Messages

c) No, it hasn't been fair saying that you can't understand because you haven't suffered. The sense was more that you can't understand that long term, internal way of terrorism that we suffered. In that case, people in Ireland, Spain or Palestine could better know what I am talking about.

Though my country hasn't suffered internal terrorism, that still doesn't mean I don't understand. My country has suffered from a great many other internal struggles. But I don't assume you don't understand things that my country has faced.

Fuzz: Hehehe. Perhaps Moore could do "Osama and Me" as his next film. (EDIT: What am I saying? That's what F911 is!)

I tend to prefer any kind of animal form than a human being whose hate against a country is so intense for hijacking a plane and direct it to a building.

But you just made a comparison between hornets and terrorists. Now you prefer them to terrorists?

When I told that there is no way to understand the real causes of their hate is because no one we know could be able to do something remetely similar in cruelty and madness.

I could name a few examples of other groups. E.g. the KKK.

You can't really undestand it because you haven't suffered a terrorist threat as we as Spanish did. The original foundation clauses of ETA demanded something like "the finish of the dictadure and a sufficient level of autonomy for the Basque Country". Now, Franco is dead and the basques have the highest autonomy level of a region in Europe, but they go on killing... That's why I say "Don't try to undestand them, because all their "reasons" are a bunch of excuses. Terrorism is their job...

While I understand and sympathise with your pain, I don't think it's fair to say I don't understand terrorism because our country hasn't suffered a internal terrorist attack. Nevertheless, many Australians died in the Bali bombing, so we have felt the effect of terrorism. However, I can still view terrorism with some rationalism, despite how wrong I think it is. And to say I don't understand seems a little unfair in this instance. That's why I feel some disappointment with your presumption.

As for your opinion on discarding reason, I feel that if you don't try to understand something it leads to ignorance and irrational behaviour. That is why I try to view terrorism with a rational outlook.

Also, if terrorism is their job, does that mean there are classified ads for terrorist employment in Middle Eastern newspapers? Do they have their own union? What kind of rates do they pay? Do they get paternity leave?

I don't have any problems at all with propaganda, half-truths and manipulation.

In that case, I must have misread what you wrote in the past.

My own reply... no, because the terrorists are mad, and they need no excuses to hurt. Trying to understand their causes it the first step to show "sympathies" for them.

Would you ask if it's been fair if a hornet bites you? No... it's nature is to bite.

Comparing hornets to humans is a little silly. But I'm not going to debate it further because that'd be taking this argument into the realms of animal sciene instead of politics. And I think this discussion is intense enough.

However, I don't think terrorists are killing without reason. Trying to understand their causes isn't "showing sympathy". It's being logical instead of jumping to wild theories that have no basis in fact.

Gotta love a triple-standard! 

It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride. But, it also might be misused and lead to rivalaries. So, like any other thing, it has two sides.

Barcik, earlier you criticised Moore for "giving half-truths" and "manipulating stastics". Yet, propaganda does the same thing. How can you accept one and not the other?

I follow Andail's line of thinking here. You also said earlier that you'd seek your own truth. But accepting propaganda on national pride without any criticial judgement limits one's truth (no offense intended). You can criticise Moore, fine. But you doesn't seem at all critical of textbook propaganda.

I gather you don't know what "metaphorical" means, jon.

Anytime.

And Junc is right. Rude as it may seem to shbaz, it's true that American textbooks contain propaganda. In fact, most countries have high school textbooks that contain propaganda.

I know Australia definately does.

I like what wtf wrote for his email. Especially that he put .com at the end of it, like it was absolutely necessary,

Another recent article from Ebert:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html

I mentioned Phil Collins ... Wink

And for that, I commend you DM. Of course, Phil Collins' solo stuff was much poppier than the first three quarters of Genesis' material.

I mentioned Peter Gabriel. Nuff said.

Oh, and DG, I didn't research for that post at all. My points in it were based on generalizations, and because I am such a genius, they were correct. Smile.

Basing a point on broad, sweeping generalisations and calling it correct! Well, holy crap! I think I just heard the entire universe bending due to the sheer implausibility of what you just said! I'm fact, I fed your post into the Batcomputer and the damn thingÃ,  started shooting sparks before it exploded! You owe Batman a new Athlon!

I guess what I'm trying to say is no matter how many generalisations you make, nor how much of a genius you think you are, no one here is going to take even the slightest thing you say seriously if you keep it up. I mean, you condemn Moore for using biased statistics, but you're just making shit up now without any basis.

Hugs and kisses,
DG

P.S. PWND, sucker!

It is now, isn't it.

I always thought being an elitist would contradict posting acceptable certainties. Also, what if your opinion is either elitist music or even certainties?

In any case, I don't have a top ten. Just a few songs I like:

Let Down, Nice Dream - Radiohead
How Do You Sleep?, She Bangs A Drum, Going Down - Stone Roses
Finest Worksong - REM
A Town Called Malice - The Jam
Like A Rolling Stone, Mr Tamborine Man - Bob Dylan
Dream Machine - Mark Farina
Scattered Black and Whites - Elbow
What's Going On? - Marvin Gaye
Here Comes The Flood - Peter Gabriel
Only God Can Judge Me - Tupac
Stereo - Watchmen

And a heap more than I can't remember. These are just off the top of my head.

Stop bickering, children.

Oh yeah, definate deja vu!

At the risk of violating said rules myself, please leave moderating to the moderators.

I did'nt mean to pretend to be an moderater i was just curious

Why do I get a sense of deja vu?

If I had to explain it, it wouldn't be satire anymore.

In any case, I'll post something else:



WATCH OUT FOR THAT TREE!!!

except he is doing a very poor job of that

If he's doing a poor job, then why are most Republican groups shitting their pants?

but he is the best candidate and he is a strong leader who stands by his words and is not afraid to take action.

but only if Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz say so.

You may aruge, "Oh, but Steve! He won an award in France for the film!" The only thing that brings the French together is Anti-American sentiments, so of course they would give Moore an award that bashes America

My Bullshit Detector is going through the roof now. Roger Ebert said this in one of his Move Answer Man articles:

"Don't make the mistake of thinking the "French" honored "Fahrenheit 9/11." The jury did, and only one of its nine members was French. There were four American members, and the others were from Finland, Hong Kong, Belgium and the United Kingdom."

See the article here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert13.html

Ebert also said this: "I attended the jury's press conference, heard all nine jurors praise the award, and got the unmistakable impression that Tarantino personally would have been equally content if the Korean revenge epic "Old Boy" had won."

See here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert30.html

In conclusion, your research sucks balls.

OMG POLITICAL SATIRE1!!1!

I don't think it's as much the stupidity that's funny. More so, it's how his stupidity is being challenged. That's how I see it, and here's why:

There's a author on comedy and creativity called John Vorhaus. He wrote that most comedy is two things: truth and pain.

For example, when Charlie Chaplin kicks someone in the arse, it is painful, yet the truth is we all subconsciously think: "I'm glad Chaplin didn't kick me."

Which leads me to another aspect of comedy I learnt from my drama teacher: It's funny when it happens to someone else, but a tradegy when it happens to yourself. (And I think this can be applied to Farlander's example of Homer's "Insert Brain here" dilemma)

Situation is also important. For example, Chaplin could be working in a restaurant under brutal dictator-ish restaurant manager who has been ordering Chaplin around. Chaplin gives him a kick in the bum. Why do people laugh? Because sometimes our bosses give us a hard time (pain) but we hope to one day get the btter over them (truth). But Chaplin fulfills this, which helps us identfy with him.

This also shows that identification with the main character is important to comedy.

Homer is an example of a classic comedy character. Take, for example, this famous exchange:

Homer: Hello. My name is Mr Burns. I believe you have a letter for me.
Postal worker: Okay, Mr Burns. What's your first name?
Homer: (thinks) I don't know.

The truth: Sometimes we all get caught in desperate situations.
The pain: When we get caught in a desperate situation, sometimes our solutions might not work.

Homer's humour does not come straight from his stupidity, but rather the fact that he's put in situations that challenge his stupidity. It's those situations that challenge his stupidity that bring out the such truth and pain. On certain levels, we can identify with Homer's troubles. However, if we were actually put in such a situation, it wouldn't be funny to us while in the moment. We'd feel desperate to get that letter or else we'd lose our job.

(On a related note, I haven't liked the latest seasons of the Simpsons, mainly because I don't identify with Homer as much anymore. Perhaps it's more so because the writers are doing episodes where they just make Homer do stupid stuff without any challenge to his stupidity.)

But likewise for Futurama, I can identify with Fry because his personality is challenged by his surroundings constantly.

On a completely different note, I find it sad that I identify with cartoon characters.


A side note about the above: Comedy isn't always truth and pain, but these aspects do certainly maketh the bulk of comedy. There's other aspects such a satire and absurdity, which requires a whole different discussion. But remember, these aren't laws or anything. Break them if you feel like it. You won't go to directly jail and not collect $200. But on that note, The Simpsons also includes such things as satire and absurdity, as well as the whole truth/pain theory. That's what made it a great show.

"The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a great bumper sticker!