Films/DVD Asylum

Astonishing is people getting their facts from anonymous buletin boards!

66.28.237.222

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

(A)

In Reply to: A Testament to the Power of Film posted by clarkjohnsen on August 21, 2002 at 14:30:26:

I also chastized clarkjohnsen a bit over this in the thread below, but it was over his impressions of the movie and not of the subject matter.
But I think the difficulty stems from clarkjohnsen attempting to defend science and revisionism (done right), while the movie's focus is on one man's life story. So you're talking about X while he's talking about Y, and both side are trying to make it a discussion about Z.
Clarkjohnsen makes a good point - people shouldn't watch a documentary and then think that it's everything you need to know about the subject matter. To rehash my post below, that's a little bit of what I think the movie demonstrates about human nature.
On the other hand, should I chastize someone for talking about the state of the economy just because they don't have a PhD in economics?

Follow Ups:

"Clarkjohnsen makes a good point ." - clarkjohnsen 11:53:07 08/22/02 (14)
"People shouldn't watch a documentary and then think that it's everything you need to know about the subject matter." Yes! Thanks for getting it!
It's my *imputed* views that caused the concern. On close reading you'll not actually find my views.
clark
- RE: Sheer Stupidity..... - Mrs. Piggy 12:31:58 08/22/02 (13)
  Well IF that's all your trying to say, that would come under the DUH, factor.
  I provided MY opinion of a documentary I admired and I RECIEVED a solid load of your utter crap.
  Wait, are you the same poster who expects everyone to believe in subliminal messages on Rumors, just because you say it's true. To just rely on second hand sources.
  - "Wait, are you the same poster who..." - clarkjohnsen 13:45:55 08/23/02 (12)
    "...expects everyone to believe in subliminal messages on Rumors, just because you say it's true."
    No I am not.
    I am, however, the poster who can *demonstrate* that a REAL (not "subliminal", you're putting words in people's mouths again) INVOCATION is present. It ain't what I "say", it's what they sing!
    clark
    - oh yea, that sounds MUCH less silly. - The Killer Piglet 14:30:28 08/23/02 (11)
      Of course, you can't say when/where this (ahem...) "invocation" takes place. It's not even "said", it's some kind of musical combination that beckons Stan or somebody. Yea, much less silly..
      
      KP
      - "It's not even 'said', it's some kind of..." - clarkjohnsen 09:43:07 08/24/02 (10)
        
        In Reply to: oh yea, that sounds MUCH less silly. posted by the killer piglet on August 23, 2002 at 14:30:28:
        
        ...well, whatever. Again you persist in being obtuse. It is *said* so clearly, you'd think it was unmissable. Except I had missed it, because the *music* distracts you from the real proceedings.
        It amuses me to think how you people won't listen for yourselves. Although come to think, isn't that why audio reviews are so popular?
        clarkl
        
        Dammit, Clark!!!!!! - darkmoebius 12:20:22 09/04/02 (0)
        
        In Reply to: "It's not even 'said', it's some kind of..." posted by clarkjohnsen on August 24, 2002 at 09:43:07:
        
        Won't you please point out the specific passage on Rumors? I really don't want to waste the time listening to that hole forsaken album(actually liked it at the time) just so I can I an say "Ahhhhh".
        Lord knows, I may not find it on the first pass and have to go through multiple listenings. Eleven songs and 41 minutes. That is not likely to happen.
        So Clarke, throw us a bone?
        
        Well if the music "distracts you"..... - Mrs. Piggy 13:12:17 08/24/02 (8)
        
        In Reply to: "It's not even 'said', it's some kind of..." posted by clarkjohnsen on August 24, 2002 at 09:43:07:
        
        wouldn't that mean the message is HIDDEN in the music, hence subliminal.
        mp
        
        "HIDDEN in the music, hence subliminal." - clarkjohnsen 08:36:36 08/26/02 (7)
        
        In Reply to: Well if the music "distracts you"..... posted by Mrs. Piggy on August 24, 2002 at 13:12:17:
        
        No! Subliminal means beneath the threshold of conscious perception. The words here are hidden only in the sense that the music *distracts* you from paying close attention. As said, they are spoken quite clearly. Very clever satanists!
        clark
        
        No exactly; subliminal means below the threshold of consciousness OR apprehension. - Audiophilander 13:02:36 08/26/02 (6)
        
        In Reply to: "HIDDEN in the music, hence subliminal." posted by clarkjohnsen on August 26, 2002 at 08:36:36:
        
        If you want to be accurate, the operative word in the context of this exchange is probably apprehension. When something is below one's apprehension it doesn't necessarily mean that it's beneath the "threshold of conscious perception" as you phrased it. To the contrary, it might just be below that individual's audible perception or understanding. In other words, the mere presence of something perceived as HIDDEN (i.e., ear of the beholder) based upon the differences between extraneous and intrinsic sounds, words, or whatever may be sufficient reason to describe it as subliminal.
        Glad to clear that up for you, Clark! ;^)
        AuPh
        
        OK, as in a live opera... - clarkjohnsen 08:32:42 08/27/02 (5)
        
        In Reply to: No exactly; subliminal means below the threshold of consciousness OR apprehension. posted by Audiophilander on August 26, 2002 at 13:02:36:
        
        ...(if you've ever heard one), especially given in English, the words may not be clear, and be covered somewhat by the orchestra, but *if you know them* they are perfectly clear.
        clark
        
        Let me put this another way... - Audiophilander 14:45:42 08/28/02 (4)
        
        In Reply to: OK, as in a live opera... posted by clarkjohnsen on August 27, 2002 at 08:32:42:
        
        ... (more simply) so that it might be clearer for you:
        If the lyrics you *know* are the same ones written by the music's authors and recorded exactly as published, then the music, whether heard clearly or not, doesn't have subliminal content. OTOH, if the lyric content in a live or recorded performance varies from the published lines leaving it's message somewhat veiled except to those listening for it, then the music may accurately be described as having subliminal content.
        AuPh
        
        I NEVER USED THE WORD "SUBLIMINAL". THAT WAS *YOU*! nt - clarkjohnsen 08:43:26 08/29/02 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Let me put this another way... posted by Audiophilander on August 28, 2002 at 14:45:42:
        
        n
        
        Thank you for that Monty Python Moment -t - The Killer Piglet 17:47:59 08/30/02 (0)
        
        In Reply to: I NEVER USED THE WORD "SUBLIMINAL". THAT WAS *YOU*! nt posted by clarkjohnsen on August 29, 2002 at 08:43:26:
        
        KP
        
        I'm beginning to think you are just playing with us, no one is that thick!-nt - Mrs. Piggy 15:04:05 08/29/02 (1)
        
        In Reply to: I NEVER USED THE WORD "SUBLIMINAL". THAT WAS *YOU*! nt posted by clarkjohnsen on August 29, 2002 at 08:43:26:
        
        .
        
        Mrs. Piggy, I think Clark lost it when he resorted to CAPITAL punishment, ... - Audiophilander 06:04:31 08/30/02 (0)
        
        In Reply to: I'm beginning to think you are just playing with us, no one is that thick!-nt posted by Mrs. Piggy on August 29, 2002 at 15:04:05:
        
        ... but at least Dr. Errol Morris would be impressed! ;^)
        AuPh :o)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

You can not post to an archived thread.