all right lets get back on topic....
which topic would you like to talk about?
The one where you claimed how the evil scary liberals are taking over the world? You even gave me some REALLY interesting websites where other conservatives who have dug up as much random BS as you have made a website dedicated to it and called it a watchdog service....psh...take a look at this to see how thin and pointless your arguement is http://newmedia.cgu.edu/nardi/projects/b2/ anyone with half a brain can find a bias in anything......
I am not saying that that website is the be all and end all of factual information...it is simply one way that I can show you the opposite side of your arguement.....I agree that probably a lot of journalists are "liberal" (or rather that they are intelligent enough to know that money is not the answer to everything and that humanitarian and environmental policies are more important than making sure corporate america can swindle their employees out of their retirement by keeping the SEC useless and stupid.) What you need to look at is that those journalists work for people...and the people they work for are people like Rupert Murdoch and Michael Eisner.....people who are anything but liberal.....if you want to get into an arguement about politics...go ahead....give me your views on issues and i will give you mine and we can see if you actually stand for the conservative mantra that you shout so often.....
Or would you rather talk about whether Moore has the artistic right as does every other artist in the world to borrow cultural points from society in order to enrich his work?
I am pretty sure that I have said my piece on this and you dubbed it too far over your head to respond to.....shall i say it again?
please.....i am open to the topic of your choice
Open to ideas, thats a laugh...
[This message has been edited by airjesse123 (edited 08-05-2004).]
ok....you have chosen more confused rambling about what you didnt say instead of answering things i have said....
first off you gave me three sites, buddy
two from random people who have all recycled the same nitpicking little tidbits and pinned them up on a website for all to see the media bias
and another website that claims to be a media watchdog while at the same time talking about how it was made by a bunch of conservatives who wanted to muckrake liberals with a professional air......
i gave you a website that simply showed how easy it is to do it on either side....you didnt seem to mention the fact that that website also had a section entitled "The Tyranny of the Left Wing Media".
Dont whine about name calling when you call me completely ignorant for giving you exactly what you asked for....two sides of an arguement...
Secondly, you pulled a quote from F451 and said how much you hate Moore and how that illustrated your opinion of it.....its not a factual reason why he is aterrible person so therefor there isnt much i can say against it...its your opinion and every idiot on the planet is entitled to one....im not stoppin you there I simply dont agree....in that paragraph you highlighted i was simply trying to get some straight answers out of you that werent i hate this...or....this is stupid becuase....i want to see where you stand on issues....this is ME creating a topic.....geez
and thirdly, i am perfectly open to arguements that are valid and held together by cognizant thought...
I AM A COLLEGE STUDENT!! who cares if you are a high school student or 90 years old and a retired CEO? It doesnt make me respect or disrespect you anymore or less....i base you on what you say...since this is all i am getting from you....stop makin excuses and start thinking about a response that actually makes me think...
This forum is about Ray Bradbury....he has decided to bring up his own political agenda when someone used his cultural influence in an atristic and normal manner.....therefore why cant we have a political arguement on his forum (that he doesnt even look at i think)?
Please, if you are confused about something i say or cant understand the big words....just ask a question! no need to be a jerk about it....
thor, I am just gonna respond to all of your posts with three sentences: I came on this website to discuss Ray Bradbury and what he brings to literature. There were a few people on the site that pulled this down from an intellectual arguement, to a political one and I therefore had to sink down to their level to defend myself. I want to bring this conversation back to a civilized level.
On a side note, I did a cntrl-F to find the word 'tyranny' on those 3 sites, couldn't find it. Since you are such a good investigator, could you point it out for me. Anyways, certain as the sky is blue, you must agree that 'tryanny' carries far less of a charge in the here and now than 'facism'. If one of the websites does mention tyranny, I would like to retract it from my statement. Also, I just had my wisdom teeth pulled and was on vikodin, I know the feeling, it is not fun. Also, if you want to look at an intellectual discussion, look at the one I had with translator, I even complimented him on his rebuttles. Even through I disagree with him, i can still converse civily with him.
[This message has been edited by airjesse123 (edited 08-05-2004).]
HEY, I got a promotion! I was a junior member and now I am a full fledged member YAY!
"This forum is about Ray Bradbury....he has decided to bring up his own political agenda when someone used his cultural influence in an atristic and normal manner"
Thormachine: What "political agenda" did Bradbury bring up when he complained about Moore's classless hijacking of his title?
I don't believe this has had anything to do with a political agenda on Ray's part.
When a man steals from you, you generally don't ask him what his politics are.
I know Ray, better than many of you; not nearly as well as some of you. I might see him once or twice a year. I don't profess to know his politics, I can only get a sense of the sort of person he is. He has said he values education and science over war. He may share quite a number of views with you, with me, with Translator. I've never asked.
People have used this as a springboard into an empty political swimming pool. They turn nasty and call each other idiots when it's their turn to speak, and put their hands over their ears and chant "la la la" when it's their turn to listen. Politics does that to us. It does that to me, too, and I'm fairly open-minded. It becomes this large car we wrap around ourselves as we hit the highway of rhetorical road rage.
But this is about Ray's work, not politics. He's had a lifetime of being co-opted by writers of every medium.
On a separate, but tangential note, I was concerned that Ray's talk in San Diego a few Saturdays ago would be heckled much like this board was bombarded a while back by people who wanted to make issues out of things they did not really understand. My worry was unfounded. He had the (large) room filled, and there was nothing but love in there for him. It was a great thing to see, and a great thing for him that there was this room filled with people who appreciated his work, his magic, his stories, and to hell with politics.
people who throw out "politics" (as in the real way that a body of people is governed either with good intentions or bad intentions), should have to throw away their right to vote....Just cutting out the factor of politics is nothing but forced ignorance.....please dont act as if I am the one who needs to be "put in his place" (i just love when Mr. Dark jumps into arguements that he isnt even really a part of after all the dirty work is done) I am simply trying clarify jesse's intentions....this is his topic and he kept engaging me (although rather half-assedly)....
[This message has been edited by thormachine (edited 08-06-2004).]
our conversation was not very intellectual; it was barely civilized. We ended up not reaching any definite things, except my belief that you are not very well equiped to hold a proper conversation. Understand that I'm not attacking you - I'm simply telling you my thought on you. The above parley with Thor showed that, somethimes, you may have a bright idea or two, but the rest of the times you shy away from answering his most direct posts. Why don't you just simply answer what thor says, and bring in some thought to your answers? You do that sometimes, but for the most part you don't.
I misspelled your name accidentally. Pardon seeked.
Thor, there need be no excuse to talk about politics, if the politics is being talked about all the time, and on very many different threads. Usually, though, such topics should be reserved for the "Ruled Paper - A miscellany of Topics" topic, (and it was so for a long time), but then it all kind of exploded. I always try to suggest to whoever I'm engaged with to move there, just to pacify all the Bradbury Only nitpickers that are also found here. By the way, I still stand behind you.
Whatever, I guess we are never gonna get back to any substantial conversation about RB... Well, whatever, I guess this forum will just have to be Translator and Thor VS the rest of the board. Translator, even if our conversation wasn't intellectual, it was specific, I can't say that about thor's post as he ussually seems to leave a hanging chad or two.
sorry about that translator....i didnt know there was a specific area in this forum for political discussion....i for one cant seem to escape it.....hehe
thanks for the support, translator...
And airjesse...if you want to get back on topic how bout answering a few of my questions? or maybe you could give us your enlightened view of how artists should be able to work in and around a culture....
Airjesse, ok, whatever, sure, I guess. It was specific, I give you that.
Thor, appology not accepted - because one was not seeked. If I could have it my way, I would not try to divise anything here into sections - those who want to talk about RB could do it no matter if politics is discussed or not. That you didn't know about the Ruled Paper thing is no problem; it was an idea of pterran's, and he thought it would placate both the "debaters" as well as the "praisers". It was a splendid idea at the time, and still is, if only to stop the annoying undermining of the debater's debates by the claims that they have nothing to do with RB.
Wouldnt one not be excited that michael moore would admire the ideals that ray bradbury had left behind for us enough. To look past the idea that you might not like his ideas or his movie, but actually look at his point. He took the idea from ray that people should make their own decisions and should be given all the information, wether it be literary works, or a movie filled with ones own opions, to form their ideas and values. I dont understand why just because you dont like michael moore or his views, that you wouldnt have enough intelligence to see how flattering it is that michael moore would respect ray's ideas enough to take his name and form his own message. i dont like michael moore but i respect his idea that the public should be allowed to hear everyones view if they so chose.
OK, here are my reactions to the RB/MM affair, three months late. First feelings: chagrin, disappointment, embarassment for RB. Something wrong in his contention, "It's My Title, I'm offended, MM needs to ask me before he plays off it."
I thought: RB does not seem to understand cultural diffusion --- how events, personalities, and artworks enter into the public mind, and become part of each person's private universe, and emerge transformed. Case in point: Marilyn Monroe. Although Marilyn Monroe created her own persona, her image has entered into everyone's imagination, and she has emerged, reworked, in dozens of novels --- which could be called invasive --- such as Norman Mailer's. The term 'Suicide Blonde', though now denoting a familiar type, is part of her legacy. Impersonators appear in nightclubs and tour the country.
As the Bible says, 'Cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you a thousandfold.' RB's bread is on the waters. The movie title is one way it returns, and it seems singularly ungracious for him to object to what is in effect a tribute. He either cannot or will not understand the processes of cultural fermentation and osmosis; this suggests, at best, a petulant mind setting itself against a natural tide.
Now, if he's expressing dismay because he disagrees with the film's message, then that's another matter, and understandable, and is quite probable, actually, considering his quote from the Swedish interview that I read on another message board at this site. But that sets a large problem for the millions of readers who read his book in their youth and now think that MM's allusion is entirely appropriate. We have to ask, What has changed in this man since the 1950's --- what, and why? How has the former friend of privacy and decency and the intricate flourishing of feeling, layer upon delicately described layer --- how has the enemy of commercial banality, this enemy of the harsh incipient fascism that always lurks at the edge of American politics --- how has this man whom we liked and trusted come to 'go over', lost his bearings?
This problem preyed on my mind for awhile, till some answers floated up from the depths, but this post has been way long enough. To enter the argument that has been raging, let me just say that MM's title is an 'allusion'. Some books in their titles 'allude' to earlier works. Satires usually do this: who can forget National Lampoon's "Tarzan of the Cows"? But RB did it himself in publishing "White Whale, Green Shadows". It was published in 1992; the title alluded to a screenplay that was filmed in 1990. The title of the screenplay was "White Hunter, Black Heart." Both RB's book and the screenplay describe movie-making with that fabulous monster, John Huston; one, "Moby Dick", the other "The African Queen." Were any of the MM-is-a-thief accusers outraged by BRadbury's "theft"? I think not, nor was I. Both titles are a knowing reference, and are enjoyable as such. 'Nuff said.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9|