Pavilion Digest: August 2009

A plethora of perplexing pavilion posts. The Pavilion Annex thread, the Pavilion Discussion thread, and monthly digests of all messages from the Pavilion.

Moderator: Moderator

Matthew Dickinson

Movie Recommendations

Postby Matthew Dickinson » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:59 am

Name: Matthew Dickinson
Source: unca20091007.htm
Hi Harlan Ellison. Just saw Inglourious Basterds. It was great! I recommend you see it. Also I recommend Broken Trail with Robert Duvall, directed by Walter Hill.

Posting from Duluth Library.

Matthew Dickinson

Movie Recommendations

Postby Matthew Dickinson » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:59 am

Name: Matthew Dickinson
Source: unca20091009.htm
Hi Harlan Ellison. Just saw Inglourious Basterds. It was great! I recommend you see it. Also I recommend Broken Trail with Robert Duvall, directed by Walter Hill.

Posting from Duluth Library.

Adam-Troy
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:05 am
Contact:

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

Postby Adam-Troy » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:55 am

Name: Adam-Troy Castro
Source: unca20091007.htm
I omit lengthy comments made elsewhere, for fear that they'd run afoul of local prohibitions against spoilage. I say only that while imperfect, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS contains at least three extended -- and I do mean, extended -- sequences that rank with the absolute best of Alfred Hitchcock. For all his deserved reputation for brutal on-screen violence, Tarantino is also a firm believer in the Hitchcockian dictum that it is more frightening when violence *might* happen than when it *constantly* happens, and he shows this strength of his to absolute advantage, in the sequences I'm thinking about.

Adam-Troy
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:05 am
Contact:

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

Postby Adam-Troy » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:55 am

Name: Adam-Troy Castro
Source: unca20091009.htm
I omit lengthy comments made elsewhere, for fear that they'd run afoul of local prohibitions against spoilage. I say only that while imperfect, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS contains at least three extended -- and I do mean, extended -- sequences that rank with the absolute best of Alfred Hitchcock. For all his deserved reputation for brutal on-screen violence, Tarantino is also a firm believer in the Hitchcockian dictum that it is more frightening when violence *might* happen than when it *constantly* happens, and he shows this strength of his to absolute advantage, in the sequences I'm thinking about.

Frank "Tarantino" Church

Postby Frank "Tarantino" Church » Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:14 am

Name: Frank "Tarantino" Church
Source: unca20091007.htm
As you all know, I am a huge Tarantino fan. Still have big problems with certain aspects of Pulp Fiction, but have loved his films ever since. Hoping Adam Troy Castro is right. He is so sexy and vital he just may be.

By the way Adam, it is possible that Tarantino avoided the violence to receive an r-rating? This is possible, right? Not fishing in your pond, but I am stealing a beer from the cooler.

My only problem with Tarantino is his love affair with slasher films.

Frank "Tarantino" Church

Postby Frank "Tarantino" Church » Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:14 am

Name: Frank "Tarantino" Church
Source: unca20091009.htm
As you all know, I am a huge Tarantino fan. Still have big problems with certain aspects of Pulp Fiction, but have loved his films ever since. Hoping Adam Troy Castro is right. He is so sexy and vital he just may be.

By the way Adam, it is possible that Tarantino avoided the violence to receive an r-rating? This is possible, right? Not fishing in your pond, but I am stealing a beer from the cooler.

My only problem with Tarantino is his love affair with slasher films.

Jack Skillingstead
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 6:32 pm

HARLAN

Postby Jack Skillingstead » Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:36 am

Name: Jack Skillingstead
Source: unca20091007.htm
Next Thursday, the 27th, works best for me. Let me know if that's all right. I'll be coming from Orange.

Jack Skillingstead
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 6:32 pm

HARLAN

Postby Jack Skillingstead » Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:36 am

Name: Jack Skillingstead
Source: unca20091009.htm
Next Thursday, the 27th, works best for me. Let me know if that's all right. I'll be coming from Orange.

Thomas

Ellison, Straczynski debate SF vs sci-fi in 1997 video

Postby Thomas » Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:15 pm

Name: Thomas
Source: unca20091007.htm
Didn't see this already posted, sorry if it is a duplicate.

On scifi.com (yes I refuse to type the other name) website they have a video of a debate with our esteemed host from 1997.

http://scifiwire.com/2009/08/post-14.php

Thomas

Ellison, Straczynski debate SF vs sci-fi in 1997 video

Postby Thomas » Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:15 pm

Name: Thomas
Source: unca20091009.htm
Didn't see this already posted, sorry if it is a duplicate.

On scifi.com (yes I refuse to type the other name) website they have a video of a debate with our esteemed host from 1997.

http://scifiwire.com/2009/08/post-14.php

User avatar
Kate
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:14 pm

Postby Kate » Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:28 pm

Name: Kate
Source: unca20091007.htm
Steve Barber: I apologize to you -- I did indeed miss your post where you'd said you had mistakenly referred to me. My bad. Frankly, about 30 minutes after I'd posted my remarks I'd regretted them as I really prefer not to discuss politics on bulletin boards for the reasons cited by Tony: too much of the "atta boy" for our side (depending on your side) or the heaping of coals on the dissenter's head.

Anyway, you are a gentleman, and I'm sorry that my snarky post came your way. (sheepish and apologetic smile being offered)

***

Rob: I could give you very legitimate reasons why I am a conservative and why I don't support your point of view. (But to respond in kind to your implication -- I guess we are all terrible people who got ours and the hell with everyone else. How simplistic and damning of many fine people who do not share your point of view.)

No matter how well-reasoned any arguments I'd offer for a conservative point of view, you'd dismiss them. Why? Because, truthfully, people don't WANT to really understand the other point of view. Instead, they prefer the warmth and platitudes of their own set. I daresay, I'm no different. It's human nature.

I listen to the few liberal radio talk commentators there are (I like to hear what the other side is saying and to see if I can find merit in their arguments). While I may agree with the commentators' end goals, seldom do I agree with the apparatuses they endorse to achieve them. Which is why I am a fiscal conservative. My own study of economics, history and human nature doesn't sway me toward their arguments. Apparently, it does you. That's your reasoned right.

While I do not endorse Ann Coulter since I find her commentary and remarks inflammatory and seldom conducive to either good political discourse or helpful in attempting resolutions to the problems we face in this country, I find it irritating that Democrats are so willing to cite her and some others as examples of typical Republican hate-mongering while ignoring their own "Ann Coulters." I might well reference liberal talk show personality, Randi Rhodes, as just one example of one who has been known to shoot a few poison-tipped arrows from her liberal bow. The Republicans don't have sole possession of hatred. Only the naive would think so.

What makes any of us embrace the political philosophies we hold? Is it genetic? Environmental? Familial? Cultural? Our favorite poly sci professor when we were idealists in college? The social milieu in which we exist? I don't know. I do know that it is hard for all individuals to break out and actually hear or desire to give credence to the philosophies or ideas of an opposing point of view.

Which is my long-winded way of expressing that no matter what I'd say, you would still snipe at all conservatives as you did in your post. And feel pretty good about it. It's easy to do so on a largely liberal board. Takes a lot of bravery when there are only, perhaps, 3 or 4 Republicans on this board, and few will take issue with your comments about "hateful" Republicans" or your lack of memory about some of the hateful antics exercised by your own party during the last administration.

***

This is seriously my last political post on this board. May my computer keyboard blow up in front me if I attempt another! (said with good humor)

There are places I can discuss such things. It is not what brings me here. I sincerely appreciate your letting me have my say, even if you don't like the content of my post.



User avatar
Kate
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:14 pm

Postby Kate » Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:28 pm

Name: Kate
Source: unca20091009.htm
Steve Barber: I apologize to you -- I did indeed miss your post where you'd said you had mistakenly referred to me. My bad. Frankly, about 30 minutes after I'd posted my remarks I'd regretted them as I really prefer not to discuss politics on bulletin boards for the reasons cited by Tony: too much of the "atta boy" for our side (depending on your side) or the heaping of coals on the dissenter's head.

Anyway, you are a gentleman, and I'm sorry that my snarky post came your way. (sheepish and apologetic smile being offered)

***

Rob: I could give you very legitimate reasons why I am a conservative and why I don't support your point of view. (But to respond in kind to your implication -- I guess we are all terrible people who got ours and the hell with everyone else. How simplistic and damning of many fine people who do not share your point of view.)

No matter how well-reasoned any arguments I'd offer for a conservative point of view, you'd dismiss them. Why? Because, truthfully, people don't WANT to really understand the other point of view. Instead, they prefer the warmth and platitudes of their own set. I daresay, I'm no different. It's human nature.

I listen to the few liberal radio talk commentators there are (I like to hear what the other side is saying and to see if I can find merit in their arguments). While I may agree with the commentators' end goals, seldom do I agree with the apparatuses they endorse to achieve them. Which is why I am a fiscal conservative. My own study of economics, history and human nature doesn't sway me toward their arguments. Apparently, it does you. That's your reasoned right.

While I do not endorse Ann Coulter since I find her commentary and remarks inflammatory and seldom conducive to either good political discourse or helpful in attempting resolutions to the problems we face in this country, I find it irritating that Democrats are so willing to cite her and some others as examples of typical Republican hate-mongering while ignoring their own "Ann Coulters." I might well reference liberal talk show personality, Randi Rhodes, as just one example of one who has been known to shoot a few poison-tipped arrows from her liberal bow. The Republicans don't have sole possession of hatred. Only the naive would think so.

What makes any of us embrace the political philosophies we hold? Is it genetic? Environmental? Familial? Cultural? Our favorite poly sci professor when we were idealists in college? The social milieu in which we exist? I don't know. I do know that it is hard for all individuals to break out and actually hear or desire to give credence to the philosophies or ideas of an opposing point of view.

Which is my long-winded way of expressing that no matter what I'd say, you would still snipe at all conservatives as you did in your post. And feel pretty good about it. It's easy to do so on a largely liberal board. Takes a lot of bravery when there are only, perhaps, 3 or 4 Republicans on this board, and few will take issue with your comments about "hateful" Republicans" or your lack of memory about some of the hateful antics exercised by your own party during the last administration.

***

This is seriously my last political post on this board. May my computer keyboard blow up in front me if I attempt another! (said with good humor)

There are places I can discuss such things. It is not what brings me here. I sincerely appreciate your letting me have my say, even if you don't like the content of my post.



User avatar
Harlan Ellison
Harlan Fucking Ellison
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 10:24 am

STRENUOUSLY SEEKING TIM HARDIN

Postby Harlan Ellison » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:22 pm

Name: HARLAN ELLISON
Source: unca20091007.htm
Anyone out there know, or know where I can locate, an artist from Atlanta, Georgia ...

TIM HARDIN?

Current address, phone number, e.mail contact, anything!

TIM HARDIN.

He may not be in Atlanta any longer, I have no idea if he was/is a full-time artist or doing something else in the main, to earn a living, and painting as a part-time thing ...

TIM HARDIN.

Your help is appreciated.

Harlan

User avatar
Harlan Ellison
Harlan Fucking Ellison
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 10:24 am

STRENUOUSLY SEEKING TIM HARDIN

Postby Harlan Ellison » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:22 pm

Name: HARLAN ELLISON
Source: unca20091009.htm
Anyone out there know, or know where I can locate, an artist from Atlanta, Georgia ...

TIM HARDIN?

Current address, phone number, e.mail contact, anything!

TIM HARDIN.

He may not be in Atlanta any longer, I have no idea if he was/is a full-time artist or doing something else in the main, to earn a living, and painting as a part-time thing ...

TIM HARDIN.

Your help is appreciated.

Harlan

User avatar
Harlan Ellison
Harlan Fucking Ellison
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 10:24 am

HARLAN TO KATE IN YORK, PA.

Postby Harlan Ellison » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 pm

Name: HARLAN ELLISON
Source: unca20091007.htm
Hi.

You'll no doubt perceive, reading at this site, that though I am clearly not a water-carrier for ANY team political, that I am now, and have always been, the sort of Creature of Chaos that NO ONE wishes on his/her side, even if I subscribe to an ode from one side or the other. With friends such as I ... as the old saw cuts ...

I hope you will find it acceptable that I toss in a firm belief I've held all my life, that only the scurrilous would reject:

And it is this: trying to justify the evilspeakers on one's side by saying the OTHER side also has poltroons, simply defeats the point of all discussion, sobersided or silly or stiflingly odious. Here is the adage I live by:

"Life is not a comparison of Chambers of Horror."

The slaughter at Babi Yar does in no way mitigate the monstrous genocide in which Immigrants to America from Everywhere decimated the Native American Peoples who were here first.

The despicable brutality Union troops visited on prisoners of war from the Army of the Confederacy at Andersonville does not need to be compared with the tortures of the Hanoi Hilton. What eradication of Hutus by Tutsies in Africa, no matter how loathesome and ongoing, cannot be softened by the proportionately greater murder of the Chinese peoples at the hands of the pre-war Japanese.

Excusing your kid from dropping concrete slabs off an overpass onto unwary motorists because some other kid slung twice as many from the same site, is a despicable aversion to the truth and responsibility.

"Life is NOT a comparison of Chambers of Horrors."

The talk-show host you note as being as monumentally evil as Rowe and Limburgher and O'Reilly and Malkin and Coulter and--well, I could go on and on--may be indeed as wretched a source of racism, evil and fearmongering. I have never heard said commentator. But she may be as acid-barbed as you suggest.

Misses the point.

Misses it in a manner that belies your otherwise reasoned replies here. She (is it a she?) may burn in Hell alongside the Fox News vilenesses, but O'Reilly is O'Reilly, and Coulter is Coulter, and Anita Bryant was and is Anita Bryant ...

And you do not sweeten the rotting gardenia scent of their poisonous gardens by turning the excuse back on the other crops raised by alternate gardners.

"Life is NOT a comparison of Chambers of Horror." Dachau was no less bestial because of Hiroshima.

And anyone trying to fend off responsibilty for inhuman behavior by offering up OTHER inhuman behavior, and trying to weight them against each other, is either a naif, or wracked with unspoken guilt.

That is my sole contribution to this ongoing dialogue which, in my view, is a profitable one. Oh, and by the way, yes, I would still happily serve hard time for the execution of some of my most violent fantasies. But as the right-wing apparently has spent far more time practicing on the gun range than has the left, I fear these whimsies shall never come to pass.

Saddened by the HUman Race, as an Outsider I remain,

Yr. Pal, Sisyphus Ellison


Return to “The Art Deco Dining Pavilion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests