
Your ridicule of my psychological deviancy was not only arbitrary, it freed me to ridicule any psychological deviancy you present as hypocritical. Your application of the phrase on me lacks any ironic impact you seemed to have hoped for.
Yes Micha, psychotic as I am, it’s still a hard act to pull off.
Mike, by acknowledging your psychological deviancy you make it difficult to argue the arbitrariness of Micha, or Bill Mulligan, or…whoever your enemies are in pointing it out.
Normal people are able to distinguish between their own words and those of others, but you continue to take my words as misquotes of yourself. I’ll try again.
Jeff: Mike’s synapses are completely fried.
Mike: (a purely speculative quotation) I never said that! That’s a misquote. I didn’t say my synapses are fried. You’re just saying that as an unjustified supposition of my brilliant excrescence!. Reality is sequential and arbitrary at the same time!! Urgghh…my brain is coming out my ears.
(These are my words, written by me. Mike didn’t say any of it. Did you pick up on that, Mike?)
Mike, by acknowledging your psychological deviancy you make it difficult to argue the arbitrariness of Micha, or Bill Mulligan, or…whoever your enemies are in pointing it out.
No. Disregarding convention does not make an arbitrary accusation against the deviant valid.
The severity of your wrongness demonstrates you now argue as to discredit whatever notion you are trying to establish. (Here’s an idea: why don’t you fill us in on what that notion is?) I hope someone has the foresight to archive Peter’s traffic logs to check to see if you aren’t really a strawman made by me to bolster my credibility.
Normal people are able to distinguish between their own words and those of others…
…which is literally what I’ve been doing, and literally what you persisted in obscuring.
“Micha, I have news for you: all words and pictures deviate from reality.”
If we didn’t know better this could have come out as a really profound statement. Unfortunatly, Mike’s profoundness is an act, it’s only imitation profound, and 10 out of 10 posters can tell the difference (well everybody except Mike himself).
As usual, you missed the point of Bobb’s statement completely while erasing the distinction between several schools of art, and Escher’s own unique style. I think Escher would have been insulted if he knew that you do not distinguish between his surealism and the style of realism. but then after a while he would probably have realized who he was talking too and let it go, as should I.
———————
I watched bits of the original Star Wars trilogy over a Jewish holiday. Still good. Watching them it is hard to understand how Lucas could have messed up the second trilogy so badly. Just watching parts of te movies caused whole scenes to sprout out in my mind. The thing pretty much writes itself. Oh well.
(Still haven’t seen Lost, just passing the time).
Micha, your green comment–absolutely BRILLIANT.
Jeffrey, regardless of the disclaimer on your post, eventually Herbie the Troll will find a way to accuse you of saying he said it. Granted, it’ll be months from now when all of us are discussing the relevance of the presidential race and whether or not we thought the Heroes premiere was cool, but it’ll happen. Mark my words. And, as has happened to many, you’ll get whiplash from the “What the hëll–?” reaction. On the other hand, your similated exchange up there is pretty dead on.
Rocket surgery–that’s gonna crack me up all day.
I should also tell yu that, as I look at different aspects of my life, smacking you around now and again falls under the category of guilty pleasures….
Unlike coming to a blog of a writer, where people come to chat with each other, picking a fight with anybody and everybody, and then accusing them of having a ‘predatory agenda’ and casting oneself as a somebody fullfilling a noble role.
Well, you admitted to indulging in a predatory agenda. Look at the disservice you do to your friends, denying them the recourse of dismissing the claim anyone among you sheltered a predatory agenda as arbitrary.
As usual, you missed the point of Bobb’s statement completely while erasing the distinction between several schools of art, and Escher’s own unique style. I think Escher would have been insulted if he knew that you do not distinguish between his surealism and the style of realism. but then after a while he would probably have realized who he was talking too and let it go, as should I.
My citation of Bobb’s unqualified statement — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say — does not depend on validating or disputing whatever point Bobb meant it to qualify.
As long as you simply can’t find anything wrong with what I say, I am free to refer to Bobb’s fact without reservation.
“My citation of Bobb’s unqualified statement — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say — does not depend on validating or disputing whatever point Bobb meant it to qualify.”
and this, in a nutshell, shows why you’re an idiot and a troll, it proves that you are the only predator on this blog, the only one to use coersion to twist the words of others while ignoring what they said. You know what Bobb meant, but lack the honesty or the respect to treat it as such, prefering instead to reverse it’s meaning. I certainly find many things wrong with what you say: this is only one example of your intellectual dishonesty. That is why you don’t deserve any respect from anybody. That’s why you are fair game for ridicule, and have no recourse to claim you are somehow the victim.
Alright Bill, I ordered Django Kill!, the Great Silence, Keoma, and Tears of the Black Tiger from Amazon. Do you have any other suggestions for someone whose sole spaghetti western experience involved a man with no name?
Gorginfoogle, omigod, if I had known people would actually listen to my advice I probably would have given better advise!
But you should have some fun viewing (keeping in mind that Django Kill! is pretty marginal (but has some very good bloody sequences and is one of the strangest of the spaghetti westerns) (and keeping in mind that I warned you about Keoma’s score).
One of the problems with the Italian westerns is that most of us, as you did, start out with the Sergio Leone ones and then search out others…but none are going to measure up to the Master.
Still, here’s a few otheres: CUTTHROATS 9 (one of the most violent of all westerns), THE HUNTING PARTY (mostly for the sight of Candy Bergan, Gene Hackman and Oliver Reed), SOLDIER BLUE ( I aw this in High School and it traumatized me for life. We had to promise the teacher we wouldn’t tell anyone how over the top violent it was; she was afraid she’d lose her job, poor thing. NEVER show a movie you haven’t checked out first!), maybe FOUR OF THE APOCALYPSE just to see what Lucio Fulci brings to the table. The original DJANGO.
(ok, not all of them arer actually genuine Italian Spaghetti westerns, but they all have that flavor.)
Even the second tier ones like DEATH RIDES A HORSE have much to recommend them–like Morricone scores that got used in KILL BILL.
Oh and there’s always EL TOPO. The director is certifiable, which often makes for an interesting experience (like the Coffin Joe movies–you can see the workings of a unique mind there.)
Unlike coming to a blog of a writer, where people come to chat with each other, picking a fight with anybody and everybody, and then accusing them of having a ‘predatory agenda’ and casting oneself as a somebody fulfilling a noble role. Now that’s hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy? Maybe, but maybe not.
Delusions of grandeur? Very likely.
A Partial disconnect from reality? Highly likely.
Signs of a complete mental meltdown and a psychological disorder? Give the man a cigar!
I’m not sure you can accuse Mike of hypocrisy based simply on the fact that I’m not sure he has the mental capability of processing certain facts of reality. Look at his Whedon post from above. Mike is equating a call to grassroots political action against the government of the Bush Era with lurking around PAD’s blog, misreading posters intents and expressed ideas, applying his own twisted view or reality to others statements and then championing a counter position to a position that usually never existed in the first place. In Mike’s world, the two compare. In the real world, it’s like saying five $1 bills = one $50 bill. It just doesn’t compute to the normal mind to claim them as equals. But Mike’s mind fixated on a portion of the concept and got stuck in a loop that kept it from going any further past that portion of the concept.
It’s like his knack for taking only a few words in a paragraph, wrenching them out of context and banging away at something that wasn’t really said to begin with. Most of us have attributed this to his just being an obnoxious troll. It could be the sign of a chronic mental misfire. Have you ever been working really hard at something, gotten really fixated on one part of a vexing task while being really tired, had someone hand you a solution to the problem and your brain still takes a moment or three to shift gears and get unstuck from the path it was beginning to loop into? Well, there are some mental disorders that are something like that. You can get stuck on a loop of just a part of what is in front of you. You see ten sentences and get locked on only one or two of them and are unable to get out of that loop no matter how much prodding or information others give you. Jenn does work with the Epilepsy Foundation and has seen things like that from people getting their circuits a little fried (although she also points out that that is not a conditions exclusive to seizure disorders.) Some people have those circuits permanently fried and can’t help but to always act this way.
Add in Mike’s apparently self-heroic delusions about his stature as a defender of truth, justice and light in a world (or blog) of lies, racism, class privilege and darkness and you’ve started heading into disorder territory. Add in a simultaneous ability to be seen as both a heroic and mighty defender of the poor and downtrodden and a perpetual victim of others and you’ve starting heading into Mike Disorder Syndrome ™.
Yeah, Mike may need to be viewed more with pity then derision and engaging him in debates with the goal of putting the smackdown on his crazy @$$ may not be the best course of action for our sake, but I think you’re safe in your actions. Mike won’t ever be able to really comprehend what you’re doing to him and when you’re doing it. It’s a bit like this post. Mike will likely see only ‘I’m not sure you can accuse Mike of hypocrisy’ and loop on that for weeks to come. Then, he’ll just keep posting that line like he’s doing with Bobb’s in his misguided belief that it’s saying something it’s not and that the comments of one poster here speaks for all other posters but him.
So feel free to enjoy the odd smackdown. He just can’t comprehend how bad he comes out looking and he seems to walk away from the exchanges feeling that much better about himself and his sacred mission of heroically defending those who need him most in his alternate reality. I’d say it’s a win/win situation for you.
And he backed my point even further when I was typing by, again, going back to Bobb’s “facts” in his post.
And speaking of creators of alternate realities:
Ray Bradbury receives special Pulitzer
Longtime science-fiction writer Ray Bradbury was honored May 21 at an awards luncheon at Columbia University with the presentation of a special citation from the Pulitzer Board for “his distinguished, prolific and deeply influential career as an unmatched author of science fiction and fantasy.”
I’d add Sergio Leone’s A Fistful of Dynamite to Bill’s list. Not as jaw dropping as some other movies, but really good nonetheless. Been out of print for a while, but you may find it as a rental or a used DVD.
I’d add Sergio Leone’s A Fistful of Dynamite to Bill’s list. Not as jaw dropping as some other movies, but really good nonetheless. Been out of print for a while, but you may find it as a rental or a used DVD.
Bill Myers was right, and I was wrong. It serves no purpose at all, and is degrading.
“A Fistful of Dynamite” is available for preorder at Amazon.com, and I imagine other retailers, at a pretty reasonable price. I’m not sure when it will be released, but it will be.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 25, 2007 12:24 PM
Bill Myers was right, and I was wrong.
Sweet Jesus! I haven’t heard THAT since 1982!
I try to ignore Mike’s posts, both out of pity for him and because of the usual pointlessness. But you know how it is, it only takes one drink…. You feel the need to address something for the benefit of others, if not Mike himself; you see some poor guy caught in an argument with Mike who has not yet realized the level of insanity and you want to extricate him; you think maybe if you reply to him as if he were a normal person it will have a positive effect; you’re really tempted to say something about a really snotty Mike post, just a quick reply; or sometimes it’s just us talking about a previous Mike experience (that’s social Miking). Next thing you know, you’re caught up in the Mike experience, again. Well, asmitting the problem is the first step.
FYI, Micha: there’s no need to apologize to me, even in jest, as you did in an earlier post. I’ve expressed my opinion that it’s best not to engage Mike, but your opinion about how best to spend your free time is the one that really counts. I simply want to extricate myself from these Mike-related discussions and let the rest of you do as you wish.
You know, I never really got into A FISTFUL OF DYNAMITE. It just seemed so less mythic than the other Leone westerns. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he wasn’t originally going to direct it at all.
Now if people are really looking for suggestions on reasonably obscure stuff that will yield considerable entertainment value I’d suggest anything by Mario Bava, who is long overdue for elevation and may now get it when Tim Lucas publishes his decades in the making biography. Just an amazing filmmaker.
I’ll defer to Mulligan on the Western recommendations. I might argue some of the other genres out there, but, as I said before, I’m not really a huge Western fan. Between VHS, DVD and recorded off of TV VHS I likely have around 1000 + movies. Maybe 15 of those are westerns.
• 
Kind of off topic…but we’ve been off topic for a while…(300+ comments in a posting called Offered Without Comment–the Gods of Irony smile) did anyone see LOST?
HO-ly šhìŧ!
That twist….!
HO-ly šhìŧ!
Whadawho, I mean, wha…
HO-ly šhìŧ!
I didn’t even point the gun at him!
HO-ly šhìŧ!
Maybe he had a heart attack.
HO-ly šhìŧ!
So Bill Mulligan is shocked at the departure of this string from anything like its original topic? Silly boy. We’re an unruly mob – really reprehensible. I’m so ashamed. More seriously, this stream of consciousness (if “consciousness” is really the right word for some of it) seems to be the most common direction these strings take. Some of them are pretty rewarding.
Some of you have referred to Joss Whedon as to demonstrate your high esteem of him. He has no weblog, but over the weekend he posted a rant on a fan site dedicated to him that prompted me to reconsider Patrick’s question in relation to it:
Well,
I’ve progressively distilled my thinking to, for example, observe a family of conventionally accepted behavior that nurtures no virtue but naked coercion: hypocrisy when employing persuasion and ridicule for the sole purpose of taking someone’s shame hostage (as opposed to satire, which strips the pretense from the true effects of our behavior), if not the outright venting of disgust (by, for example, someone who hones this skill from their experience as an authority figure in his local environment). As far as I speak publicly of such incidents, any observer is free to dismiss the common practice of such coercion by referring to or tailoring for themselves my simple reasoning.
As far as no one can find anything wrong with what I say, I am disqualified from any accusation of being a troll or an idiot. It’s that simple.
There are a number of clichés concerning how the manner with which we conduct our lives determines the honor our souls receive in the afterlife — at their core they are metaphors for being judged with absolute objectivity. At the end of my life, it will fall neatly within the scope of a purely objective arbiter to ask me to address the accusations against me that I am a troll and an idiot. As far as I can say no such accusation depends on anyone finding anything wrong with the logic and reason that directed my actions, I am not afraid of any purely objective judgment.
For those of you who have been observed employing hypocrisy in persuasion and ridicule (if not the outright venting of disgust) for the purpose of coercing others — well, that qualification doesn’t seem to apply to you, does it?
Mike: No one is “disqualified from any accusation of being a troll or an idiot.” “It’s that simple.” The freedom to think and say whatever one pleases, which you otherwise champion, gives anyone who thinks you are deranged the right to say so! Trumpeting one’s own virtue is very rarely effective (Trust me: I know something about this.), and championing others doesn’t have a tremendous track record. What all of us post here will just be weighed as anyone pleases. Pronouncements in an artificial and impenetrable language are perceived as bizarre: You should know this already.
Saying “As far as no one can find anything wrong with what I say, I am disqualified from any accusation of being a troll or an idiot” does not restrict in principle anyone’s right to make an arbitrary accusation. It’s that simple.
As far as I can say any such accusation does not depends on anyone finding anything wrong with the logic and reason that have directed my actions, I am not afraid of any purely objective judgment.
I am filled with pity for you Mike. I wish I knew of a way to help you, but I don’t.
Wow.
That’s Totally Normal Psychology (TM)
Mike, if you were disqualified from accusations (any variety of accusations at all) of being a troll or an idiot, people could not make such accusations. They can make them, do make them, are correct in making them, and will continue to make them: so what you say is nonsense – proven wrong by the facts.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 24, 2007 12:21 PM
They can make them, do make them, are correct in making them, and will continue to make them: so what you say is nonsense – proven wrong by the facts.
Sigh… I knew I said I’d stay out of this, but…
Jeffrey, as Peter and others have already suggested: you are wasting your breath. Mike’s mind is unbound by the constraints of logic.
It was unfair of me to lump you in with Mike. You can be overly combative at times but you’re at least willing to change your mind. Mike cannot do that.
Something is indeed very wrong with Mike. I’ve often wondered if he is autistic, or had been abused as a child, or if there’s something else going on. Still, none of us are in a position to help him. We can, however, help ourselves and each other by remembering that we needn’t respond to his provocations.
Mike is playing a game. It’s really very simple: he dares us to prove him wrong, but then rejects such proof when it is provided. This is infuriating, so we continue to offer rock-solid logic and irrefutable evidence, and he continues to steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. He’s got us playing his game, by his rules.
Here’s the thing: we don’t have to play.
It’s really that simple.
Bill Myers: I know that you are right that anything I say is not going to have any effect on Mike. I continue to address this for two reasons, one of which is quite negative, and the other – I don’t know, maybe neutral. The negative: I like to argue (no, don’t deny it, you did know that). The other: The way my mind operates (and you do so much want to know) I get a much clearer idea of what I think by expressing it in writing. Whether that makes it worthwhile, I couldn’t say. There’s also an outside possibility what I write will help clarify someone else’s mind, but that might not be much of a reason.
Jeffrey, anything I suggest with regard to Mike is my own opinion: nothing more, nothing less. It seems you’re well aware of the futility of reasoning with Mike, but find some intrinsic rewards in the attempt. Hey, it’s your time to spend as you please. 🙂
I’m going to try very hard to make this my last word on the subject, though. I’m only announcing that so others won’t think me rude if I ignore any conversations with or pertaining to Mike in the future. My interest level in Mike’s antics has waned to a level where it is painful to even contemplate writing about them. Your mileage may vary, but this is where I’m at.
Later, all.
Bill Myers: Yes, that’s clear enough – almost – gentlemanly!? Good God.
Posted by Bill Myers at May 24, 2007 02:46 PM
“I’m going to try very hard to make this my last word on the subject, though. I’m only announcing that so others won’t think me rude if I ignore any conversations with or pertaining to Mike in the future. My interest level in Mike’s antics has waned to a level where it is painful to even contemplate writing about them. Your mileage may vary, but this is where I’m at.”
Gods, Bill, that’s almost civil. You alright?;p
Still, must agree. This meeting of V.O.M.I.T is adjourned until the little chimp (thanks Micha) starts flinging verbal and intellectual feces against our wall.
Like tomorrow.
Posted by: Manny at May 24, 2007 08:31 PM
Gods, Bill, that’s almost civil. You alright?;p
I hope you’re joking. If I’m truly earning a reputation for being un-civil, I’ll do my best to un-earn it.
I can’t speak for Manny, but I was joking. One of the drawbacks of having a bad history is the hypocrisy of flaming any but the truly disgraceful. (So, to the next person I flame, I guess you’ll know what I think of you.)
Jeffrey, when I say “As far as” n, I am establishing the parameter in which my statement is true.
I never said I was disqualified from arbitrary accusations, such as yours, Micha’s, the Bills’, and Manny’s subsequent to my post — there’s no defense from them. That’s why we are free to disregard them every day of the week, and twice on Wednesday. As far as your accusation depends on pretending I made no such qualification — which is the case — you are wrong. It’s not rocket surgery.
Mike, when you say ANYTHING you are just alerting us that you’re going to dance a private dance to an orchestra in your hindbrain. In order to communicate effectively, you and your audience must be in agreement on the meaning of your words. Saying “Fire is wet” just because its your secret that “wet” is really “hot” may be entertaining to you, but not to anyone else.
I wasn’t sure my response was adequate, but then I reread Mike’s post:
“rocket surgery”
Nothing more is required.
Mike, do you know who Escher is? Do you know what kind of artist he is? What kind of pictures he draws?
Hi, Bill. Yup, just kiddin’. Let’s say sometimes your post have a certain je ne c’est pas that reeks, on first glance, of pure nasty, put later the pure perfume of dry curmudgeonly wit emerges like a ray of sunshine. (In other words, when you good, you good.)
“Saying “Fire is wet” just because its your secret that “wet” is really “hot” may be entertaining to you, but not to anyone else.”
That’s not a good metaphor. If Mike said ‘Fire is wet, and in his language ‘wet’ meant ‘hot,’ he would be making a true statement. A better metaphor would be that he is saying ‘water is wet’, believes it is wet, and is saying it in some roundabout way, like ‘the moisture of the blaze is plainly observable.’
Bu the way, if we’re on metaphors: for Mike the phrase ‘the grass is green’ would mean the marjuana is inexperienced.
(I’m sorry Bill, I haven’t seen Lost yet, and I don’t have the legal understnding to comment meaningfully anout Bush’s new law, so I’m just passing the time).
I haven’t seen Lost yet…
You’re not alone. After getting tired of the last of the season string alongs, I recorded the last four eps. on DVR to watch as one streaming mass of Lost. Now I’m stuck ducking the hottest thread right now until at least Saturday night.
The good news is that the show started moving along from the chapters I’ve seen, but I’m yet to see the last two.
What about Veronica Mars?
Not a fan of it. Couldn’t tell you.
First you remove the qualifier from my statement you attack, then you admit to indulging in antagonism, now your antagonism depends on attributing false quotes to me. You got nothing.
Yeah, I do. Do you, like, hate him or something?
Your hypocrisy is worth noting.
Now that I think about it more formally, yes, we have the right disqualify ourselves from arbitrary accusations. The meritlessness of arbitrary accusation is canonized in our bill of rights, where all citizens have the right to offer account for the evidence against them and cross examine witnesses against them. Where an accusation is demonstrated to be arbitrary, it has no merit.
Bobb submitted his own fact: no one can find anything wrong with what I say. This disqualifies me from any accusation of being a troll or an idiot. It was simple when I first said it, and it is no less so now.
Micha: “Mike, do you know who Escher is? Do you know what kind of artist he is? What kind of pictures he draws?”
Mike: “Yeah, I do. Do you, like, hate him or something?”
No, I like him. He paints pictures of things that look like reality but are not real (surreal) — which was Bobb’s point when he compared you to Escher.
And Mike, one of the reasons smacking you around is a guilty pleasure is because I realize that I should pity you. hence the guilt. Admiting it is the opposite of hypocracy. Unlike coming to a blog of a writer, where people come to chat with each other, picking a fight with anybody and everybody, and then accusing them of having a ‘predatory agenda’ and casting oneself as a somebody fullfilling a noble role. Now that’s hypocracy.
Micha – You’re right. I’ll try again.
Him: Fire is hot.
Us: No, that’s stupid.
Him: By “hot” I mean “breathes with gills.”
Us: Fire doesn’t breathe with gills.
Him: By “fire” I mean “leopard seals.”
Us: Leopard seals don’t breathe with gills.
Him: Why are you misquoting me!?
Us: Why, you…
Him: You’re against me.
That’s better. Only in the first line you wanted to say that fire is wet. You got confused and said something which actually does make sense. That’s why you can never acheive what Mike has acheived and say something that is obviously absurd without getting confused even once. That’s talent.
There’s a famous story of a US GI at the end of WWII asking Picasso how he could stand to make artwork that deviated from reality. Picasso asked to see a picture of his girlfriend and asked him if she was really as small as the snapshot that fit in his hand.
Micha, I have news for you: all words and pictures deviate from reality. What you say of Escher is true of everyone who writes or draws anything.
You got nothing.
Bill Mulligan, just so you know, all the times I commented “That’s Totally Normal Psychology™” to something you said, I wasn’t deriding you for your psychological deviancy, I was citing your hypocrisy.
Your ridicule of my psychological deviancy was not only arbitrary, it freed me to ridicule any psychological deviancy you present as hypocritical. Your application of the phrase on me lacks any ironic impact you seemed to have hoped for.
Yes Micha, psychotic as I am, it’s still a hard act to pull off.
Mike, by acknowledging your psychological deviancy you make it difficult to argue the arbitrariness of Micha, or Bill Mulligan, or…whoever your enemies are in pointing it out.
Normal people are able to distinguish between their own words and those of others, but you continue to take my words as misquotes of yourself. I’ll try again.
Jeff: Mike’s synapses are completely fried.
Mike: (a purely speculative quotation) I never said that! That’s a misquote. I didn’t say my synapses are fried. You’re just saying that as an unjustified supposition of my brilliant excrescence!. Reality is sequential and arbitrary at the same time!! Urgghh…my brain is coming out my ears.
(These are my words, written by me. Mike didn’t say any of it. Did you pick up on that, Mike?)
No. Disregarding convention does not make an arbitrary accusation against the deviant valid.
The severity of your wrongness demonstrates you now argue as to discredit whatever notion you are trying to establish. (Here’s an idea: why don’t you fill us in on what that notion is?) I hope someone has the foresight to archive Peter’s traffic logs to check to see if you aren’t really a strawman made by me to bolster my credibility.
…which is literally what I’ve been doing, and literally what you persisted in obscuring.
“Micha, I have news for you: all words and pictures deviate from reality.”
If we didn’t know better this could have come out as a really profound statement. Unfortunatly, Mike’s profoundness is an act, it’s only imitation profound, and 10 out of 10 posters can tell the difference (well everybody except Mike himself).
As usual, you missed the point of Bobb’s statement completely while erasing the distinction between several schools of art, and Escher’s own unique style. I think Escher would have been insulted if he knew that you do not distinguish between his surealism and the style of realism. but then after a while he would probably have realized who he was talking too and let it go, as should I.
———————
I watched bits of the original Star Wars trilogy over a Jewish holiday. Still good. Watching them it is hard to understand how Lucas could have messed up the second trilogy so badly. Just watching parts of te movies caused whole scenes to sprout out in my mind. The thing pretty much writes itself. Oh well.
(Still haven’t seen Lost, just passing the time).
Micha, your green comment–absolutely BRILLIANT.
Jeffrey, regardless of the disclaimer on your post, eventually Herbie the Troll will find a way to accuse you of saying he said it. Granted, it’ll be months from now when all of us are discussing the relevance of the presidential race and whether or not we thought the Heroes premiere was cool, but it’ll happen. Mark my words. And, as has happened to many, you’ll get whiplash from the “What the hëll–?” reaction. On the other hand, your similated exchange up there is pretty dead on.
Rocket surgery–that’s gonna crack me up all day.
Well, you admitted to indulging in a predatory agenda. Look at the disservice you do to your friends, denying them the recourse of dismissing the claim anyone among you sheltered a predatory agenda as arbitrary.
My citation of Bobb’s unqualified statement — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say — does not depend on validating or disputing whatever point Bobb meant it to qualify.
As long as you simply can’t find anything wrong with what I say, I am free to refer to Bobb’s fact without reservation.
“My citation of Bobb’s unqualified statement — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say — does not depend on validating or disputing whatever point Bobb meant it to qualify.”
and this, in a nutshell, shows why you’re an idiot and a troll, it proves that you are the only predator on this blog, the only one to use coersion to twist the words of others while ignoring what they said. You know what Bobb meant, but lack the honesty or the respect to treat it as such, prefering instead to reverse it’s meaning. I certainly find many things wrong with what you say: this is only one example of your intellectual dishonesty. That is why you don’t deserve any respect from anybody. That’s why you are fair game for ridicule, and have no recourse to claim you are somehow the victim.
Alright Bill, I ordered Django Kill!, the Great Silence, Keoma, and Tears of the Black Tiger from Amazon. Do you have any other suggestions for someone whose sole spaghetti western experience involved a man with no name?
Gorginfoogle, omigod, if I had known people would actually listen to my advice I probably would have given better advise!
But you should have some fun viewing (keeping in mind that Django Kill! is pretty marginal (but has some very good bloody sequences and is one of the strangest of the spaghetti westerns) (and keeping in mind that I warned you about Keoma’s score).
One of the problems with the Italian westerns is that most of us, as you did, start out with the Sergio Leone ones and then search out others…but none are going to measure up to the Master.
Still, here’s a few otheres: CUTTHROATS 9 (one of the most violent of all westerns), THE HUNTING PARTY (mostly for the sight of Candy Bergan, Gene Hackman and Oliver Reed), SOLDIER BLUE ( I aw this in High School and it traumatized me for life. We had to promise the teacher we wouldn’t tell anyone how over the top violent it was; she was afraid she’d lose her job, poor thing. NEVER show a movie you haven’t checked out first!), maybe FOUR OF THE APOCALYPSE just to see what Lucio Fulci brings to the table. The original DJANGO.
(ok, not all of them arer actually genuine Italian Spaghetti westerns, but they all have that flavor.)
Even the second tier ones like DEATH RIDES A HORSE have much to recommend them–like Morricone scores that got used in KILL BILL.
Oh and there’s always EL TOPO. The director is certifiable, which often makes for an interesting experience (like the Coffin Joe movies–you can see the workings of a unique mind there.)
Unlike coming to a blog of a writer, where people come to chat with each other, picking a fight with anybody and everybody, and then accusing them of having a ‘predatory agenda’ and casting oneself as a somebody fulfilling a noble role. Now that’s hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy? Maybe, but maybe not.
Delusions of grandeur? Very likely.
A Partial disconnect from reality? Highly likely.
Signs of a complete mental meltdown and a psychological disorder? Give the man a cigar!
I’m not sure you can accuse Mike of hypocrisy based simply on the fact that I’m not sure he has the mental capability of processing certain facts of reality. Look at his Whedon post from above. Mike is equating a call to grassroots political action against the government of the Bush Era with lurking around PAD’s blog, misreading posters intents and expressed ideas, applying his own twisted view or reality to others statements and then championing a counter position to a position that usually never existed in the first place. In Mike’s world, the two compare. In the real world, it’s like saying five $1 bills = one $50 bill. It just doesn’t compute to the normal mind to claim them as equals. But Mike’s mind fixated on a portion of the concept and got stuck in a loop that kept it from going any further past that portion of the concept.
It’s like his knack for taking only a few words in a paragraph, wrenching them out of context and banging away at something that wasn’t really said to begin with. Most of us have attributed this to his just being an obnoxious troll. It could be the sign of a chronic mental misfire. Have you ever been working really hard at something, gotten really fixated on one part of a vexing task while being really tired, had someone hand you a solution to the problem and your brain still takes a moment or three to shift gears and get unstuck from the path it was beginning to loop into? Well, there are some mental disorders that are something like that. You can get stuck on a loop of just a part of what is in front of you. You see ten sentences and get locked on only one or two of them and are unable to get out of that loop no matter how much prodding or information others give you. Jenn does work with the Epilepsy Foundation and has seen things like that from people getting their circuits a little fried (although she also points out that that is not a conditions exclusive to seizure disorders.) Some people have those circuits permanently fried and can’t help but to always act this way.
Add in Mike’s apparently self-heroic delusions about his stature as a defender of truth, justice and light in a world (or blog) of lies, racism, class privilege and darkness and you’ve started heading into disorder territory. Add in a simultaneous ability to be seen as both a heroic and mighty defender of the poor and downtrodden and a perpetual victim of others and you’ve starting heading into Mike Disorder Syndrome ™.
Yeah, Mike may need to be viewed more with pity then derision and engaging him in debates with the goal of putting the smackdown on his crazy @$$ may not be the best course of action for our sake, but I think you’re safe in your actions. Mike won’t ever be able to really comprehend what you’re doing to him and when you’re doing it. It’s a bit like this post. Mike will likely see only ‘I’m not sure you can accuse Mike of hypocrisy’ and loop on that for weeks to come. Then, he’ll just keep posting that line like he’s doing with Bobb’s in his misguided belief that it’s saying something it’s not and that the comments of one poster here speaks for all other posters but him.
So feel free to enjoy the odd smackdown. He just can’t comprehend how bad he comes out looking and he seems to walk away from the exchanges feeling that much better about himself and his sacred mission of heroically defending those who need him most in his alternate reality. I’d say it’s a win/win situation for you.
And he backed my point even further when I was typing by, again, going back to Bobb’s “facts” in his post.
And speaking of creators of alternate realities:
Ray Bradbury receives special Pulitzer
Longtime science-fiction writer Ray Bradbury was honored May 21 at an awards luncheon at Columbia University with the presentation of a special citation from the Pulitzer Board for “his distinguished, prolific and deeply influential career as an unmatched author of science fiction and fantasy.”
http://www.cbgxtra.com/default.aspx?tabid=42&view=topic&forumid=17&postid=28192
I’d add Sergio Leone’s A Fistful of Dynamite to Bill’s list. Not as jaw dropping as some other movies, but really good nonetheless. Been out of print for a while, but you may find it as a rental or a used DVD.
Uhmmm….. Oops. ~8?(`
__________________________________________________________________________
I’d add Sergio Leone’s A Fistful of Dynamite to Bill’s list. Not as jaw dropping as some other movies, but really good nonetheless. Been out of print for a while, but you may find it as a rental or a used DVD.
Bill Myers was right, and I was wrong. It serves no purpose at all, and is degrading.
“A Fistful of Dynamite” is available for preorder at Amazon.com, and I imagine other retailers, at a pretty reasonable price. I’m not sure when it will be released, but it will be.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 25, 2007 12:24 PM
Bill Myers was right, and I was wrong.
Sweet Jesus! I haven’t heard THAT since 1982!
I try to ignore Mike’s posts, both out of pity for him and because of the usual pointlessness. But you know how it is, it only takes one drink…. You feel the need to address something for the benefit of others, if not Mike himself; you see some poor guy caught in an argument with Mike who has not yet realized the level of insanity and you want to extricate him; you think maybe if you reply to him as if he were a normal person it will have a positive effect; you’re really tempted to say something about a really snotty Mike post, just a quick reply; or sometimes it’s just us talking about a previous Mike experience (that’s social Miking). Next thing you know, you’re caught up in the Mike experience, again. Well, asmitting the problem is the first step.
FYI, Micha: there’s no need to apologize to me, even in jest, as you did in an earlier post. I’ve expressed my opinion that it’s best not to engage Mike, but your opinion about how best to spend your free time is the one that really counts. I simply want to extricate myself from these Mike-related discussions and let the rest of you do as you wish.
You know, I never really got into A FISTFUL OF DYNAMITE. It just seemed so less mythic than the other Leone westerns. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he wasn’t originally going to direct it at all.
Now if people are really looking for suggestions on reasonably obscure stuff that will yield considerable entertainment value I’d suggest anything by Mario Bava, who is long overdue for elevation and may now get it when Tim Lucas publishes his decades in the making biography. Just an amazing filmmaker.
I’ll defer to Mulligan on the Western recommendations. I might argue some of the other genres out there, but, as I said before, I’m not really a huge Western fan. Between VHS, DVD and recorded off of TV VHS I likely have around 1000 + movies. Maybe 15 of those are westerns.