In Reply to: Re: Well said mate, but try not to be too hard on ol' Victor, ... posted by Sattler in Melbourne on May 6, 2002 at 23:31:16:
Hey, Sattler, I guess you missed most of the jest. My problem here is perhaps that I see most of the gang as old buddies, and we all know each other, so many discussions are the continuations of the previous ones. I agree that might not be the most fair to someone new. So when I address AuPh, for instance, I don't his for his name, I simply smack him on the back real hard. He does the same to me. So don't hold it back.So I am not sure what generalization you mean, as we were only discussing the M, and if you are curious - remember, you can always do a search on "M" and get many reactions that were posted here before... including my basically almost overboard ones. I think I must have praised it like ten times before.
But seriously, if we had discusisons of Bergman, Fellini, Bunuel, Fassbinder, Tarkovsky, Herzog, Kubrick, Visconti, Wenders, Goddard, and many others who AuPh consider "obscure" (here we go!) with anything approaching the frequency of M I would feel somewhat better - wouldn't you?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Well said mate, but try not to be too hard on ol' Victor, ... - Victor Khomenko 05:08:27 05/07/02 (3)
- Re: Well said mate, but try not to be too hard on ol' Victor, ... - Sattler in Melbourne 07:52:21 05/07/02 (2)
- The obscure charm of obscurity - Victor Khomenko 08:04:49 05/07/02 (1)
- Used "M" on Amazon for ten bucks. - Victor Khomenko 08:08:42 05/07/02 (0)