you ought not to have said that, Ought not. I am not a child, and if you feel that smacking kids around is a good and jolly way of raising them up, then I really pity you.
I simply don't belive that the word "Loser", as defined by common people (ie, "the Pathetic loser was told by his girlfriend stright-up that he was inadequate") was really applied by the N. Koreans when they reffered to Anne Frank. I believe that both Dandelion as well as Ought Not either do not understand what is being said to them, or they twist things out of context to suit their needs. Alternatively, they extrapolate a bit too much out of simple messages. It is actually Dandelion who is spreading untruths here, as the N. Koreans have behaved correctly and with respect to Anne Frank, but what they did in the end is add a small moral at the end of the story. The moral may be questioned (though it isn't by me), but twisting things out of their meanings and dimensions, as Dandelion has done, and Ought Not followed, is simply unaceptable. In fact a publlic apology should be given by the two on this topic.
Again to Ought Not: what do you mean by "be President with a monster like this to deal with"? Which president are you refering to, who is the monster, and what has to be dealt with?
the fact that A) he is a war president with war on his mind, B) the fact that he considers N Korea to be an Evil Nation, and C) the fact that he is ready to use Preemptive Strikes against the nations he deems Evil. In the face of such hostility, N Koreans should be ready to defend their homeland.
No, I'm not drunk. Not a very clever comeback on your part, if you ask me.
I'll try once again.
Here are two of your statements: It'll be interesting to see how long you last around here. . .If some of us continue to insist upon this being a forum to convey our religious or political beliefs, while not accepting others who do the same, that division will continue.
My statement to you was this: A challenge to your point of view isn't necessarily a suppression of your point of view. I disagree with your point of view. Now, will you defend it?
Meaning this: By disagreeing with your point of view, I'm challenging it and expect you to defend it.
Thanks for your polite response. I disagree with your statement A but have no problems with B or C. And I certainly wouldn't disagree with the North Koreans right to defend themselves should they be invaded without cause. But that wasn't the gist of Dandelion's post. Her post was that the North Koreans were twisting the meaning of several works of art to suit their purposes. I believe your statement to be a defense of the North Korean actions. In other words, because Bush is whatever you'd like to characterize him, it's okay for the North Koreans to change works of art.
Or did I misunderstand you?
For those wishing to explore the story, the text can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/26/60minutes/main602415.shtml
I recall a time a month ago or so, when I asked certain people to back off on the religious rhetoric and I got JUMPED on. I have to admit it cooled my enthusiasm for this message board somewhat, which makes me sad--I thought I had found a like-minded bunch of people, gathered by a love of Ray Bradbury.
I said it before and I'll say it again:
This is a SECULAR messge board and I think it should remain so. OK, religion is an important part of many of our lives and it will undoubtedly pop up here and there. However, there has been a distinct increase in the religious chatter of late, and there are more appropriate places for that sort of thing.
RE: N. Korea
ANYTHING that deliberately perverts the message of Anne Frank's diary is dangerous and disturbing, my feelings about our current (US) administration notwithstanding.
I went out and voted in my primary today and plan to vote in the Presidential election as well. The right to vote is too valuable to squander. Take advantage of your opportunities.
Vote early, vote often!
[This message has been edited by jfaronson (edited 03-02-2004).]
Yes, I've been arguing religion on a different thread, trying my best to keep the subject close to Bradbury. The name of that thread - What Mel Gibson Has Started - clearly stated it was started because of the connection between Gibson and Bradbury but was intended to discuss Gibson's "Passion." I've kept my comments about religion and the movie on that thread. Personally, I have no problem when these threads spin a little out of control; we can always choose not to read or participate. I've always viewed this board as sort of a casual cocktail party among people who share a common interest in Ray Bradbury.
As I understand this particular thread, we began discussing F-451 and the North Koreans and censorship. Perfectly good subject material for a site about Bradbury, don't you think? While the above exchanges between myself and others may appear as if we're spinning off in an entirely inappropriate direction, I assure you it's my intent to bring the discussion back to censorship (or the lack thereof, which will be my eventual point)at some time in the future, if you care to stick around.
Thanks for your personal comments to me. I welcome yours and all others. And, please, accept my apology if my ramblings on this thread, and others, don't quite fit into what you believe this site should be about. Find comfort in the fact though it may not be entirely obvious, I always keep one eye on Bradbury in my posts.
Don't go looking for smacks If you do not want them. As for an apology, good god you are leaning a little too much for your own balance, man! Dandelion simply stated her viewing experience of an episode of 60 Minutes and blinded by your own hatred for Bush you have destorted the episode and turned it into a tirade against the man. In fact, for this intense desire to receive attention you have used the same bait elsewhere. Very childish behavior. One worthy of a good switching. And it is above politics, you know, good behavior? Hatred is not exactly up there on the virtue board. Have you ever fished? If so, you know of artificial lures. They come in wide variety. Worms, crayfish, minnows, all false with glitter and scents to attract a fish, you know? But what you haven't yet been able to understand that this message board here is not your usual pool of water. And I will apologise not to you but the board for appeasing you. I've made the mistake of biting at your lure but now I spit it out.
Good luck next time,
[This message has been edited by Ought Not (edited 03-02-2004).]
[This message has been edited by Ought Not (edited 03-02-2004).]
My comments on religion were not necessarily directed specifically at you-they were more of a general commentary on the trend of many of these threads.
Censorship is bad, overall. I agree that everyone has the right to voice their opinions; and the best way to learn is to listen to the thoughts of others. My point was that some people have stopped listening. Beyond that, some people have clouded there messages with so much propaganda that their point fails to get through.
[This message has been edited by jfaronson (edited 03-02-2004).]
Grasstains: Thanks for the support; I'm glad some people on this board can think constructively. I have been inspired by Montag, and I believe that I took from his character Bradbury's intended message.
PTerran: To provide morals at the end of works of art is not exactly the same as changing the works of art themselves. There is something to be said for dying valinantly on the battlefield while defending your loved ones, and that was what the offical party message to the children was. Every work of art can be suited to whatever moral conclusion one wants it to be, and it has been done both in America, as well as in Canada, Poland, N Korea and everywhere else. Hence the outrage at the idea of "twisting works to suit purposes" is actually not a very shocking thing, as it happens all the time, and with various mesages. Assuming now that you agree with this (which you might not, but I can and will go into a discussion with you about the fact that works of art are being used to further points of views, purposes, and specific agendas all the time, and nobody is being outraged by that at all, if you wish. (My main argument will be that nothing has meaning intrisically, but that meaning is a subjective term applied to things by individual people)), we can focus on the message they are trying to convey. The message is that it is better to go down fighting rather than cower in fear. As I cannot find a problem with that reasoning, I agree with them.
Dandelion: notice that it were the authors of the text who implied that the N koreans called Anne a loser. The N Koreans never said that themselves. Notice also that you believed the authors to be right in this, and you copied their assumption. That is a very important distinction - what the authors have done is extarpolated labels and meanings outside of the actual recorded or spoken evidence. By the way, I don;t know if you know, but there were hundreds of authors who haven't seen a kopek (russian currency) when their books were published in the US during the Cold War. I can name at least 10 off the top of my head.
fjPalumbo: Thank you for providing us with that link. I could not have done better myself. Think what preemptive strikes mean- an attack on a soverign nation. At least N Korea won't go down like the defenceless Iraq.
Jfaronson: a)what was the message of Anne Frank's diary? And once we agree that this is the message, which will be pretty hard: b)can this message be carried out with a violent country that meddles in other nation's politics as the main superpower?
Ought not (yes, last and definitely least): You persist with the smacks, eh? I wonder how your kids fare out. And yes, I have gone fishing; I also once saw a dead pike with a whitefish stuck in its throat. Maybe you just bit off more than you could chew?
[This message has been edited by Translator (edited 03-03-2004).]
Wow, what a conversation I just stumbled into. I think I'll sit this one out.
"Don't go mixin' politics with the folk songs of our land"
Thanks for the clarification.
You don't cite any specifics about works of art being twisted to suit one's agenda but I'll assume you mean that's somehow being done in the USA by the government. I don't think it is. That kind of twisting of meaning or taking over art to suit one's agenda is done in a totalatarian government.
I don't agree with you that meaning is subjective; I think an artist infuses his work with specific meaning or meanings and the receiver takes his own meaning from the work. So that begs the question, of the two meanings that can be associated with art, which meaning is most important carries the most weight: the artist's or the consumer of the art? (I'd say the artist's, though I've argued elsewhere there may be meanings present in art that the artist was entirely unaware.)
For the sake of the spectators of this thread, I'll refrain responding to your other political remarks. For now.
I will say this . . . it's a different board than it used to be.
I also believe that works of art can be interpreted subjectively. I think that subjective evaluation is part of how we take art into ourselves.
But I see this as a completely different claim than the claim that there is ONLY subjectivity; OR that totalitarian governments have a right to twist endings to feed their own propaganda.
The idea that you should be willing to die valiantly for your government only makes sense if the government for which you're willing to die is a valiant one worth dying for. One of the worst things going on in the world right now is where people think they are doing the will of God to murder innocent men, women and children in the name of a higher force. There is a difference between a murderous ideologue and an idealist.
Back to Bradbury? . . .
To me, the main point of the Diary of Anne Frank is that a person can keep hope alive even in the face of the grimmest possible future.
Ironic how all that turned out for her, eh?
[This message has been edited by jfaronson (edited 03-03-2004).]
if it's the artist's meaning that is the most important, then none of us can ever appreciate anything, as we are not the artists themselves, but rather the audience. I would have to agree that the artists have infused meaning into their pieces, however, that is their own private domain to which we have no access at all. We are merely reactants, hence it is our interpretation of the pieces that really matters. Thus, there are not acutally two sets of meanings, one of "theirs", and one of "ours", but rather one of theirs, and about 5 billion of ours. I prefer to call that no meaning at all, as, realistaically speaking, there is no difference between the two.
Based on this, I disagree with your asessment that only totalitarian states impose meanings on works of arts; nations that, for exmple, preach democracy and tolearance are also engaging in this very same thing - the very idea of democracy or tolerance is the result of the lens through which a government wants you to see others.
Please notice I said nation, not government; the land and historic traditions are what is worth defending, not the particular government. For example, would you defend the Bush government with your life? Probably not. Would you defend your family and your traditions? Probably yes.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7|