pabillsman that comment wasnt really neccesary. you dont know what i learn in school. as a matter of fact all second semester of my english class was a unit on american poets. so dont try to tell me that all i can do is look things up on the internet and i know they i cant write. thats why i only pulled a "C" in my college english class.

Stevieboy: Then you need to take another class or stick to chat rooms where that drivel is acceptable. Cummings had something called creative (poetic)license. It was an art form. Your writing is just poor!!!!

humm pabillsman....if u would actually read my last post u would see that i said that i cant write. so why do u feel the need to tell me somethin i already know. or are u so hasty to put me down u dont even read my posts to reply to what i said. goodjob. and u may think tellin me i cant write hurts my feelings or somethin nice try but nope i cant say that it does. if u dont like the way i write quit replying to my posts its that easy.

Airjesse123,

As one who constantly violates the unwritten rule of staying on topic, I ask you have a little patience for the likes of Mr. Dark and me and others. No need to scold us about staying on topic. We'll get back to the point. Eventually.

By the way, an excellent post about the exerpt from F-451. I don't know why none of us picked up on it before. Certainly Moore hasn't noticed. Or maybe he has noticed but thinks Bradbury's talking about someone else. My suspcicion, though, is that either Moore has never read F-451 or hasn't recently read it recently enough to remember that passage.

Does anyone have any links that might explore this possibility further? (That is, we know why Moore chose the title but my contention is that he's so far off base with his movie that perhaps he either didn't read the book or misunderstood it entirely.)

Best,

Pete

Sorry, you're right, topics will come and go, as long as everyone is having fun everyone else and I are happy. (Wow, really tricky grammar on that one :-/, really don't think that is the right grammatical arrangement)

-Jesse

Jesse, I'm sure you are only being sarcastic, but if you really want to know, you need to either make it into two sentences, use a conjunction, or use a semicolon.

[This message has been edited by pabillsman (edited 07-21-2004).]

[This message has been edited by pabillsman (edited 07-21-2004).]

[This message has been edited by pabillsman (edited 07-21-2004).]

[This message has been edited by pabillsman (edited 07-21-2004).]

I don't even want to join in this thing. One is that I can't really read waht the hell Stevieboy is saying, two is that whatever I can read just makes me laugh (communism, socialsim and liberalism is the same? Man, the alternative here is that either you are a crack shooting glue sniffing coke snorting perpetually drunk dude on prozac, or you seriously have no clue, (and I don't mean to say "I-kinda-know-the-answer-but-I-don't-know-for-sure-so-I'll-just-say-I-have-no-clue" no clue, but the "I'm dumber than a sack of nails, and it's a wonder I haven't killed myself to date with a spoon while eating ice cream" no clue) of what you're talking about). Three is that there was no discussion here, just noise. And four because I'm in a good mood, and I'll jump in if need be (ie, when someone actually says something reasonable) some other time.

Cheers, Translator

Ps - to those who did say something reasonable, thanks for trying to keep things sane. This applies to those whom I don't exactly agree with as well.

"Dissent is fine, but don't go over to a bunch of French snobs and badmouth your country to them."
Couldn't have said it better.

Translator, I agree, as I too find stevieboy's posts to be highly illegible.

Oh good, I'm not the only one having problems reading stevieboy's posts! I'm no English teacher and only took what was required, but at least I can spell and make the attempt to use proper grammar! (it's "YOU", stevieboy, not "U")

Guys,

I think Stevie was just trying to make a point, maybe it was a flawed point, maybe it was illegible, but it was a point none the less. This is an Internet forum, you can't expect everyone to have grammatical expertise, though it is nice when people do. I would like to take this time to nicely ask Stevie if he would consider revising his posts for grammatical accuracy.

___Jesse____

[This message has been edited by airjesse123 (edited 07-22-2004).]

By the by, sorry for the mistakes in my posts - they are honest errors. Anyway, I'm an immigrant, so I have immunity.

Cheers, Translator

quote:

Originally posted by groon:
"It would be like if i said George Bush is a terrible person because he has squinty eyes."

If this is true, why do so many people still pick on GWB for stumbling over a word or two on occasion? Isn't that judging someone based on an uncontrollable physical limitation?
.]

OOOOkkkaay.....Are you serious? If you were right in front of me having this conversation with me I would ask you... "Are you actually serious?"

People dont make fun of Bush for "stumbling over a word or two". They question his ability to ratioanlly put together sentences. They question his ability to actually say something that isnt scripted. In other words...People get concerned when their president can not speak for himself without a prompter and a scripted press conference at hand.

For example, even if you hate Clinton for everything that he has ever done, there is plenty of documentation on how intelligent he is. As well as how good a public speaker he is. That is not an uncontrollable limitation that Bush has. It is a choice that he made to not engage people in intelligent conversation. Maybe it is just me, but I like to know that the person running the country i live in has a good amount of intelligence....and certainly enough intelligence and overall knowledge to be able to debate issues with other people.

ANYWHO!! Now that that is out of the way....I believe someone addressed the fact that I didn't bring up all the faults with "the liberals".....probably becuase i am not their assigned speaker....and i dont know what they are thinking becuase i am not one of them. "Liberals" as you call them seem to be people who believe that a Capitalist Represenative Democracy is still a feasible form of government...I am what i guess you would call a Socialist Anarchist....I am sure I'm gonna get a lot of flack for that but whatever. And even if I was a "Liberal" the whole idea of an arguement is that I make a point. Then someone else counters my point and makes their point. I dont feel that i need to do your "job" for you. If you see some fault in what I say then you can point that out.

And finally, in regards to Moore using the idea of a Bradbury title, i have this to say:

Art circulates and diffuses into other Art. When someone incorporates another part of someone elses Art it should always be an honor (unless of course there is an obvious plagarism i.e. whole pieces of the Art itself copied without recognition). The use of part of a title should be nothing but recognition of the timelessness and strength of that piece of Art...The fact that Bradbury has used this instance of normal artistic behaviour to stir controversy and his bring up his own poitical agenda is a lapse in Bradbury's senses in my opinion...And it makes me respect him a little less...not his works, but him as a person....that is all....

P. S. Is that better on the writing side? hehe
You do know that people use that short hand type simply so that they can type faster...not because i they are incapable of grammatical structure...

Thormachine,

At the risk of wandering even further from the Bradbury reservation, I don�t think I can let your post go unanswered:

1.) You exaggerate Bush�s inability to speak smoothly in a public venue. Sure, it�s a strong point if you�re President but not a requirement. We�ve had plenty of Presidents who didn�t speak well in public but who performed quite well, thank you very much. And surely you don�t really believe that most, if not all, public figures are scripted in some way. Yes, many think Clinton performed well in public. I happen to think Reagan was a better communicator. It all goes to your taste, I suppose. I can�t dispute that Clinton was intelligent. You don�t get in the colleges he did and acquire a law degree by being stupid. But give Bush some credit as well. He managed to graduate from the Harvard Business School. His grades in college were better than Gore�s. So let�s concede he�s intelligent enough to get the job done. And if he isn�t, he�s smart enough to surround himself by people who are.

2.) I have no idea what a Socialist Anarchist is. Please enlighten me. I won�t give you any flak but I reserve the right to point out the flaws in your beliefs, if there are any.

3.) I think you misconstrue the entire Bradbury/Moore episode. Bradbury did not stir up the controversy nor has he brought up his own political agenda. Remember: it was Moore who stole Bradbury�s title. Bradbury objected. In your view, you�d fault a bank for squawking because it got robbed. And I disagree that Moore used the title because he recognized the artistry of the book. I contend he used it to do his heavy lifting, tying into the collective cultural memory of the book. From what I�ve read, Moore�s movie has little to do with what F-451 was about. Oh, sure, Moore likes to think it does but his movie is a mishmash of misleading facts to support his diatribe against Bush and his policies.

Best,

Pete

pterran,
Brilliant statement, I could not have said it better myself. I think the analogy of a bank robbery is not to far of a stretch. Moore could NOT come up with an enlightening title for himself so he stole Bradbury's intellectual property to get by.
-Jesse

Thormachine,
I'm with you all the way.
Cheers, Translator