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….
Yeah, pinging Mike is a bit like being a drunk who’s had a one night slip off of the wagon. You regret the slip afterward and you tell yourself not to do it again, but it’s just so easy some times. Even as sick as I am of him, the urge still pokes at the typing finger from time to time.
I wouldn’t call myself a huge western fan, though the John Ford classics and the 60s hyper violent re-imaginings are personal faves.
I have seen El Topo (got it with the Jodorowsky box set that came out this month), but I will add the others to my to-watch list. I had also ordered Fistful of Dynamite and Django as well, though hadn’t mentioned them earlier since they hadn’t been specifically brought up. What can I say, I turn into an obsessive ášš when I try to break into new film genres.
Oh, and A Bullet For the General, as I saw Kinski’s name and had to snatch it up. I am perhaps too compulsive a shopper.
What can I say, I turn into an obsessive ášš when I try to break into new film genres.
You and me both, brother, you and me both (unless it’s sister, which is rare and I married one of the last ones).
Haven’t seen Bullet for a General but my motto is If it has either Franco Nero, Lee Van Cleef, or Klaus Kinski, it can’t be all bad.
For my money, although ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA is the better film, I love FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE as much as I can love a film.
You know, if you really want to get the flavor of the best spaghetti westerns you could do a lot worse than to focus on some of the best samurai movies. It’s no secret that YOJIMBO is essentially A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS with swords. All the Zatoichi films are pretty much westerns, albeit with a level of creativity that most of the cow operas never attempted.
What a great time to be alive and be a movie fanatic!
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.
There is no innovatoin that does not depend on a departure from convention.
Bobb established his own convention concerning some topic or another — which is fine — but as far as I take no orders from you or him, your accusations are arbitrary.
You said “smacking you around now and again falls under the category of guilty pleasures,” and your denial of your plain admission to indulging in a predatory agenda is self-serving and wrong in all contexts.
If someone comes back and makes clear or tries to make clear what they were saying or meant to say and you just want to keep pounding away on the statement that they and others have left behind… Well, you’re a Mike.
Jerry, you could make it a first for one of your accusations [against] me, and cite a time when I’ve persisted to drive home a conceded point.
People can do what they want, but Mike debates have long ago lost their luster for me. There may be an academic interest in them for some who have a fascination with advanced mental disorders or the effects of extreme delusional paranoia, but I ain’t one of them. For me, Mike Posts are like poorly designed speed-bumps erected on the enjoyment super-highway.
Jerry, when are you going to realize everyone else reading this has started a pool on when we’re going to give into our passions, and finally rent the room. (I don’t doubt I’ve said something you have a problems getting over — I just have no idea what I said that could qualify.)
Besides, let him spew that intolerance and hatred. It never bothered me before and it doesn’t now. I’m secure enough in the knowledge of my hetero-ness and I just can’t get myself to view being called gay as an insult because too many of the gay friends I have are pretty good people. If nothing else, it says a world about Mike’s own repressed bigotry and self doubts that he so often feels that others will feel the way he does when that label is tossed their way by him. Rather small, sad and pathetic really.
Well, good. So you won’t feel bad when your gay friends ask you when we’re going to give into our passions and finally rent the room.
[Posted by Jerry Chandler at May 22, 2007 01:39 PM]
Sigh, I’ll make one and only one post directly to Mike. And I mean just this one. I won’t respond to any other post of yours, Mike…. This is the ONLY POST HERE that I will make that directly responds to you in any way, shape or form…..
[Posted by Jerry Chandler at May 25, 2007 11:31 AM with no sense of irony]
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.
FYI: If you had read the article — rather than speak with certainty of it in criticising someone else for getting it wrong — you would have known Whedon’s rant was inspired by the stoning of an Iraqi girl for dating a Sunni boy, and bystanders recording the incident on their cell phones rather than intervening. He had a line blaming Bush for making things worse in Iraq, but his only recommendation for someone looking for a cause was a feminist site he linked to, and there was no indication he meant to challenge anyone to direct their actions against Bush in particular.
And Jerry, I’m taking the simian references against me to establish that when we do give into our passions and finally rent the hotel room, you are the Blanche DuBois to my Stanley Kowalski.
“It’s no secret that YOJIMBO is essentially A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS with swords.”
Isn’t it the other way around?
Micha: Absolutely true. “Yojimbo” came out four years earlier, and “Per un pugno di dollari” ran into a lot of trouble when its distributors tried to take it to Japan. The unacknowledged remake was a violation of Japanese copyright laws and a slap in the face of Akira Kurosawa. I enjoy both films, but Akira Kurosawa was a better director than Sergio Leone, Toshiro Mifune was a better actor than Clint Eastwood, and “Yojimbo” is a better film than “Per un pugno di dollari.”
Of course, “Yojimbo” draws very heavily on Dashiell Hammett’s “Red Harvest,” so Hammett’s heirs might have the same complaints about “Yojimbo.”
Interestingly enough, Kurosawa was quoted as saying he was inspired by Hammett’s “The Glass Key,” which has much less similarity to “Yojimbo” than does “Red Harvest.” It’s a strange thing.
“It’s no secret that YOJIMBO is essentially A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS with swords.”
Isn’t it the other way around?
Son of a gøddámņ bìŧçh…yeah.
Obviously, I have not yet been obsessive enough. Must watch more movies…
I do have all of Kurosawa’s samurai films (at least all the ones that are available on DVD, not sure if he had any more that Criterion has yet to release), though I haven’t really checked out any Zatoichi films. I guess I’ll get on them next.
And yes, I am indeed male. There do not seem to be nearly enough female counterparts of us (indeed, not any that I’ve been able to uncover in real life).
I suppose one of you is going to tell me that the producers of ROMEO AND JULIET didn’t rip off WEST SIDE STORY, right?
Don’t listen to them, Bill. Next they’ll claim that Forbidden Planet wasn’t ripped of by that hack Shakespeare
Don’t listen to them, Bill. Next they’ll claim that Forbidden Planet wasn’t ripped off by that hack Shakespeare
Bill, I can’t claim a fraction of your knowledge on film in either genre. It’s just that I saw an interview with Eastwood where he said that A Fist Full of Dollars was based on Yojimbo.
Did any of you ever see a movie that was based on the original Viking version of Hamlet? I don’t remeber the name. It was British. I think Helen mirren was in it, and Gabriel Bairn (spl?). I don’t know if it’s that good, but it is interesting considering all the modern adaptations Shakespeare gets.
Depending on where you lived when you saw it, it’s either called Prince of Jutland or Royal Deceit. Pretty good movie. Friend of mine likes it a lot and we got it for her last Christmas. You can find it new online for around $6 or $7.
The Zatoichi films are great. The 2003 Takeshi Kitano version is a fine stand alone re-imagining but nothing can touch the classic Shintaro Katsu series–26 (!) films in all!
Not all are classics but you can’t go wrong with The Tale of Zatoichi, Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman’s Return, The Tale of Zatoichi Continues (which also has Lone Wolf & Cub’s Tomisaburo Wakayama!)(who was Shintaro Katsu’s brother or brother in law, depending on which source you use). Or just grab ANY of the film’s directed by Kenji Misumi (Zatoichi Goes to the Fire Festival, Zatoichi: Fighting Drums, Zatoichi Challenged, Zatoichi and the Chess Expert, Fight, Zatoichi, Fight, and the original The Tale of Zatoichi).
There’s also the Rutger Hauer BLIND FURY, which is Zatoichi with Rutger Hauer. Eh. But it does have a great Darth Maul moment.
If you’re feeling REALLY adventurous…the HANZO THE RAZOR trilogy. Nuff said.
“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.”
So…let me get this straight.
Mike quotes me. I’ve even got an unqualified statement. Neato. But then he goes on to say that his use of my statement does not depend on validating or disputing whatever I meant it to say?
Insert olbigatory BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA here.
Tell me…someone…what’s the point of quoting someone if it doesn’t matter at all whether you care about…or even understand…the meaning of what you’re quoting? I can look up all kinds of mathematical proofs, quote them, and then make a statement about how that proof shows it’s a good idea to eat bacon for breakfast. But unless I can back that up with some objective logic and proof, all I’ve done is shown myself to be an idiot.
Or in this case, a Mike.
Ok, Counselor, since you’re not an idiot: how does the point you make with your observation invalidate your observation — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say?
But, but…Bobb, it IS a good idea to ear bacon with breakfast. Or lunch. Or dinner. Or at the movies. Or before romance. Just not DURING romance….
Yeah, you get all those, whattaya call ’em, oh, doctors who say it’s not, but what do THEY know? Sure, they can excise just about anything from a body with their beads, rattles, and scalpels, but until they can clone something without being sheepish about it, I won’t be impressed. And besides, bacon goes with everything besides dessert! So WHAT if Porky and Wilbur don’t like it! The mathematical formula for it is as follows:
X+B+G+Bsub1+GC=YGT
Where:
B=bacon
G=good times
Bsub1=Beverage of choice
GC=Good Company
YGT=Yummy good time
and, last but not least, X=any food that ian’t dairy or dessert basrd. Go on, try puttng the bacon bits on your cereal or your sundae, you’ll see I’m right.
Oh, wait. Does this just prove that I’m, if not an idiot, then someone with at least idiotic leanings?(Quiet, Jerry and Bills and Micha)
And, Mike, it’s not that no one can find anything wrong with what you said. It’s that pretty much no one cares enough to get into the chest waders to muck through the sludge around your phrasing to figure out what the hëll you’re talking about.
Rocket surgery–still cracks me up.
X=any food that ian’t dairy or dessert basrd. Go on, try puttng the bacon bits on your cereal or your sundae, you’ll see I’m right.
Ah, but hollandaise sauce and any number of other savory cream sauces and soups. X should equal any food that isn’t sweet dairy or dessert based, especially since bacon does go fine with sweet non-desserts, like just about anything you would put maple syrup on. MMmmmm… Pancakes n’ bacon.
Yeah, I really need to get around to watching the LOST finale, but it’ll probably be a few days… :6
-Rex Hondo-
And, Mike, it’s not that no one can find anything wrong with what you said. It’s that pretty much no one cares enough to get into the chest waders to muck through the sludge around your phrasing to figure out what the hëll you’re talking about.
And you not finding anything wrong with what I’ve said disproves Bobb’s observation — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say — how?
I wasn’t sure my response was adequate, but then I reread Mike’s post:
And, Mike, it’s not that no one can find anything wrong with what you said. It’s that pretty much no one cares enough to get into the chest waders to muck through the sludge around your phrasing to figure out what the hëll you’re talking about.
And you not finding anything wrong with what I’ve said disproves Bobb’s observation — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say — how?
I wasn’t sure my response was adequate, but then I reread Mike’s post:
If you like it so much, you may buy the t-shirt: threadless.com/submission/46364/It
I pretty much agreed with Jerry and Jeffrey and Bill that it is best not to reply to Mike’s antics, and went on to post about Heroes. I still think so. But you know what? There’s something wrong about it, and I think it should be said. Here is a guy (Mike) who comes to this board, says whatever nonsense pleases him about anything and anybody, twists the words and intents of people, pesters us and struts around, and he can get away with this because of his obsessive tenacity and complete disregard to reason or decency. We have no choice but to live with his rudeness because the only other choice is to play the game by his twisted set of rules. I know there’s nothing to be done about it. We’re all for freedom of speech. Because of our own principles we don’t have an alternative. But I think it should be said for the record that there is something wrong about it. It’s the internet equivalent of a 3 year old having a temper tantrum in a restaurant or an airplane.
But I think it should be said for the record that there is something wrong about it.
You have been saying it, and I’ve been employing Bobb’s observation — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say — to point out it’s been arbitrary.
It’s the internet equivalent of a 3 year old having a temper tantrum in a restaurant or an airplane.
Children cannot claim no one can find anything wrong with what I say, except arbitrarily. I haven’t lost my temper, and I’ve made no claim to take, nor demostrated, any pleasure in smacking anyone around.
Yes, Amazon has been urging me to buy the Hanzo the Razor collection for some time now. It seems to know me quite well by this point.
What do you think of the recent craziness from Japan, Bill? I’ve seen most of Takashi Miike’s films that have made it over here by now, and other efforts like Blind Beast vs. Killer Dwarf were, err, interesting, at the very least.
Mike – for the record, I can and do find many things wrong with what you say. Non-arbitrarily, I am telling you that I find your redefinition of vocabulary to mean whatever you want it to in each sentence detestable, whether done arbitrarily or with a purpose peculiar to your fevered brain. Yes, in “Through the Looking Glass” “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less’,” but he was insane. The fact that you did not originate the term “rocket surgery” is inconsequential. What is important is that you misunderstand its significance. It is an exemplar of the speaker who rambles without comprehending his own words, throwing out argot indecipherable even to himself. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know what you mean to say. We don’t know, because you are not expressing yourself comprehensibly. If we understood, we would be likely to disagree.
Posted by: Micha at May 26, 2007 08:29 AM
Here is a guy (Mike) who comes to this board, says whatever nonsense pleases him about anything and anybody, twists the words and intents of people, pesters us and struts around, and he can get away with this because of his obsessive tenacity and complete disregard to reason or decency.
Sigh… I know I said I’d stop discussing this…
Micha, no one truly “gets away” with anything. There’s always a price to be paid, however big or small. In Mike’s case, he has lost the respect of just about everyone here. No one takes him seriously. He has become pretty much isolated, and has denied himself the enriching experience of exchanging ideas with an open mind as many of us do here on a regular basis. Because he is obsessed with always — ALWAYS!!! — being right, he denies himself the opportunity to grow and develop. He is stunted, frozen like a fly in amber.
If you look at Mike’s behavior, it strikes me as being driven not so much by arrogance as a desperate need to get attention, and a crippling fear of admitting that he can ever be wrong. I don’t know about you, but I’d hate to be driven by those demons. His antisocial behavior may even be driven by something like autism or an emotional pathology. I believe his posts bespeak of a man who is suffering somehow, constantly trying to fill a need in an ineffective way. You can pour water on a stain to your heart’s content but you won’t get it out.
Posted by: Micha at May 26, 2007 08:29 AM
We have no choice but to live with his rudeness because the only other choice is to play the game by his twisted set of rules.
You’ve forgotten yet a third option. He can be ignored. If a tree falls in the woods and all that. I know we all say it’s difficult, but difficult doesn’t mean “impossible.”
Mike can only hurt us to the extent that we let him. Reading is an active rather than a passive activity. We have a choice.
As far as Mike saying something that needs to be refuted, I think it’s gotten to a point where everyone here either recognizes now, or will soon recognize if they’re new here, that Mike is full of šhìŧ. He comes with his own self-destruct mechanism.
Sean,
Your scientific equations are good, but slightly off. I think a more accurate equation would look like this:
We have a blog that is regularly visited by Mike () who makes many and varied observations (O) about the others here and about life in general. It’s been pointed out by just about everybody here that Mike’s observations are, to be polite, reality opposed (RO) at best. This is because of the huge number of nonsensical ideas (NI) that Mike introduces into even the simplest of things. This could also be due to how Mike characterizes () his positions and, more importantly everyone else’s positions. So, if you take these equations…
M = Mike
O = Observations
RO = Reality Opposed
NI = Nonsensical Ideas
C = Characterizes
… and add them together, you find that it explains the nature of the beast to be a time waster. As follows:
M+O+RO+NI+C = MORONIC & MORONIC = Waste of Time.
So, we can establish that dealing with Mike useless because dealing with Mike = MORONIC Waste of Time.
See what happens if I get my computer before my coffee.
Scary thing is, how did Mike know that I get paid?
What do you think of the recent craziness from Japan, Bill? I’ve seen most of Takashi Miike’s films that have made it over here by now, and other efforts like Blind Beast vs. Killer Dwarf were, err, interesting, at the very least.
Actually it seems like it’s the Koreans who have been setting the world on fire lately. THE HOST was great and OLDBOY or anything else by Chan-wook Park is worth seeing (haven’t seen I’m a Cyborg, But That’s OK yet.)
If you like Takashi Miike you’re ok with me. Although, you should also probably be closely watched, but hey, people in glass houses and all.
“Sigh… I know I said I’d stop discussing this…”
I think it’s time to stop with the sighing. Ignore Mike, don’t ignore him, consider him funny, or a small nuisance, talk about him, don’t talk about him, but no more sighing. Let’s relax about Mike once and for all. The point of coming here is to talk about different things from politics to Lost to everything else under the sun, and basically to enjoy ourselves (and we do enjoy arguing politics etc., there is no point in denying it). It is not to be affected by such an insignificant thing as the rambling of one little troll.
“… the Koreans who have been setting the world on fire lately…”
And have been for a while now. Shiri was a kick @$$ action movie. Better then some of our stuff that year.
However, it would help to know a lot about Korean politics between the N & S.
One has to hope that the North Koreans don’t take “setting the world on fire” literally.
I shall have to check out this Shiri of which you speak.
Posted by: Micha at May 26, 2007 02:43 PM
I think it’s time to stop with the sighing. Ignore Mike, don’t ignore him, consider him funny, or a small nuisance, talk about him, don’t talk about him, but no more sighing.
Micha… in fairness, you did ask me not to criticize you for your choice to spend your time debating with Mike. I’ve since expressed any opinions about this issue in the most value-neutral, non-critical way possible. As I’ve said, it was only my intent to make clear why I was extricating myself, so that no one would think me rude if I failed to respond to a post I chose not to read because it was Mike-related.
I am well aware that I have a habit of ostenatiously vowing to ignore so-and-so only to succumb to the temptation to go back in the ring with them. But there are far worse flaws to have, are there not? I guess I’d just like you to give me the same latitude you’ve asked of me — and have received, I might add.
Mike – for the record, I can and do find many things wrong with what you say. Non-arbitrarily, I am telling you that I find your redefinition of vocabulary to mean whatever you want it to [mean?] in each sentence detestable, whether done arbitrarily or with a purpose peculiar to your fevered brain.
…such as?
I wasn’t sure my response was adequate, but then I reread Mike’s post:
“rocket surgery”
Nothing more is required….
The fact that you did not originate the term “rocket surgery” is inconsequential. What is important is that you misunderstand its significance. It is an exemplar of the speaker who rambles without comprehending his own words, throwing out argot indecipherable even to himself. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know what you mean to say. We don’t know, because you are not expressing yourself comprehensibly. If we understood, we would be likely to disagree.
In singling out the usage of the phrase, in and of itself, in criticizing me, you criticized any application of it. If you had done a google search on the term, you would have found over a million pages on it (as opposed to, say “Peter David,” which returns less than a 1/3 million).
How can you challenge the misapplication of a phrase you deny has any application whatsoever?
Micha, no one truly “gets away” with anything. There’s always a price to be paid, however big or small. In Mike’s case, he has lost the respect of just about everyone here. No one takes him seriously. He has become pretty much isolated, and has denied himself the enriching experience of exchanging ideas with an open mind as many of us do here on a regular basis. Because he is obsessed with always — ALWAYS!!! — being right, he denies himself the opportunity to grow and develop. He is stunted, frozen like a fly in amber.
That would be devastating if I believed, as you seem to, that external gratification can be all things to a person. I don’t believe this is true — but if this is true for you, well, good for you, don’t let me stop you.
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.
If you look at Mike’s behavior, it strikes me as being driven not so much by arrogance as a desperate need to get attention, and a crippling fear of admitting that he can ever be wrong. I don’t know about you, but I’d hate to be driven by those demons. His antisocial behavior may even be driven by something like autism or an emotional pathology. I believe his posts bespeak of a man who is suffering somehow, constantly trying to fill a need in an ineffective way. You can pour water on a stain to your heart’s content but you won’t get it out.
You heard it here, folks: addressing an accusation is arrogant, attention-seeking, and nurtured by a pretense of invulnerability. Whatever.
If someone comes back and makes clear or tries to make clear what they were saying or meant to say and you just want to keep pounding away on the statement that they and others have left behind… Well, you’re a Mike.
Jerry, you could make it a first for one of your accusations [against] me, and cite a time when I’ve persisted to drive home a conceded point.
People can do what they want, but Mike debates have long ago lost their luster for me. There may be an academic interest in them for some who have a fascination with advanced mental disorders or the effects of extreme delusional paranoia, but I ain’t one of them. For me, Mike Posts are like poorly designed speed-bumps erected on the enjoyment super-highway.
Jerry, when are you going to realize everyone else reading this has started a pool on when we’re going to give into our passions, and finally rent the room.
Besides, let him spew that intolerance and hatred. It never bothered me before and it doesn’t now. I’m secure enough in the knowledge of my hetero-ness and I just can’t get myself to view being called gay as an insult because too many of the gay friends I have are pretty good people. If nothing else, it says a world about Mike’s own repressed bigotry and self doubts that he so often feels that others will feel the way he does when that label is tossed their way by him. Rather small, sad and pathetic really.
Well, good. So you won’t feel bad when your gay friends ask you when we’re going to give into our passions and finally rent the room.
[Posted by Jerry Chandler at May 22, 2007 01:39 PM]
Sigh, I’ll make one and only one post directly to Mike. And I mean just this one. I won’t respond to any other post of yours, Mike…. This is the ONLY POST HERE that I will make that directly responds to you in any way, shape or form…..
[Posted by Jerry Chandler at May 25, 2007 11:31 AM with no sense of irony]
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….
And Jerry, I’m taking the simian references against me to establish that when we do give into our passions and finally rent the hotel room, you are the Blanche DuBois to my Stanley Kowalski.
We have a blog that is regularly visited by Mike () who makes many and varied observations (O) about the others here and about life in general. It’s been pointed out by just about everybody here that Mike’s observations are, to be polite, reality opposed (RO) at best. This is because of the huge number of nonsensical ideas (NI)…
…and, as Bill Myers pointed out, that whole “I’ve always depended on the kindness of strangers” schtick is so not me…
Mike, just to be clear, I condemn you – very specifically you and not someone else – for what you say and do. At present it does not bother me that other people make use of the same alphabet and a few of the same words as you. Many of them speak English fluently. Of them, a respectable number are sane. Of that number, relatively many (more than half, possibly) are not jáçkáššëš. If that weren’t the case, I’d criticize them, rather than just you.
” guess I’d just like you to give me the same latitude you’ve asked of me — and have received, I might add.”
Fair enough. You’re right.
I didn’t really want to criticize you, but did a bad job expressing myself because I had something else on my mind. What I actually wanted to do was to relieve you — and me too, and any body else — from the state of mind associated with broken vows, temptations succumbed, concerns over being rude, etc. as well of any feelings of anger, frustration etc. It seems to me that these are not the emotions either of us enjoys having in the context of coming to this blog. I disliked having them myself, and maybe I thought you also had them and over empathized. The metaphor of the alchoholic became too real. After all we’re just a bunch of people chatting, not a monastic order 🙂 But I ended up coming across as being critical. I guess the road to hëll is paved with good intentions (but not in Mike’s version) 🙂
Anyway, I’m sorry. Let’s move on. Surely there is something else to talk about even for people who are not familiar with all the subtleties of Japanese cinema.
Micha — another case of my being hypersensitive. I misunderstood is all. Sometimes I need to have things explained twice. 😉 Keep doing what you do here — it’s one of the reasons I like and respect you as much as I do. And I’d hate to see you start pulling punches with me, because I have learned from you and want to continue to do so. Okay? Okay.
I’m moving onto commenting in some more recent threads as soon as I have a chance to catch up on them. 🙂
Posted by: Micha at May 26, 2007 10:10 PM
Surely there is something else to talk about even for people who are not familiar with all the subtleties of Japanese cinema.
How about Japanese television? I finally managed to catch a couple of episodes of Ninja Warrior, and the only conclusion I can come to is a reiteration of my learned opinion that the Japanese are fûçkìņg nuts.
Just can’t stop watching, though… 😛
-Rex Hondo-
Well, Rex, if nothing else they don’t hide under their shells—
Get it? Shells? Nuts?
Oh, you people are no fun anymore.
Jerry, don’t try to add milk and sugar to your computer in the morning. And stop trying to e-mail with Mr. Coffee. What’re you, Dark Helmet or something?
If you had done a google search on the term, you would have found over a million pages on it (as opposed to, say “Peter David,” which returns less than a 1/3 million)
“rocket surgery” = 49,700 hits on google
“Peter David” = 991,000 hits
Maybe Mike, super genius, just used the words rocket, surgery, Peter, and David. It would indicate a severe lack of knowledge in how google searches work, but whatever.
Rocket + surgery gives you 1,160,000 hits
peter and david gives you 337,000,000 hits
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Mike, the whizkid, managed to both stupidly forget to use quotation marks and somehow thought that 337,000,000 was actually 337,000. No, that can’t be right…you’d have to be an idiot.
Something that I’ve always found odd about sighing. You’d think that “sigh” would be an onomotapaeia, but go ahead. Sigh. Did anything resembling the letter “S” come out? I mean even those with the most severe lisps don’t get an “S” sound. If anything, it’s an “H” sound. Maybe it’s because “high” was already taken. It would certainly change the meaning if the song was actually “Rocky Mountain Sigh.” Or do I just sigh wrong? I mean, take “guffaw.” Go ahead, guffaw. It sorta sounds like the word. But sigh? False advertising, that.
Bill Mulligan–for some reason I was sure the was going to be some “Priceless” statement in your post. For someone who never watches anything, I see way to many TV commercials.
Rocket + surgery gives you 1,160,000 hits
peter and david gives you 337,000,000 hits
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Mike, the whizkid, managed to both stupidly forget to use quotation marks and somehow thought that 337,000,000 was actually 337,000. No, that can’t be right…you’d have to be an idiot.
Well I did use the pluses, and you’ve demonstrated they produce larger search results. I misread the million figure as in the thousands. Fortunately for me, the million results for “rocket surgery” doesn’t depend on my getting the search figure back on Peter’s name right.
But misreading some text is a qualification for idiot you have failed yourself — or have you conveniently forgotten being corrected a dead mouse is featured in Of Mice Of Men. That’s Totally Normal Hypocrisy.™
Scary thing is, how did Mike know that I get paid?
Did anyone take Sean’s statements portraying himself as a professional writer as pride in being some kind of guy who pays for print-on-demand publishing?
It was not rocket surgery, Sean Scullion.
Mike – for the record, I can and do find many things wrong with what you say. Non-arbitrarily, I am telling you that I find your redefinition of vocabulary to mean whatever you want it to [mean?] in each sentence detestable, whether done arbitrarily or with a purpose peculiar to your fevered brain.
…such as?
Mike, just to be clear, I condemn you – very specifically you and not someone else – for what you say and do. At present it does not bother me that other people make use of the same alphabet and a few of the same words as you. Many of them speak English fluently. Of them, a respectable number are sane. Of that number, relatively many (more than half, possibly) are not jáçkáššëš. If that weren’t the case, I’d criticize them, rather than just you.
???
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate you can’t find anything wrong with what I say — by not finding anything wrong with what I say.
“Posted by: Bill Myers at May 26, 2007 10:24 PM
Micha — another case of my being hypersensitive. I misunderstood is all.”
I’m pretty sure it was my fault this time. Do you want to argue about that, do you? 😉
Sean Scullion: “Something that I’ve always found odd about sighing. You’d think that “sigh” would be an onomotapaeia, but go ahead. Sigh. Did anything resembling the letter “S” come out? I mean even those with the most severe lisps don’t get an “S” sound. If anything, it’s an “H” sound.”
I think there is a little whistling sound when you sigh (or high). Maybe the person who came up with the word was short of breath, astmatic, or had a gap in his front teeth.
“rocket surgery”
Oh my god. I haven’t been paying much attention to what Mike was saying for a while now, and it’s only now that I’m actually processing the phrase. that’s hilarious. I guess this is an example of what Jerry was talking about. My mind skimmed over the phrase several times and didn’t notice anything wrong with it. Mike is probably going to quote me on this. Oh well.
Mike: Write something – anything: You don’t have to post it. Look at it. Do you see it? That is what I object to. Parse it and understand it (if that is possible); Now you have a working definition of what I don’t like.
Because you refuse to see what is very clear, I will be more direct. I do not like it when you use a word, are called on its absolute stupidity; redefine it to mean something else; are told that – yes, that is different, but it is also still stupid; redefine it again; still make no sense; and then crow that no one can find anything with which to disagree. Your relationship to coherent argument is analogous to that between vomiting and singing an aria. Some of the same organs are used, but with different intent and effect.
You, Mike, are what and with whom we disagree.
Well I did use the pluses, and you’ve demonstrated they produce larger search results. I misread the million figure as in the thousands. Fortunately for me, the million results for “rocket surgery” doesn’t depend on my getting the search figure back on Peter’s name right.
Unfortunately for you, you are still–brace yourself–wrong.
When you use google to search for two words–in this case “Rocket” and “Surgery”– you get EVERY page that has the words rocket and surgery. If someone were to write “A rocket fell from space and hit me in the upper occipital protuberance, which required surgery.” it would be included. It would be like me claiming that the 1,530,000 hits for Mike + idiot were actually all calling you an idiot. 9th graders understand this. I’m kind of amazed that you’ve never figured this out. I mean, it isn’t exactly roc…well, you know.
To truly find out how many people have used the expression “rocket surgery” you have to type in “rocket surgery”, quotation marks included.
And when you do you don’t get one million hits. Nothing even close. You get, as of this morning, 49,700 hits. (since you have trouble with numbers I’ll write it out: forty nine thousand, seven hundred).
And the funny/sad thing is, all you had to do was simply say “It was a joke.”, which is what I had assumed it was. But no, you have to get typically Mike and make a snarky reply that included google and then get it all wrong and look foolish. When called on it you double down and get it wrong again!
That’s Our Mike!
Mike – for the record, I can and do find many things wrong with what you say. Non-arbitrarily, I am telling you that I find your redefinition of vocabulary to mean whatever you want it to [mean?] in each sentence detestable, whether done arbitrarily or with a purpose peculiar to your fevered brain.
…such as?
Mike, just to be clear, I condemn you – very specifically you and not someone else – for what you say and do. At present it does not bother me that other people make use of the same alphabet and a few of the same words as you. Many of them speak English fluently. Of them, a respectable number are sane. Of that number, relatively many (more than half, possibly) are not jáçkáššëš. If that weren’t the case, I’d criticize them, rather than just you.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate you can’t find anything wrong with what I say — by not finding anything wrong with what I say.
I do not like it when you use a word, are called on its absolute stupidity; redefine it to mean something else; are told that – yes, that is different, but it is also still stupid; redefine it again; still make no sense….
…like when?
When you use google to search for two words–in this case “Rocket” and “Surgery”– you get EVERY page that has the words rocket and surgery….
To truly find out how many people have used the expression “rocket surgery” you have to type in “rocket surgery”, quotation marks included.
If a common word is essential to getting the results you want, you can include it by putting a “+” sign in front of it. (Be sure to include a space before the “+” sign.)
Another method for doing this is conducting a phrase search, which simply means putting quotation marks around two or more words. Common words in a phrase search (e.g., “where are you”) are included in the search.
The google instructions related the 2 search practices as to equate them. But going by the different results, I’m going to have to accept your explanation.
And the funny/sad thing is, all you had to do was simply say “It was a joke.”
• 
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….
Yeah, pinging Mike is a bit like being a drunk who’s had a one night slip off of the wagon. You regret the slip afterward and you tell yourself not to do it again, but it’s just so easy some times. Even as sick as I am of him, the urge still pokes at the typing finger from time to time.
I wouldn’t call myself a huge western fan, though the John Ford classics and the 60s hyper violent re-imaginings are personal faves.
I have seen El Topo (got it with the Jodorowsky box set that came out this month), but I will add the others to my to-watch list. I had also ordered Fistful of Dynamite and Django as well, though hadn’t mentioned them earlier since they hadn’t been specifically brought up. What can I say, I turn into an obsessive ášš when I try to break into new film genres.
Oh, and A Bullet For the General, as I saw Kinski’s name and had to snatch it up. I am perhaps too compulsive a shopper.
What can I say, I turn into an obsessive ášš when I try to break into new film genres.
You and me both, brother, you and me both (unless it’s sister, which is rare and I married one of the last ones).
Haven’t seen Bullet for a General but my motto is If it has either Franco Nero, Lee Van Cleef, or Klaus Kinski, it can’t be all bad.
For my money, although ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA is the better film, I love FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE as much as I can love a film.
You know, if you really want to get the flavor of the best spaghetti westerns you could do a lot worse than to focus on some of the best samurai movies. It’s no secret that YOJIMBO is essentially A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS with swords. All the Zatoichi films are pretty much westerns, albeit with a level of creativity that most of the cow operas never attempted.
What a great time to be alive and be a movie fanatic!
There is no innovatoin that does not depend on a departure from convention.
Bobb established his own convention concerning some topic or another — which is fine — but as far as I take no orders from you or him, your accusations are arbitrary.
You said “smacking you around now and again falls under the category of guilty pleasures,” and your denial of your plain admission to indulging in a predatory agenda is self-serving and wrong in all contexts.
FYI: If you had read the article — rather than speak with certainty of it in criticising someone else for getting it wrong — you would have known Whedon’s rant was inspired by the stoning of an Iraqi girl for dating a Sunni boy, and bystanders recording the incident on their cell phones rather than intervening. He had a line blaming Bush for making things worse in Iraq, but his only recommendation for someone looking for a cause was a feminist site he linked to, and there was no indication he meant to challenge anyone to direct their actions against Bush in particular.
And Jerry, I’m taking the simian references against me to establish that when we do give into our passions and finally rent the hotel room, you are the Blanche DuBois to my Stanley Kowalski.
“It’s no secret that YOJIMBO is essentially A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS with swords.”
Isn’t it the other way around?
Micha: Absolutely true. “Yojimbo” came out four years earlier, and “Per un pugno di dollari” ran into a lot of trouble when its distributors tried to take it to Japan. The unacknowledged remake was a violation of Japanese copyright laws and a slap in the face of Akira Kurosawa. I enjoy both films, but Akira Kurosawa was a better director than Sergio Leone, Toshiro Mifune was a better actor than Clint Eastwood, and “Yojimbo” is a better film than “Per un pugno di dollari.”
Of course, “Yojimbo” draws very heavily on Dashiell Hammett’s “Red Harvest,” so Hammett’s heirs might have the same complaints about “Yojimbo.”
Interestingly enough, Kurosawa was quoted as saying he was inspired by Hammett’s “The Glass Key,” which has much less similarity to “Yojimbo” than does “Red Harvest.” It’s a strange thing.
“It’s no secret that YOJIMBO is essentially A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS with swords.”
Isn’t it the other way around?
Son of a gøddámņ bìŧçh…yeah.
Obviously, I have not yet been obsessive enough. Must watch more movies…
I do have all of Kurosawa’s samurai films (at least all the ones that are available on DVD, not sure if he had any more that Criterion has yet to release), though I haven’t really checked out any Zatoichi films. I guess I’ll get on them next.
And yes, I am indeed male. There do not seem to be nearly enough female counterparts of us (indeed, not any that I’ve been able to uncover in real life).
I suppose one of you is going to tell me that the producers of ROMEO AND JULIET didn’t rip off WEST SIDE STORY, right?
Don’t listen to them, Bill. Next they’ll claim that Forbidden Planet wasn’t ripped of by that hack Shakespeare
Don’t listen to them, Bill. Next they’ll claim that Forbidden Planet wasn’t ripped off by that hack Shakespeare
Bill, I can’t claim a fraction of your knowledge on film in either genre. It’s just that I saw an interview with Eastwood where he said that A Fist Full of Dollars was based on Yojimbo.
Did any of you ever see a movie that was based on the original Viking version of Hamlet? I don’t remeber the name. It was British. I think Helen mirren was in it, and Gabriel Bairn (spl?). I don’t know if it’s that good, but it is interesting considering all the modern adaptations Shakespeare gets.
Depending on where you lived when you saw it, it’s either called Prince of Jutland or Royal Deceit. Pretty good movie. Friend of mine likes it a lot and we got it for her last Christmas. You can find it new online for around $6 or $7.
The Zatoichi films are great. The 2003 Takeshi Kitano version is a fine stand alone re-imagining but nothing can touch the classic Shintaro Katsu series–26 (!) films in all!
Not all are classics but you can’t go wrong with The Tale of Zatoichi, Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman’s Return, The Tale of Zatoichi Continues (which also has Lone Wolf & Cub’s Tomisaburo Wakayama!)(who was Shintaro Katsu’s brother or brother in law, depending on which source you use). Or just grab ANY of the film’s directed by Kenji Misumi (Zatoichi Goes to the Fire Festival, Zatoichi: Fighting Drums, Zatoichi Challenged, Zatoichi and the Chess Expert, Fight, Zatoichi, Fight, and the original The Tale of Zatoichi).
There’s also the Rutger Hauer BLIND FURY, which is Zatoichi with Rutger Hauer. Eh. But it does have a great Darth Maul moment.
If you’re feeling REALLY adventurous…the HANZO THE RAZOR trilogy. Nuff said.
“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.”
So…let me get this straight.
Mike quotes me. I’ve even got an unqualified statement. Neato. But then he goes on to say that his use of my statement does not depend on validating or disputing whatever I meant it to say?
Insert olbigatory BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA here.
Tell me…someone…what’s the point of quoting someone if it doesn’t matter at all whether you care about…or even understand…the meaning of what you’re quoting? I can look up all kinds of mathematical proofs, quote them, and then make a statement about how that proof shows it’s a good idea to eat bacon for breakfast. But unless I can back that up with some objective logic and proof, all I’ve done is shown myself to be an idiot.
Or in this case, a Mike.
Ok, Counselor, since you’re not an idiot: how does the point you make with your observation invalidate your observation — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say?
But, but…Bobb, it IS a good idea to ear bacon with breakfast. Or lunch. Or dinner. Or at the movies. Or before romance. Just not DURING romance….
Yeah, you get all those, whattaya call ’em, oh, doctors who say it’s not, but what do THEY know? Sure, they can excise just about anything from a body with their beads, rattles, and scalpels, but until they can clone something without being sheepish about it, I won’t be impressed. And besides, bacon goes with everything besides dessert! So WHAT if Porky and Wilbur don’t like it! The mathematical formula for it is as follows:
X+B+G+Bsub1+GC=YGT
Where:
B=bacon
G=good times
Bsub1=Beverage of choice
GC=Good Company
YGT=Yummy good time
and, last but not least, X=any food that ian’t dairy or dessert basrd. Go on, try puttng the bacon bits on your cereal or your sundae, you’ll see I’m right.
Oh, wait. Does this just prove that I’m, if not an idiot, then someone with at least idiotic leanings?(Quiet, Jerry and Bills and Micha)
And, Mike, it’s not that no one can find anything wrong with what you said. It’s that pretty much no one cares enough to get into the chest waders to muck through the sludge around your phrasing to figure out what the hëll you’re talking about.
Rocket surgery–still cracks me up.
X=any food that ian’t dairy or dessert basrd. Go on, try puttng the bacon bits on your cereal or your sundae, you’ll see I’m right.
Ah, but hollandaise sauce and any number of other savory cream sauces and soups. X should equal any food that isn’t sweet dairy or dessert based, especially since bacon does go fine with sweet non-desserts, like just about anything you would put maple syrup on. MMmmmm… Pancakes n’ bacon.
Yeah, I really need to get around to watching the LOST finale, but it’ll probably be a few days… :6
-Rex Hondo-
And you not finding anything wrong with what I’ve said disproves Bobb’s observation — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say — how?
Thank you, paid-writer Sean Scullion, but I can’t take credit for it: http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/rocket_surgery
If you like it so much, you may buy the t-shirt: http://threadless.com/submission/46364/It
And you not finding anything wrong with what I’ve said disproves Bobb’s observation — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say — how?
Thank you, paid-writer Sean Scullion, but I can’t take credit for it: http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/rocket_surgery
If you like it so much, you may buy the t-shirt: threadless.com/submission/46364/It
I pretty much agreed with Jerry and Jeffrey and Bill that it is best not to reply to Mike’s antics, and went on to post about Heroes. I still think so. But you know what? There’s something wrong about it, and I think it should be said. Here is a guy (Mike) who comes to this board, says whatever nonsense pleases him about anything and anybody, twists the words and intents of people, pesters us and struts around, and he can get away with this because of his obsessive tenacity and complete disregard to reason or decency. We have no choice but to live with his rudeness because the only other choice is to play the game by his twisted set of rules. I know there’s nothing to be done about it. We’re all for freedom of speech. Because of our own principles we don’t have an alternative. But I think it should be said for the record that there is something wrong about it. It’s the internet equivalent of a 3 year old having a temper tantrum in a restaurant or an airplane.
You have been saying it, and I’ve been employing Bobb’s observation — that no one can find anything wrong with what I say — to point out it’s been arbitrary.
Children cannot claim no one can find anything wrong with what I say, except arbitrarily. I haven’t lost my temper, and I’ve made no claim to take, nor demostrated, any pleasure in smacking anyone around.
Yes, Amazon has been urging me to buy the Hanzo the Razor collection for some time now. It seems to know me quite well by this point.
What do you think of the recent craziness from Japan, Bill? I’ve seen most of Takashi Miike’s films that have made it over here by now, and other efforts like Blind Beast vs. Killer Dwarf were, err, interesting, at the very least.
Mike – for the record, I can and do find many things wrong with what you say. Non-arbitrarily, I am telling you that I find your redefinition of vocabulary to mean whatever you want it to in each sentence detestable, whether done arbitrarily or with a purpose peculiar to your fevered brain. Yes, in “Through the Looking Glass” “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less’,” but he was insane. The fact that you did not originate the term “rocket surgery” is inconsequential. What is important is that you misunderstand its significance. It is an exemplar of the speaker who rambles without comprehending his own words, throwing out argot indecipherable even to himself. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know what you mean to say. We don’t know, because you are not expressing yourself comprehensibly. If we understood, we would be likely to disagree.
Posted by: Micha at May 26, 2007 08:29 AM
Here is a guy (Mike) who comes to this board, says whatever nonsense pleases him about anything and anybody, twists the words and intents of people, pesters us and struts around, and he can get away with this because of his obsessive tenacity and complete disregard to reason or decency.
Sigh… I know I said I’d stop discussing this…
Micha, no one truly “gets away” with anything. There’s always a price to be paid, however big or small. In Mike’s case, he has lost the respect of just about everyone here. No one takes him seriously. He has become pretty much isolated, and has denied himself the enriching experience of exchanging ideas with an open mind as many of us do here on a regular basis. Because he is obsessed with always — ALWAYS!!! — being right, he denies himself the opportunity to grow and develop. He is stunted, frozen like a fly in amber.
If you look at Mike’s behavior, it strikes me as being driven not so much by arrogance as a desperate need to get attention, and a crippling fear of admitting that he can ever be wrong. I don’t know about you, but I’d hate to be driven by those demons. His antisocial behavior may even be driven by something like autism or an emotional pathology. I believe his posts bespeak of a man who is suffering somehow, constantly trying to fill a need in an ineffective way. You can pour water on a stain to your heart’s content but you won’t get it out.
Posted by: Micha at May 26, 2007 08:29 AM
We have no choice but to live with his rudeness because the only other choice is to play the game by his twisted set of rules.
You’ve forgotten yet a third option. He can be ignored. If a tree falls in the woods and all that. I know we all say it’s difficult, but difficult doesn’t mean “impossible.”
Mike can only hurt us to the extent that we let him. Reading is an active rather than a passive activity. We have a choice.
As far as Mike saying something that needs to be refuted, I think it’s gotten to a point where everyone here either recognizes now, or will soon recognize if they’re new here, that Mike is full of šhìŧ. He comes with his own self-destruct mechanism.
Sean,
Your scientific equations are good, but slightly off. I think a more accurate equation would look like this:
We have a blog that is regularly visited by Mike () who makes many and varied observations (O) about the others here and about life in general. It’s been pointed out by just about everybody here that Mike’s observations are, to be polite, reality opposed (RO) at best. This is because of the huge number of nonsensical ideas (NI) that Mike introduces into even the simplest of things. This could also be due to how Mike characterizes () his positions and, more importantly everyone else’s positions. So, if you take these equations…
M = Mike
O = Observations
RO = Reality Opposed
NI = Nonsensical Ideas
C = Characterizes
… and add them together, you find that it explains the nature of the beast to be a time waster. As follows:
M+O+RO+NI+C = MORONIC & MORONIC = Waste of Time.
So, we can establish that dealing with Mike useless because dealing with Mike = MORONIC Waste of Time.
See what happens if I get my computer before my coffee.
Scary thing is, how did Mike know that I get paid?
What do you think of the recent craziness from Japan, Bill? I’ve seen most of Takashi Miike’s films that have made it over here by now, and other efforts like Blind Beast vs. Killer Dwarf were, err, interesting, at the very least.
Actually it seems like it’s the Koreans who have been setting the world on fire lately. THE HOST was great and OLDBOY or anything else by Chan-wook Park is worth seeing (haven’t seen I’m a Cyborg, But That’s OK yet.)
If you like Takashi Miike you’re ok with me. Although, you should also probably be closely watched, but hey, people in glass houses and all.
“Sigh… I know I said I’d stop discussing this…”
I think it’s time to stop with the sighing. Ignore Mike, don’t ignore him, consider him funny, or a small nuisance, talk about him, don’t talk about him, but no more sighing. Let’s relax about Mike once and for all. The point of coming here is to talk about different things from politics to Lost to everything else under the sun, and basically to enjoy ourselves (and we do enjoy arguing politics etc., there is no point in denying it). It is not to be affected by such an insignificant thing as the rambling of one little troll.
“… the Koreans who have been setting the world on fire lately…”
And have been for a while now. Shiri was a kick @$$ action movie. Better then some of our stuff that year.
However, it would help to know a lot about Korean politics between the N & S.
One has to hope that the North Koreans don’t take “setting the world on fire” literally.
I shall have to check out this Shiri of which you speak.
Posted by: Micha at May 26, 2007 02:43 PM
I think it’s time to stop with the sighing. Ignore Mike, don’t ignore him, consider him funny, or a small nuisance, talk about him, don’t talk about him, but no more sighing.
Micha… in fairness, you did ask me not to criticize you for your choice to spend your time debating with Mike. I’ve since expressed any opinions about this issue in the most value-neutral, non-critical way possible. As I’ve said, it was only my intent to make clear why I was extricating myself, so that no one would think me rude if I failed to respond to a post I chose not to read because it was Mike-related.
I am well aware that I have a habit of ostenatiously vowing to ignore so-and-so only to succumb to the temptation to go back in the ring with them. But there are far worse flaws to have, are there not? I guess I’d just like you to give me the same latitude you’ve asked of me — and have received, I might add.
…such as?
In singling out the usage of the phrase, in and of itself, in criticizing me, you criticized any application of it. If you had done a google search on the term, you would have found over a million pages on it (as opposed to, say “Peter David,” which returns less than a 1/3 million).
How can you challenge the misapplication of a phrase you deny has any application whatsoever?
That would be devastating if I believed, as you seem to, that external gratification can be all things to a person. I don’t believe this is true — but if this is true for you, well, good for you, don’t let me stop you.
You heard it here, folks: addressing an accusation is arrogant, attention-seeking, and nurtured by a pretense of invulnerability. Whatever.
…and, as Bill Myers pointed out, that whole “I’ve always depended on the kindness of strangers” schtick is so not me…
Mike, just to be clear, I condemn you – very specifically you and not someone else – for what you say and do. At present it does not bother me that other people make use of the same alphabet and a few of the same words as you. Many of them speak English fluently. Of them, a respectable number are sane. Of that number, relatively many (more than half, possibly) are not jáçkáššëš. If that weren’t the case, I’d criticize them, rather than just you.
” guess I’d just like you to give me the same latitude you’ve asked of me — and have received, I might add.”
Fair enough. You’re right.
I didn’t really want to criticize you, but did a bad job expressing myself because I had something else on my mind. What I actually wanted to do was to relieve you — and me too, and any body else — from the state of mind associated with broken vows, temptations succumbed, concerns over being rude, etc. as well of any feelings of anger, frustration etc. It seems to me that these are not the emotions either of us enjoys having in the context of coming to this blog. I disliked having them myself, and maybe I thought you also had them and over empathized. The metaphor of the alchoholic became too real. After all we’re just a bunch of people chatting, not a monastic order 🙂 But I ended up coming across as being critical. I guess the road to hëll is paved with good intentions (but not in Mike’s version) 🙂
Anyway, I’m sorry. Let’s move on. Surely there is something else to talk about even for people who are not familiar with all the subtleties of Japanese cinema.
Micha — another case of my being hypersensitive. I misunderstood is all. Sometimes I need to have things explained twice. 😉 Keep doing what you do here — it’s one of the reasons I like and respect you as much as I do. And I’d hate to see you start pulling punches with me, because I have learned from you and want to continue to do so. Okay? Okay.
I’m moving onto commenting in some more recent threads as soon as I have a chance to catch up on them. 🙂
Posted by: Micha at May 26, 2007 10:10 PM
Surely there is something else to talk about even for people who are not familiar with all the subtleties of Japanese cinema.
How about Japanese television? I finally managed to catch a couple of episodes of Ninja Warrior, and the only conclusion I can come to is a reiteration of my learned opinion that the Japanese are fûçkìņg nuts.
Just can’t stop watching, though… 😛
-Rex Hondo-
Well, Rex, if nothing else they don’t hide under their shells—
Get it? Shells? Nuts?
Oh, you people are no fun anymore.
Jerry, don’t try to add milk and sugar to your computer in the morning. And stop trying to e-mail with Mr. Coffee. What’re you, Dark Helmet or something?
If you had done a google search on the term, you would have found over a million pages on it (as opposed to, say “Peter David,” which returns less than a 1/3 million)
“rocket surgery” = 49,700 hits on google
“Peter David” = 991,000 hits
Maybe Mike, super genius, just used the words rocket, surgery, Peter, and David. It would indicate a severe lack of knowledge in how google searches work, but whatever.
Rocket + surgery gives you 1,160,000 hits
peter and david gives you 337,000,000 hits
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Mike, the whizkid, managed to both stupidly forget to use quotation marks and somehow thought that 337,000,000 was actually 337,000. No, that can’t be right…you’d have to be an idiot.
Something that I’ve always found odd about sighing. You’d think that “sigh” would be an onomotapaeia, but go ahead. Sigh. Did anything resembling the letter “S” come out? I mean even those with the most severe lisps don’t get an “S” sound. If anything, it’s an “H” sound. Maybe it’s because “high” was already taken. It would certainly change the meaning if the song was actually “Rocky Mountain Sigh.” Or do I just sigh wrong? I mean, take “guffaw.” Go ahead, guffaw. It sorta sounds like the word. But sigh? False advertising, that.
Bill Mulligan–for some reason I was sure the was going to be some “Priceless” statement in your post. For someone who never watches anything, I see way to many TV commercials.
Well I did use the pluses, and you’ve demonstrated they produce larger search results. I misread the million figure as in the thousands. Fortunately for me, the million results for “rocket surgery” doesn’t depend on my getting the search figure back on Peter’s name right.
But misreading some text is a qualification for idiot you have failed yourself — or have you conveniently forgotten being corrected a dead mouse is featured in Of Mice Of Men. That’s Totally Normal Hypocrisy.™
Did anyone take Sean’s statements portraying himself as a professional writer as pride in being some kind of guy who pays for print-on-demand publishing?
It was not rocket surgery, Sean Scullion.
???
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate you can’t find anything wrong with what I say — by not finding anything wrong with what I say.
“Posted by: Bill Myers at May 26, 2007 10:24 PM
Micha — another case of my being hypersensitive. I misunderstood is all.”
I’m pretty sure it was my fault this time. Do you want to argue about that, do you? 😉
Sean Scullion: “Something that I’ve always found odd about sighing. You’d think that “sigh” would be an onomotapaeia, but go ahead. Sigh. Did anything resembling the letter “S” come out? I mean even those with the most severe lisps don’t get an “S” sound. If anything, it’s an “H” sound.”
I think there is a little whistling sound when you sigh (or high). Maybe the person who came up with the word was short of breath, astmatic, or had a gap in his front teeth.
“rocket surgery”
Oh my god. I haven’t been paying much attention to what Mike was saying for a while now, and it’s only now that I’m actually processing the phrase. that’s hilarious. I guess this is an example of what Jerry was talking about. My mind skimmed over the phrase several times and didn’t notice anything wrong with it. Mike is probably going to quote me on this. Oh well.
Mike: Write something – anything: You don’t have to post it. Look at it. Do you see it? That is what I object to. Parse it and understand it (if that is possible); Now you have a working definition of what I don’t like.
Because you refuse to see what is very clear, I will be more direct. I do not like it when you use a word, are called on its absolute stupidity; redefine it to mean something else; are told that – yes, that is different, but it is also still stupid; redefine it again; still make no sense; and then crow that no one can find anything with which to disagree. Your relationship to coherent argument is analogous to that between vomiting and singing an aria. Some of the same organs are used, but with different intent and effect.
You, Mike, are what and with whom we disagree.
Well I did use the pluses, and you’ve demonstrated they produce larger search results. I misread the million figure as in the thousands. Fortunately for me, the million results for “rocket surgery” doesn’t depend on my getting the search figure back on Peter’s name right.
Unfortunately for you, you are still–brace yourself–wrong.
When you use google to search for two words–in this case “Rocket” and “Surgery”– you get EVERY page that has the words rocket and surgery. If someone were to write “A rocket fell from space and hit me in the upper occipital protuberance, which required surgery.” it would be included. It would be like me claiming that the 1,530,000 hits for Mike + idiot were actually all calling you an idiot. 9th graders understand this. I’m kind of amazed that you’ve never figured this out. I mean, it isn’t exactly roc…well, you know.
To truly find out how many people have used the expression “rocket surgery” you have to type in “rocket surgery”, quotation marks included.
And when you do you don’t get one million hits. Nothing even close. You get, as of this morning, 49,700 hits. (since you have trouble with numbers I’ll write it out: forty nine thousand, seven hundred).
And the funny/sad thing is, all you had to do was simply say “It was a joke.”, which is what I had assumed it was. But no, you have to get typically Mike and make a snarky reply that included google and then get it all wrong and look foolish. When called on it you double down and get it wrong again!
That’s Our Mike!
…like when?
http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/basics.html
The google instructions related the 2 search practices as to equate them. But going by the different results, I’m going to have to accept your explanation.
Thanks.
It was a joke.