"Sgt. Pepper"...the bomb of all bombs?

[poisoned rose]

Recently saw the 1978 film again, for the first time since it was
new.

It has a reputation as one of the all-time movie disasters, but
I'm a big film buff and I've certainly seen many worse ones.
Though it is a stinker, oh yes indeed.

My rhetorical question: Could this film have been salvaged, at
some point of its conception? The script wasn't all that bad
(after all, we're talking about a *musical*), and it was even
somewhat clever in the way it incorporated so many pre-existing
songs into the story (strange how it concentrated so fiercely on
the Pepper and Abbey Road albums, though -- it's easy to imagine
writing plot developments to match selected songs from Revolver,
Magical Mystery Tour and the white album without switching the
focus from the "mature" Beatles catalog).

In any case, it seems to me like the film was OK at the
drawing-board stage, but ruined during production.

A few prominent problems, as I see them:

1) Shooting for all the chips. Aiming to be a huge mainstream hit
rather than a cult film for music junkies.

2) Too many wheezy geezers croaking Beatles songs ruined the
soundtrack and gave the film a distinctly unhip, "grandpa" flavor.
George Burns, Frankie Howerd, Donald Pleasance, Carol
Channing...eeek. Not to mention the instrumental appearances of
the "first generation" Pepper band.

3) A related grievance: Too many actors speak-singing the songs.
Who would want to buy a soundtrack of this stuff? The elder
performers were the prime violators, but you could also cite Steve
Martin and Alice Cooper. And it seems like Cooper should have
known better, though I guess he was nearing the peak of his
alcohol/drug crisis at the time.

4) A related, related grievance: Songs sung by *robots*. Enough
said.

5) The Bee Gees' godawful overacting. OK, they were working in
essentially a "silent film" context (I don't believe anyone other
than George Burns actually had a speaking part?), but their
exaggerated facial expressions ("Oooh, look at those hot girls!
Hubba hubba!" "Oh no, I'm so hungover that I may THROW UP!" etc.)
were just *excruciating*.

6) Frampton + white overalls = fey embarrassment. Hard not to wish
Bungalow Bill would charge in with his elephant gun.

7) The final "choral singalong" with all the walk-on guest stars
(like Channing). Horrible, horrible idea. Horribly corny
then...horribly dates the film now. Leif Garrett, for heaven's
sake! I guess he couldn't land the "Billy Shears" part, and was
offered this as a consolation prize. Or Sha Na Na? Oof.

8) Aerosmith are the big baddies in the film, and yet their
supposedly "loathesome" appearance is actually the best musical
reason to watch the film. Why would anyone root for Frampton and
the Gibbs over these guys? Really, it was hard to stomach any of
the other musical performances, except perhaps those of Earth,
Wind & Fire and Sandy Farina.

So...how could this film have been realistically improved, without
scrapping it and starting from scratch? Clearly, casting was badly
botched. Frampton and the Bee Gees were a natural choice as far as
what was popular at the time, but even a batch of unknown
Beatle-esque musicians would have yielded more credible results.
And that's without even considering all the non-singers in the
other roles.

One easy change which would have made the film miles, miles
better: Ken Russell as director. Does anyone know if he was
offered this film? It's so obviously influenced by earlier Russell
films like Tommy, Lisztomania and The Boyfriend (it even features
Russell regular Paul Nicholas as "Dougie"), yet the producers
instead picked Michael Schultz, whose most relevant qualification
was directing a piece o' crap like Car Wash.

Thoughts?

[Chek]

Post by poisoned rose
Recently saw the 1978 film again, for the first time since
it was
new.
snip<
Thoughts?

Not yet.
It's one I've been on the look-out for for years - mainly to
see if it
really is as bad as is reported.
From your synopsis, it appears it might well be, but with
some redeeming moments?

[poisoned rose]

Post by Chek
Not yet.
It's one I've been on the look-out for for years - mainly to
see if it
really is as bad as is reported.

Well, you can grab the DVD from Amazon for the princely fee of
$7.99.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009APB6

And I guess the VHS version is out of print, but you can get that
secondhand for just $2.99:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6300181375

My own recent viewing was through a cable movie channel...IFC, I
think.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Chek
Not yet.
It's one I've been on the look-out for for years - mainly to
see if it
really is as bad as is reported.

My own recent viewing was through a cable movie channel...IFC, I
think.

========

The only thing worth seeing is the finale chorus with 15 minute famers
like Monty Rock III

[poisoned rose]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
The only thing worth seeing is the finale chorus with 15 minute famers
like Monty Rock III

I was surprised to see "Dame Edna" in there. Didn't realize she/he
went back that far.

[Saucy Jack]

Thanks a lot, PR.

I've had the Devil's own time trying to erase this unmitigated piece of
shit from my memory, and here you come with your rehash.

I no read your posts no more... ;-)

[Lookingglass]

Post by Saucy Jack
Thanks a lot, PR.
I've had the Devil's own time trying to erase this unmitigated piece of
shit from my memory, and here you come with your rehash.
I no read your posts no more... ;-)

...I'm with you on this one Saucy... this film has NO redeeming qualities...
NONE... NADA... ZIP. I call it downright BLASPHEMOUS... imvho.


dave (... would you stand up and walk out on me?...) yes
www.Shemakhan.com

[Tony]

I saw the following on a website. Is it true?


"Paul McCartney and George Harrison make a brief uncredited cameo
appearance at the end of the movie during the group finale of the main
song (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band)".

[w***@yahoo.com]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by a***@yahoo.com
The only thing worth seeing is the finale chorus with 15 minute famers
like Monty Rock III

I was surprised to see "Dame Edna" in there. Didn't realize she/he
went back that far.

One problem you didn't mention was the awful script. Right off the bat,
I think naming a character "Strawberry Fields" courted silliness. Then
there was that ending (which I wouldn't wanna spoil!) where Bill
Preston appears. It was bad silly, not good silly -- like "A Hard
Day's Night."

I don't know how this film could have been salvaged. Start w/ a better
script and get four people who could act for starters. And I'm a Bee
Gee's fan!

[poisoned rose]

Post by w***@yahoo.com
One problem you didn't mention was the awful script. Right off the bat,
I think naming a character "Strawberry Fields" courted silliness.

Well, again, we're talking about a *musical*. Corny touches like
this are standard. I'm no expert on "Golden Age of Hollywood"
musicals (not a big interest of mine...my film tastes are more
typically pre-'40s and post-'50s), but I bet you could compile
quite a list of ludicrous character names from movie musicals.

Post by w***@yahoo.com
Then
there was that ending (which I wouldn't wanna spoil!) where Bill
Preston appears.

Appropriate that you said this, because after I submitted my
initial post to the thread, I thought later that I should have
added a criticism about the deux ex machina ending.

The ending might have been better if the critical redemptive event
was instead the retrieval of the blessed four "instruments," since
that was the prime issue throughout the story. And then the
changes provoked by that retrieval could be illustrated via a
time-lapse montage (or perhaps a "Six months later..."-type jump
cut), rather than by Preston's instantaneous abracadabra.

Still, the point of my initial post was that the script wasn't so
terrible (by cornball-musical standards, anyway), but that the
*performances* were the crucial blow.

Post by w***@yahoo.com
Here's another one for you: McCartney and Harrison were both in the
chorus at the end, uncredited.

Jeez...really? I guess I'll have to hope for another showing, and
watch the closing minutes again.

[poisoned rose]

Oh, one footnote: In the mid/late '90s, there was a retro
power-pop label around, called Big Deal. They put out a solid
number of discs within a short period of time, including albums by
Shonen Knife, the Wondermints, Nick Heyward and Baby Lemonade.

At the time I was following that label's doing, I had no
recollection that "Big Deal" was also the name of the fictional
label who signs Frampton/Bee Gees' band in the "Sgt. Pepper" film.
Can't be coincidence.

<post websurf> Hm. I guess the label is still around, but in a
greatly changed form: http://www.bigdealrecords.com Seems like
more of a tiny distribution arm now, with no real identity.

[Gibson Vendettuoli]

Here's another one for you: McCartney and Harrison were both in the
chorus at the end, uncredited. Check the close-up of Carol Channing and
Paul's ten feet away, at most.

[Tamara]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:58:59 -0500, poisoned rose wrote
(in article <prose76214-***@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>):




The script wasn't all that bad

Post by poisoned rose
(after all, we're talking about a *musical*), and it was even
somewhat clever in the way it incorporated so many pre-existing
songs into the story (strange how it concentrated so fiercely on
the Pepper and Abbey Road albums, though -- it's easy to imagine
writing plot developments to match selected songs from Revolver,
Magical Mystery Tour and the white album without switching the
focus from the "mature" Beatles catalog).

Script? what script.
Go out and get the Ed Wood collection
you'll be better served.

Tamara

[Mike Holmans]

Post by Tamara
Script? what script.
Go out and get the Ed Wood collection
you'll be better served.

Oh, not everyone can truly appreciate an auteur such as Edward D.
Wood.

Lizz 'Exit, pursued by an octopus' Holmans

[Danny Caccavo]

I have never been able to bring myself to see it. I think I'll keep it
that way...<g>

dc

[DanKaye]

This is the ONE Beatles-related movie that I never had any desire to
see.

Just the idea that the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton and a bunch of
other untalented or lame acts were in it, was enough for me to stay
away from it.

Someone would have to pay me to watch this travesty.

[McFeeley]

Post by DanKaye
This is the ONE Beatles-related movie that I never had any desire to
see.
Just the idea that the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton and a bunch of
other untalented or lame acts were in it, was enough for me to stay
away from it.
Someone would have to pay me to watch this travesty.

I too have successfully escaped its clutches all these years, and I see no
change to that status.

Just another nail in the coffin of those who claim people here are such
Beatle fans they would accept anything. Not true, not even close.

[Chek]

Post by McFeeley

Post by DanKaye
This is the ONE Beatles-related movie that I never had
any desire to
see.
Just the idea that the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton and a
bunch of
other untalented or lame acts were in it, was enough for
me to stay
away from it.
Someone would have to pay me to watch this travesty.

I too have successfully escaped its clutches all these
years, and I see no change to that status.
Just another nail in the coffin of those who claim people
here are such Beatle fans they would accept anything. Not
true, not even close.

Granted, but I still find myself looking out for it
occasionally.
Just so I can say I've seen it you understand.
Although the only place it ever - and that's EVER - comes
up, is RMB.

[McFeeley]

Post by McFeeley

Post by DanKaye
This is the ONE Beatles-related movie that I never had any desire to
see.
Just the idea that the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton and a bunch of
other untalented or lame acts were in it, was enough for me to stay
away from it.
Someone would have to pay me to watch this travesty.

I too have successfully escaped its clutches all these years, and I see
no change to that status.
Just another nail in the coffin of those who claim people here are such
Beatle fans they would accept anything. Not true, not even close.

Granted, but I still find myself looking out for it occasionally.
Just so I can say I've seen it you understand.
Although the only place it ever - and that's EVER - comes up, is RMB.

It has long been acknowledged as one of the worst movies ever made, in film
circles as well as Beatle fandoms.

[poisoned rose]

Post by DanKaye
This is the ONE Beatles-related movie that I never had any desire to
see.

I'm really surprised at all the people here who are barely
familiar with the film (especially, because its age isn't a
problem with this older crowd). I mean, RMBers study each note of
every crummy McCartney/Harrison/Starr cut-out album much more than
I do. And I bet someone could start a decent-sized thread
discussing film flops like, say, "Caveman" or "Give My Regards to
Broad Street"....

[Ehtue]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by DanKaye
This is the ONE Beatles-related movie that I never had any desire to
see.

I'm really surprised at all the people here who are barely
familiar with the film (especially, because its age isn't a
problem with this older crowd). I mean, RMBers study each note of
every crummy McCartney/Harrison/Starr cut-out album much more than
I do. And I bet someone could start a decent-sized thread
discussing film flops like, say, "Caveman" or "Give My Regards to
Broad Street"....

Well, you see, those film flops were made by members of the Beatles, which
is the subject of this newsgroup. Discussion of *covers* of Beatles
material comes up every so often, but it hardly holds a candle, does it?

Surely you can see the difference.

-Ehtue

[poisoned rose]

Post by Ehtue

Post by poisoned rose
I'm really surprised at all the people here who are barely
familiar with the film (especially, because its age isn't a
problem with this older crowd). I mean, RMBers study each note of
every crummy McCartney/Harrison/Starr cut-out album much more than
I do. And I bet someone could start a decent-sized thread
discussing film flops like, say, "Caveman" or "Give My Regards to
Broad Street"....

Well, you see, those film flops were made by members of the Beatles, which
is the subject of this newsgroup. Discussion of *covers* of Beatles
material comes up every so often, but it hardly holds a candle, does it?
Surely you can see the difference.

Threads about Beatles covers may be sporadic, but this doesn't
mean everyone hasn't heard a lot of them. Your above reply
justifies why the film isn't discussed much, rather than why
people haven't even seen the thing. Maybe there just aren't many
film fans here -- I'd probably be horrified at how many blank
looks my mention of Ken Russell drew.

[McFeeley]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Ehtue

Post by poisoned rose
I'm really surprised at all the people here who are barely
familiar with the film (especially, because its age isn't a
problem with this older crowd). I mean, RMBers study each note of
every crummy McCartney/Harrison/Starr cut-out album much more than
I do. And I bet someone could start a decent-sized thread
discussing film flops like, say, "Caveman" or "Give My Regards to
Broad Street"....

Well, you see, those film flops were made by members of the Beatles, which
is the subject of this newsgroup. Discussion of *covers* of Beatles
material comes up every so often, but it hardly holds a candle, does it?
Surely you can see the difference.

Threads about Beatles covers may be sporadic, but this doesn't
mean everyone hasn't heard a lot of them. Your above reply
justifies why the film isn't discussed much, rather than why
people haven't even seen the thing. Maybe there just aren't many
film fans here -- I'd probably be horrified at how many blank
looks my mention of Ken Russell drew.

More elitist twaddle from a nobody.

I specifically stated that most fans do not automatically soak up released
material just because of the name Beatles on it. Obviously you have
comprehension problems in all areas of your reading skills.

[poisoned rose]

Post by McFeeley

Post by poisoned rose
Threads about Beatles covers may be sporadic, but this doesn't
mean everyone hasn't heard a lot of them. Your above reply
justifies why the film isn't discussed much, rather than why
people haven't even seen the thing. Maybe there just aren't many
film fans here -- I'd probably be horrified at how many blank
looks my mention of Ken Russell drew.

More elitist twaddle from a nobody.
I specifically stated that most fans do not automatically soak up released
material just because of the name Beatles on it. Obviously you have
comprehension problems in all areas of your reading skills.

Funny how Usenet's angriest misfit even interprets a reply to
someone else as a "threat" to him.

And *here*? Yeah, I *would* say "most fans automatically soak up
released material just because of the name Beatles on it." Not in
this particular case, but certainly in many, many others. Heck,
look at all the people currently indicating that they follow the
career of *Julian Lennon*.

[McFeeley]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by McFeeley

Post by poisoned rose
Threads about Beatles covers may be sporadic, but this doesn't
mean everyone hasn't heard a lot of them. Your above reply
justifies why the film isn't discussed much, rather than why
people haven't even seen the thing. Maybe there just aren't many
film fans here -- I'd probably be horrified at how many blank
looks my mention of Ken Russell drew.

More elitist twaddle from a nobody.
I specifically stated that most fans do not automatically soak up released
material just because of the name Beatles on it. Obviously you have
comprehension problems in all areas of your reading skills.

Funny how Usenet's angriest misfit even interprets a reply to
someone else as a "threat" to him.

Thanks for the wrong and useless pop psychology. How about just answering
the charge?

You are a snotty third generation fanboy who wasn't even there yet will tell
the original Beatle fans who Ken Russell is, or whether they would have even
liked someone like the Bee Gees and/or Peter Frampton to have even wanted to
go see them defile Pepper?

You DON'T know what you're talking about, but that will never stop you from
bleating your useless opnion all over the place, while putting down any and
everyone else's opinion in your self-important ignorance.

That's pretty much you in a nutshell.

[poisoned rose]

Post by McFeeley
You are a snotty third generation fanboy who wasn't even there yet will tell
the original Beatle fans who Ken Russell is, or whether they would have even
liked someone like the Bee Gees and/or Peter Frampton to have even wanted to
go see them defile Pepper?

Well, I'm a "second generation" Beatles fan, and I'm certainly
"first generation" when it comes to the Pepper film. I actually
saw the thing in the theater, in fact.

"Fanboy"? Oh yes...I'm sure everyone here is eager to complain
about me unconditionally swooning over too many things.

Use your brain, instead of your explosive hubris. I'm begging ya.

Post by McFeeley
You DON'T know what you're talking about, but that will never stop you from
bleating your useless opnion all over the place, while putting down any and
everyone else's opinion in your self-important ignorance.
That's pretty much you in a nutshell.

You're awfully good at emptily proclaiming others' viewpoints
worthless, without contributing a scrap of substantial
counterpoint. Which of my thoughts on the film irked you so, and
was so off-track?

And actually, it's not a case of "putting down everyone else's
opinion" here, but putting down that apparently no one else can
even *offer* an opinion, beyond some flip, one-sentence "it
sucked" swipe.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by McFeeley
You are a snotty third generation fanboy who wasn't even there yet will tell
the original Beatle fans who Ken Russell is, or whether they would have even
liked someone like the Bee Gees and/or Peter Frampton to have even wanted to
go see them defile Pepper?

Well, I'm a "second generation" Beatles fan, and I'm certainly
"first generation" when it comes to the Pepper film. I actually
saw the thing in the theater, in fact.

First of all, Google posts haven't been posted for the past two days,
so this one might show up in a few days.

Bob/Eric/Rose, Please define what a "second generation" Beatles fan is?
I never saw the film in question or any of the Beatlemania shows.

Why settle for imitations

I knew it was crap...why bother?

[poisoned rose]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Please define what a "second generation" Beatles fan is?

Oh, now this couldn't more predictable. A reply from the guy who
has devoted his life to drawing lines in the sand between the
"generations," and then ruling who has the privilege to be his
cultural peer and who is merely one of his dim, "wannabe"
children. With Marcus around, using the word "generation" is like
dropping a half-eaten jelly donut outside an ant hill.

Tell you what...you're the one who insists a "generation" is not
just a loose, theoretical construct, but a walled-off group which
can be rigidly defined down to the month, week and day of one's
birth. Perhaps you should save us the time of an argument, and
just lay down the law of where the divisions lie.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I knew it was crap...why bother?

A nice synopsis of your general closemindedness to contemporary
culture, right there.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Please define what a "second generation" Beatles fan is?

Oh, now this couldn't more predictable. A reply from the guy who
has devoted his life to drawing lines in the sand between the
"generations," and then ruling who has the privilege to be his
cultural peer and who is merely one of his dim, "wannabe"
children. With Marcus around, using the word "generation" is like
dropping a half-eaten jelly donut outside an ant hill.

If you feel inadequate in responding, just say so. I was taken aback
by your admission of belonging to any generation since you have been
reluctant to do so before. However, it seems that now you've let your
guard down a bit, you prefer to make a mountain out of a mole hill in
an attempt to deflect.

Post by poisoned rose
Tell you what...you're the one who insists a "generation" is not
just a loose, theoretical construct, but a walled-off group which
can be rigidly defined down to the month, week and day of one's
birth. Perhaps you should save us the time of an argument, and
just lay down the law of where the divisions lie.

I've always felt that a 2nd generation Beatles fan was the first group
of fans not to have a memory of when The Beatles were together. What's
your defini...oh, I forgot...you don't want to answer that.

Post by poisoned rose

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I knew it was crap...why bother?

A nice synopsis of your general closemindedness to contemporary
culture, right there.

You consider 1978 contemporary?

[poisoned rose]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
Oh, now this couldn't more predictable. A reply from the guy who
has devoted his life to drawing lines in the sand between the
"generations," and then ruling who has the privilege to be his
cultural peer and who is merely one of his dim, "wannabe"
children. With Marcus around, using the word "generation" is like
dropping a half-eaten jelly donut outside an ant hill.

If you feel inadequate in responding, just say so. I was taken aback
by your admission of belonging to any generation since you have been
reluctant to do so before. However, it seems that now you've let your
guard down a bit, you prefer to make a mountain out of a mole hill in
an attempt to deflect.

Making a mountain? I'm still in disbelief that you'd actually want
to haggle over what "second generation" entails.

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
Tell you what...you're the one who insists a "generation" is not
just a loose, theoretical construct, but a walled-off group which
can be rigidly defined down to the month, week and day of one's
birth. Perhaps you should save us the time of an argument, and
just lay down the law of where the divisions lie.

I've always felt that a 2nd generation Beatles fan was the first group
of fans not to have a memory of when The Beatles were together.

Then I'm "second generation." Not that it matters a damn.

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I knew it was crap...why bother?

A nice synopsis of your general closemindedness to contemporary
culture, right there.

You consider 1978 contemporary?

Oh...so you consider yourself open-minded toward *current*
Beatles-descended music/films? Tell me more.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
Oh, now this couldn't more predictable. A reply from the guy who
has devoted his life to drawing lines in the sand between the
"generations," and then ruling who has the privilege to be his
cultural peer and who is merely one of his dim, "wannabe"
children. With Marcus around, using the word "generation" is like
dropping a half-eaten jelly donut outside an ant hill.

If you feel inadequate in responding, just say so. I was taken aback
by your admission of belonging to any generation since you have been
reluctant to do so before. However, it seems that now you've let your
guard down a bit, you prefer to make a mountain out of a mole hill in
an attempt to deflect.

Making a mountain? I'm still in disbelief that you'd actually want
to haggle over what "second generation" entails.

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
Tell you what...you're the one who insists a "generation" is not
just a loose, theoretical construct, but a walled-off group which
can be rigidly defined down to the month, week and day of one's
birth. Perhaps you should save us the time of an argument, and
just lay down the law of where the divisions lie.

I've always felt that a 2nd generation Beatles fan was the first group
of fans not to have a memory of when The Beatles were together.

Then I'm "second generation." Not that it matters a damn.

It doesn't matter...but it explains a lot.

Post by poisoned rose

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I knew it was crap...why bother?

A nice synopsis of your general closemindedness to contemporary
culture, right there.

You consider 1978 contemporary?

Oh...so you consider yourself open-minded toward *current*
Beatles-descended music/films? Tell me more.

[poisoned rose]

The guy who has devoted his life to drawing lines in the sand
between the "generations," and then ruling who has the privilege
to be his cultural peer and who is merely one of his dim, "wannabe"

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
Then I'm "second generation." Not that it matters a damn.

It doesn't matter...but it explains a lot.

Way to re-establish your churlish ageism, in case anyone is
arriving late to your tale.

As if it's "fresh news" that I wasn't old enough to be a Beatles
fan when they were together. When have I ever pretended otherwise,
avoided saying so or not made this more than evident through
multiple posts groaning about your lazy, unearned "first
generation" elitism?

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by poisoned rose
The guy who has devoted his life to drawing lines in the sand
between the "generations," and then ruling who has the privilege
to be his cultural peer and who is merely one of his dim, "wannabe"

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
Then I'm "second generation." Not that it matters a damn.

It doesn't matter...but it explains a lot.

Way to re-establish your churlish ageism, in case anyone is
arriving late to your tale.
As if it's "fresh news" that I wasn't old enough to be a Beatles
fan when they were together. When have I ever pretended otherwise,
avoided saying so or not made this more than evident through
multiple posts groaning about your lazy, unearned "first
generation" elitism?

I thought you might not have been old enough to be a Beatles fan prior
to 1970, but I didn't know until you said so in this thread. I don't
recall you ever mentioning it. Ya see, I don't hang on your every
word, as you do to mine.

Actually, Eric, in your first incarnation as Gondola Bob, you made
these charges of elitism against me all the time, simply because I
mentioned the difference in the depth of experiences between someone
who grew up with The Beatles, experiencing each new album as it came
out, as opposed to someone who grew to appreciate them after the fact.
I never said that each experience wasn't valid. Yet, like flies on a
rib roast(to quote Randy Quaid in the first Vacation movie) as Bob you
leaped upon this as me being an elitist, and like Snots, the
Mississippi Leg Dog in Christmas vacation, you wouldn't let go.

Now, in your current incarnation, you seldom invoke this, but when you
do, you are actually refer to your own rants five and six years ago.
Can't you keep your persona(s) straight?

[poisoned rose]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
As if it's "fresh news" that I wasn't old enough to be a Beatles
fan when they were together. When have I ever pretended otherwise,
avoided saying so or not made this more than evident through
multiple posts groaning about your lazy, unearned "first
generation" elitism?

I thought you might not have been old enough to be a Beatles fan prior
to 1970, but I didn't know until you said so in this thread. I don't
recall you ever mentioning it.

Oh please. You monitor people's "generational" status, above all
else. It noticeably affects the tone of how you respond to a given
person.

And your elitist ageism is hardly anything I have to "invent."
Witness your "That explains a lot" sniff, just today. Witness how
quickly you pounced on a peripheral mention of "generation" amidst
posts of a much different theme. Who are you kidding?

[m***@yahoo.com]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
As if it's "fresh news" that I wasn't old enough to be a Beatles
fan when they were together. When have I ever pretended otherwise,
avoided saying so or not made this more than evident through
multiple posts groaning about your lazy, unearned "first
generation" elitism?

I thought you might not have been old enough to be a Beatles fan prior
to 1970, but I didn't know until you said so in this thread. I don't
recall you ever mentioning it.

Oh please. You monitor people's "generational" status, above all
else. It noticeably affects the tone of how you respond to a given
person.
And your elitist ageism is hardly anything I have to "invent."
Witness your "That explains a lot" sniff, just today. Witness how
quickly you pounced on a peripheral mention of "generation" amidst
posts of a much different theme. Who are you kidding?

Eric, I did not know you were a 2nd generation fan until you said so,
and you said so in reference to someone else saying you were a 3rd
generation fan. Since I had never seen you refer to yourself as a 2nd
generation fan, I commented on it. "Pouncing' is something you do,
Gondola Bob.

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
You consider 1978 contemporary?

Dawg, the Mutant was 2 that year. Now he's 29, and he's still my baby,
so yeah, I consider it contemporary.

Lizz 'measuring out my life in baby spoons' Holmans

[Ehtue]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Ehtue

Post by poisoned rose
I'm really surprised at all the people here who are barely
familiar with the film (especially, because its age isn't a
problem with this older crowd). I mean, RMBers study each note of
every crummy McCartney/Harrison/Starr cut-out album much more than
I do. And I bet someone could start a decent-sized thread
discussing film flops like, say, "Caveman" or "Give My Regards to
Broad Street"....

Well, you see, those film flops were made by members of the Beatles,
which is the subject of this newsgroup. Discussion of *covers* of
Beatles material comes up every so often, but it hardly holds a
candle, does it?
Surely you can see the difference.

Threads about Beatles covers may be sporadic, but this doesn't
mean everyone hasn't heard a lot of them. Your above reply
justifies why the film isn't discussed much, rather than why
people haven't even seen the thing. Maybe there just aren't many
film fans here -- I'd probably be horrified at how many blank
looks my mention of Ken Russell drew.

I don't quite know what you're saying. But I hardly think it's kosher to
take rmb'ers to task for not being totally familiar with a film just
because it has a Beatles connection (of which there are many). I think
we're much more likely to have seen films in which there is an actual
Beatles connection, meaning participation of one or all of the Beatles,
than some group of yahoos singing their songs. It has little, if
anything, to do with how many "film fans" there are.

Can you see a difference between "study[ing] each not of every crummry
McCartney/Harrison/Starr cut-out album" and covers by unrelated people
who want to take advantage of the Beatles legacy?

-Ehtue

[McFeeley]

Post by Ehtue

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Ehtue

Post by poisoned rose
I'm really surprised at all the people here who are barely
familiar with the film (especially, because its age isn't a
problem with this older crowd). I mean, RMBers study each note of
every crummy McCartney/Harrison/Starr cut-out album much more than
I do. And I bet someone could start a decent-sized thread
discussing film flops like, say, "Caveman" or "Give My Regards to
Broad Street"....

Well, you see, those film flops were made by members of the Beatles,
which is the subject of this newsgroup. Discussion of *covers* of
Beatles material comes up every so often, but it hardly holds a
candle, does it?
Surely you can see the difference.

Threads about Beatles covers may be sporadic, but this doesn't
mean everyone hasn't heard a lot of them. Your above reply
justifies why the film isn't discussed much, rather than why
people haven't even seen the thing. Maybe there just aren't many
film fans here -- I'd probably be horrified at how many blank
looks my mention of Ken Russell drew.

I don't quite know what you're saying. But I hardly think it's kosher to
take rmb'ers to task for not being totally familiar with a film just
because it has a Beatles connection (of which there are many). I think
we're much more likely to have seen films in which there is an actual
Beatles connection, meaning participation of one or all of the Beatles,
than some group of yahoos singing their songs. It has little, if
anything, to do with how many "film fans" there are.
Can you see a difference between "study[ing] each not of every crummry
McCartney/Harrison/Starr cut-out album" and covers by unrelated people
who want to take advantage of the Beatles legacy?

Again, smug, self-important pronouncements from someone who was not even
there. Worthless. Utterly.

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by poisoned rose
Threads about Beatles covers may be sporadic, but this doesn't
mean everyone hasn't heard a lot of them. Your above reply
justifies why the film isn't discussed much, rather than why
people haven't even seen the thing. Maybe there just aren't many
film fans here -- I'd probably be horrified at how many blank
looks my mention of Ken Russell drew.

You'd only get a blank look from me if you told me Ken Russell still
had a shred or talent or credibility left. He's still making the
rounds at Soho Square trying to get his latest project (frankly
pornographic--I got nothing against porn, but Ken Russell porn? No,
thanks) 'Women in Love' was pretty good, but he should be shot with
spitwads for most of his later work.

I'm a film fan, but this isn't a film newsgroup, is it?

ObBeatles: Ken Russell cast Ringo Starr as the Pope in 'Lisztomania'.
Roger Daltry played the lead role but nobody won, especially the
viewer.

Lizz 'but I thought 'Caveman' was sweet' Holmans

[poisoned rose]

Post by Lizz Holmans
You'd only get a blank look from me if you told me Ken Russell still
had a shred or talent or credibility left.

Well, that's another issue altogether, but the question was
whether the late-'70s Russell would have made a better "Sgt.
Pepper" film. Based on what he did *prior* to 1978, I'd say
"absolutely." At the very least, there would be some interesting
visuals to replace the existing film's cloying "Rainbow Bright"
decor.

[McFeeley]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Lizz Holmans
You'd only get a blank look from me if you told me Ken Russell still
had a shred or talent or credibility left.

Well, that's another issue altogether, but the question was
whether the late-'70s Russell would have made a better "Sgt.
Pepper" film. Based on what he did *prior* to 1978, I'd say
"absolutely." At the very least, there would be some interesting
visuals to replace the existing film's cloying "Rainbow Bright"
decor.

But of course only YOU would have this high minded opinion, no one else here
in the -entire- group could be trusted to think for themselves, or even know
who Russell is, or whatmakes a good film.

You're a real piece of work. Shite, actually.

[Mike Holmans]

Post by poisoned rose
Well, that's another issue altogether, but the question was
whether the late-'70s Russell would have made a better "Sgt.
Pepper" film. Based on what he did *prior* to 1978, I'd say
"absolutely." At the very least, there would be some interesting
visuals to replace the existing film's cloying "Rainbow Bright"
decor.

And violence, and misogyny, and misogynistic violence, and....and...

And he couldn't even get the continuity right for 'Tommy.' How does
that brown-eyed little boy turn into blue-eyed Roger Daltrey? Little
things like that should *matter* to a director. Russell, who never had
any kind of discipline, couldn't do a rock movie that was absolutely
tailored for him. He wasted wonderful opportunities. I wouldn't have
trusted him with any Beatles material and I'm grateful (for once) that
Apple are such a bunch of old farts.

I did rather like seeing Alan Bates and Oliver Reed naked, though.

Lizz 'I think he and Lawrence were a match made in heaven--which
should tell you what I think of Lawrence, too' Holmans

[Lookingglass]

Post by Mike Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
Well, that's another issue altogether, but the question was
whether the late-'70s Russell would have made a better "Sgt.
Pepper" film. Based on what he did *prior* to 1978, I'd say
"absolutely." At the very least, there would be some interesting
visuals to replace the existing film's cloying "Rainbow Bright"
decor.

And violence, and misogyny, and misogynistic violence, and....and...
And he couldn't even get the continuity right for 'Tommy.' How does
that brown-eyed little boy turn into blue-eyed Roger Daltrey? Little
things like that should *matter* to a director. Russell, who never had
any kind of discipline, couldn't do a rock movie that was absolutely
tailored for him. He wasted wonderful opportunities. I wouldn't have
trusted him with any Beatles material and I'm grateful (for once) that
Apple are such a bunch of old farts.
I did rather like seeing Alan Bates and Oliver Reed naked, though.
Lizz 'I think he and Lawrence were a match made in heaven--which
should tell you what I think of Lawrence, too' Holmans

...but THE DEVILS is a masterpiece...

dave (...they're gonna make a big star out of me...)
www.Shemakhan.com

[saki]

Post by Lookingglass

Post by Mike Holmans
I did rather like seeing Alan Bates and Oliver Reed naked, though.

There are definitely some things for which one is grateful to Ken Russell.

Post by Lookingglass
...but THE DEVILS is a masterpiece...

I think so too but I can never get anyone to watch it with me.

ObBeatles: Ken Russell was apparently set to film a short piece set to
"When I'm 64" but the project fell through.

----
***@ucla.edu
sakionline.net

[Lizz Holmans]

On 9 Jan 2006 18:25:20 GMT, saki <***@ucla.edu> wrote:
I didn't see Lookinglass's post, so I'm piggy-backing

Post by saki

Post by Lookingglass
...but THE DEVILS is a masterpiece...

I think so too but I can never get anyone to watch it with me.

Oh, I'd watch it with you, I have watched it a couple of times. I
enjoyed it, but not very much. It's not on my 'Must Watch' List, which
mainly seems to be composed of 'The Philadelphia Story' right now.

Post by saki
ObBeatles: Ken Russell was apparently set to film a short piece set to
"When I'm 64" but the project fell through.

ObBeatles: Probably the best idea since they dropped Joe Orton's
script.

Lizz 'Not ready for Brokeback Beatles' Holmans

[poisoned rose]

Post by Mike Holmans
And he couldn't even get the continuity right for 'Tommy.' How does
that brown-eyed little boy turn into blue-eyed Roger Daltrey? Little
things like that should *matter* to a director.

If that's really your chief objection to "Tommy," I'd say the film
fared pretty well.

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Mike Holmans
And he couldn't even get the continuity right for 'Tommy.' How does
that brown-eyed little boy turn into blue-eyed Roger Daltrey? Little
things like that should *matter* to a director.

If that's really your chief objection to "Tommy," I'd say the film
fared pretty well.

That's an example of sloppiness, inattention, and just plain
indiscipline. An obvious continuity error is stoopid. It's only one
example; this not being a movie newsgroup, it's not the place to go
into detail.

I rather liked 'Tommy', but I don't think Ken Russell did it any
favors. If you like imaginative art direction, try Terry Gilliam. Just
re-watched 'The Fisher King' two nights ago and thought, damn! This
screen just isn't big enough for this movie. It was so beautiful and
frightening.

Of course, Gilliam has discipline problems, too, but I find his stuff
much more exciting than anything Ken Russell ever did.

ObBeatles: Monty Python were friends of the Beatles.

Lizz 'Brazil nut' Holmans

[poisoned rose]

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Mike Holmans
And he couldn't even get the continuity right for 'Tommy.' How does
that brown-eyed little boy turn into blue-eyed Roger Daltrey? Little
things like that should *matter* to a director.

If that's really your chief objection to "Tommy," I'd say the film
fared pretty well.

That's an example of sloppiness, inattention, and just plain
indiscipline. An obvious continuity error is stoopid.

Basically, you're blasting a filmmaker with an aggressively
hallucinatory style for not adhering to an isolated detail of
consistent realism.

I'm not positive if the scene with the "Church of Marilyn Monroe"
was anachronistic or not (wasn't Tommy a boy during the WWII era,
rather than the mid/late '50s?), but if so, that should concern
you a lot more than a kid with brown eyes. Not that it bothered me.

In his film biography of Franz Liszt (1811-1886), Russell included
*Nazi* imagery. I mean, come on. Do you really believe he (along
with everyone else on the set) didn't notice the kid had different
eye color from Daltrey? Especially when Daltrey is so *known* for
having spectacular blue eyes?

Post by Lizz Holmans
Of course, Gilliam has discipline problems, too

Now that's for sure.

Post by Lizz Holmans
ObBeatles: Monty Python were friends of the Beatles.

Heh.

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by poisoned rose
Basically, you're blasting a filmmaker with an aggressively
hallucinatory style for not adhering to an isolated detail of
consistent realism.

Hallucinatory style is one thing. Sloppiness is another.

Post by poisoned rose
I'm not positive if the scene with the "Church of Marilyn Monroe"
was anachronistic or not (wasn't Tommy a boy during the WWII era,
rather than the mid/late '50s?), but if so, that should concern
you a lot more than a kid with brown eyes. Not that it bothered me.

No, because that was obvious fantasy. Tommy, as lead character, is
supposed to be realer than that. It would be like having Ann-Margret
playing his mother in the first half and Margaret Dumont in the
second, with no explanation.

Post by poisoned rose
In his film biography of Franz Liszt (1811-1886), Russell included
*Nazi* imagery. I mean, come on. Do you really believe he (along
with everyone else on the set) didn't notice the kid had different
eye color from Daltrey? Especially when Daltrey is so *known* for
having spectacular blue eyes?

I don't know. I wasn't on the set. I still think it's an error that
demonstrates sloppiness.

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Lizz Holmans
Of course, Gilliam has discipline problems, too

Now that's for sure.

He also has the world's worst luck. If I believed that God got pissed
at film-makers, I think he was *really* pissed off with Gilliam. But,
God love him, I think he's just too imaginative for investors--a
Wellesian flaw without the egomania.

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Lizz Holmans
ObBeatles: Monty Python were friends of the Beatles.

Heh.

Well, this is a Beatles newsgroup, so an ObBeatles is a Good Idea.

ObBeatles: The Beatles had lots of good ideas.

Lizz 'except they forgot the idea for George to meet me when I was 17
and marry me, but I'm not sure I can really attribute that idea to
him' Holmans

[poisoned rose]

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
Basically, you're blasting a filmmaker with an aggressively
hallucinatory style for not adhering to an isolated detail of
consistent realism.

Hallucinatory style is one thing. Sloppiness is another.

It was one thing for you to complain about this as a lame defiance
of continuity, but I can't believe you're contending that the
brown/blue contradiction was an "oops" mistake.

I suspect if you asked Russell about this, he might even have some
verbose answer about desiring a way to visually emphasize the
difference between the (at least temporarily) sighted boy and the
(at least temporarily) unsighted adult. He, uh, rather focuses on
visual storytelling, after all.

Post by Lizz Holmans
It would be like having Ann-Margret
playing his mother in the first half and Margaret Dumont in the
second, with no explanation.

Have you seen "That Obscure Object of Desire"? If not, perhaps
you'd better avoid it.

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
Do you really believe he (along
with everyone else on the set) didn't notice the kid had different
eye color from Daltrey?

I don't know. I wasn't on the set.

Oh, come on. An entire large-scale cast and crew didn't notice?
This is simply not plausible.

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Lizz Holmans
Of course, Gilliam has discipline problems, too

Now that's for sure.

He also has the world's worst luck. If I believed that God got pissed
at film-makers, I think he was *really* pissed off with Gilliam. But,
God love him, I think he's just too imaginative for investors--a
Wellesian flaw without the egomania.

There are a few Gilliam films which I really love (and I bet his
Don Quixote film would have been great), but I think he has the
same problem as Tim Burton: an unsteady hand on storytelling, and
an overcompensating tendency to wallow in the orgy of his visuals.
"Brazil" is one of only three or four films I've ever gone to see
twice in a theater, though.

PS Thanks for debating in a level-headed fashion.

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by poisoned rose
It was one thing for you to complain about this as a lame defiance
of continuity, but I can't believe you're contending that the
brown/blue contradiction was an "oops" mistake.

They happened. Look for the close-up of Orlando Bloom playing Legolas
in TTT--he forgot to put his contacts in, thus giving Middle Earth its
first brown-eyed elf.

Post by poisoned rose
I suspect if you asked Russell about this, he might even have some
verbose answer about desiring a way to visually emphasize the
difference between the (at least temporarily) sighted boy and the
(at least temporarily) unsighted adult. He, uh, rather focuses on
visual storytelling, after all.

If he focuses on visual storytelling, then he ought to be paying more
attention to the visuals.

I'm sure he could rationalize it some way. Russell was--and is--an
marvellous bullshitter. Most directors are; I think it's a Bona Fide
Occupational Requirement.

Post by poisoned rose
Have you seen "That Obscure Object of Desire"? If not, perhaps
you'd better avoid it.

Why? I managed 'Pink Flamingoes.'

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
Do you really believe he (along
with everyone else on the set) didn't notice the kid had different
eye color from Daltrey?

I don't know. I wasn't on the set.

Oh, come on. An entire large-scale cast and crew didn't notice?
This is simply not plausible.

Yes, it is. Check the number of continuity errors noted in the
Internet Movie Data Base for all sorts of movies. Here I must declare
an interest because I am a contributor to the IMDB.

Post by poisoned rose
There are a few Gilliam films which I really love (and I bet his
Don Quixote film would have been great), but I think he has the
same problem as Tim Burton: an unsteady hand on storytelling, and
an overcompensating tendency to wallow in the orgy of his visuals.
"Brazil" is one of only three or four films I've ever gone to see
twice in a theater, though.

I *love* Tim Burton.

And I still think Ken Russell was far more immoderate in his visuals
than almost any film maker I can think of. Sloppy, sloppy man.

Post by poisoned rose
PS Thanks for debating in a level-headed fashion.

Why thank me for posting off-topic in rec.music.beatles? t I put an
Ob. in mine to make it somehow relevant (saki is always my guru
here). None of this belongs in this newsgroup, as I've tried gently to
point out in each post I've made.

ObBeatles: Not even Ringo's natural charm could save 'Candy.'

Lizz 'dammit. Earworm.' Holmans

[poisoned rose]

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
It was one thing for you to complain about this as a lame defiance
of continuity, but I can't believe you're contending that the
brown/blue contradiction was an "oops" mistake.

They happened. Look for the close-up of Orlando Bloom playing Legolas
in TTT--he forgot to put his contacts in, thus giving Middle Earth its
first brown-eyed elf.

Was TTT a movie specifically CENTERED on the issue of sight? Come
on!

Also, continuity mistakes are usually brief peripheral things
which happen from one quick shot/scene to the next -- not
something sustained for, well, however much time that kid is
onscreen before Daltrey takes over.

Post by Lizz Holmans
If he focuses on visual storytelling, then he ought to be paying more
attention to the visuals.

Again, you're presuming it was an accident they didn't notice.

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
Have you seen "That Obscure Object of Desire"? If not, perhaps
you'd better avoid it.

Why? I managed 'Pink Flamingoes.'

I'm not sure whether this means you've seen the film or not, but
in any case...the lead female in "Obscure Object" is played by two
different actresses in alternating scenes, without any explicit
justification. But, maybe this was just a continuity goof. ;)

Post by Lizz Holmans
I *love* Tim Burton.

All right. Given the Gilliam/Tolkien/Burton references, I sense
that you have a different slant than me.

Post by Lizz Holmans
Why thank me for posting off-topic in rec.music.beatles?

On-topic is off-topic in RMB, nowadays.

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by poisoned rose
On-topic is off-topic in RMB, nowadays.

Excuse me, but you might be mistaking an alt. group with a rec.
groups. Rec. groups do have charters and specify what is or is not on
topic. While RMB is not moderated, that is no excuse for posting
things in this newsgroup which have nothing whatsoever to do with the
Beatles.

I get careless and post off-topic, mainly because I like making
smart-alecky remarks and occasionally indulging myself. It's not right
and I'm not proud of it, but at this late date I doubt if I'll change
my ways.

ObBeatles: One/Some/Most/All the Beatles liked making smart-alecky
remarks.

Lizz 'I'm fatter than Jesus now' Holmans

[Lookingglass]

"Lizz Holmans" <***@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

(snip)

Post by Lizz Holmans
I get careless and post off-topic, mainly because I like making
smart-alecky remarks and occasionally indulging myself. It's not right
and I'm not proud of it, but at this late date I doubt if I'll change
my ways.
ObBeatles: One/Some/Most/All the Beatles liked making smart-alecky
remarks.
Lizz 'I'm fatter than Jesus now' Holmans
--
I was too far out all my life

LOL..................
I very much enjoy reading your posts... On and OFF topic.

dave (...it took me years to write, would you take a look...)
www.Shemakhan.com

[poisoned rose]

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
On-topic is off-topic in RMB, nowadays.

Excuse me, but you might be mistaking an alt. group with a rec.
groups. Rec. groups do have charters and specify what is or is not on
topic. While RMB is not moderated, that is no excuse for posting
things in this newsgroup which have nothing whatsoever to do with the
Beatles.

Whew. All right, never mind. Boy, and people accuse *me* of taking
things too seriously. Given the above stern belief, how do you
even justify staying subscribed to a newsgroup which is so
frequently dominated by off-topic political flamewars and personal
bickering? And why aren't you laying down this grim perspective
more often? Like...daily?

Four or five posts about a director who might have improved a
Beatles-related film seem like a ridiculously tiny sin, compared
with what normally goes on here.

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by poisoned rose
Whew. All right, never mind. Boy, and people accuse *me* of taking
things too seriously. Given the above stern belief, how do you
even justify staying subscribed to a newsgroup which is so
frequently dominated by off-topic political flamewars and personal
bickering?

I'm a Beatles fan. And I have a very effective killfile. Are there
other requirements I missed out on?

Post by poisoned rose
And why aren't you laying down this grim perspective
more often? Like...daily?

Because then I would be a Net Nanny. Nobody likes Net Nannies. So
why are you encouraging me to post something daily when even (or is
that 'especially'?) you would find it tedious?

Or was that irony? Being American, I never can tell, you know.

Post by poisoned rose
Four or five posts about a director who might have improved a
Beatles-related film seem like a ridiculously tiny sin, compared
with what normally goes on here.#

I'm not here to judge sinners; my job desccription makes that plain.
Since I have committed the same sin, it's not quite proper, I think,
for me to start casting pebbles in anyone's direction. I simply
pointed out that this was off-charter, not just off-topic, and rec.
isn't alt.

ObBeatles: They played in Boulder, didn't they?

Lizz 'music with rocks in' Holmans

[abe slaney]

Post by Lizz Holmans
I'm not here to judge sinners; my job desccription makes that plain.
Since I have committed the same sin, it's not quite proper, I think,
for me to start casting pebbles in anyone's direction. I simply
pointed out that this was off-charter, not just off-topic, and rec.
isn't alt.

With all due respect, how is a discussion about a film devoted to The
Beatles' music, and who may have been a more appropriate director, with
a case made based on that director's past work, off-topic?

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by abe slaney
With all due respect, how is a discussion about a film devoted to The
Beatles' music, and who may have been a more appropriate director, with
a case made based on that director's past work, off-topic?

That is on topic. Discussions of a director's work who had nothing to
do with the Bealtes is off topic, and that's when things went Horribly
Wrong.

The entity known as Poisoned Rose and I are equally at fault for
prolonging this thread beyond the charter. My only plea is that I did
try to include an obBeatles in each post.

Lizz 'the Koala tea of Mercy is not strained' Holmans

[poisoned rose]

Post by Lizz Holmans
And I have a very effective killfile.

Working long, long hours, undoubtedly. ;)

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
And why aren't you laying down this grim perspective
more often? Like...daily?

Because then I would be a Net Nanny. Nobody likes Net Nannies. So
why are you encouraging me to post something daily when even (or is
that 'especially'?) you would find it tedious?

I'm not encouraging you at all...quite the opposite. I'm just
saying that it would be "consistent" to do so, given your
responses to me in this thread.

Post by Lizz Holmans
I simply
pointed out that this was off-charter, not just off-topic, and rec.
isn't alt.

Worrying about "alt" vs. "rec" is so '90s. ;) Usenet is *dying*,
slowly being phased out by chatrooms, instant messages and
web-based friend networks. If I'm not mistaken, the standard AOL
software doesn't even support it anymore. Don't sweat the small
stuff.

I feel like I can tangibly see the population of Usenet fading to
gray. Usenet is becoming like that phenomenon of how older people
often dominate bank queues, just because they're uncomfortable
with those newfangled ATMs. "Young, fresh spirits" are awfully
hard to find, nowadays. I've seen some MySpace forums -- they read
like what Usenet *used* to be.

Post by Lizz Holmans
ObBeatles: They played in Boulder, didn't they?

I used to think you were joking with these lines...now I'm not so
sure. Do you really believe it was "Horribly Wrong" to discuss Ken
Russell? The degree of your objection is a little weird.

ObBeatles: The Beatles were once young, fresh spirits.

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Lizz Holmans
And I have a very effective killfile.

Working long, long hours, undoubtedly. ;)

It has a better medical plan than I do, and gets more vacation time.

Post by poisoned rose
I'm not encouraging you at all...quite the opposite. I'm just
saying that it would be "consistent" to do so, given your
responses to me in this thread.

By reminding everyone who reads rec.music.beatles that the topic *is*
supposed to be the Beatles. Do you think I write only for my own
amusement?

Post by poisoned rose
Worrying about "alt" vs. "rec" is so '90s. ;) Usenet is *dying*,
slowly being phased out by chatrooms, instant messages and
web-based friend networks. If I'm not mistaken, the standard AOL
software doesn't even support it anymore. Don't sweat the small
stuff.

That kind of sloppiness is what is allowing Usenet to deteriorate. The
groups I hang out with, even the alt. ones, have strong group
communities that gently but firmly encourage the readings of FAQs and
charters.

As for AOL, I quit worrying about them a decade ago.

Post by poisoned rose
I feel like I can tangibly see the population of Usenet fading to
gray. Usenet is becoming like that phenomenon of how older people
often dominate bank queues, just because they're uncomfortable
with those newfangled ATMs. "Young, fresh spirits" are awfully
hard to find, nowadays. I've seen some MySpace forums -- they read
like what Usenet *used* to be.

How do you tangibly use your eyes? Do you roll your face over the
screen?

Post by poisoned rose
I used to think you were joking with these lines...now I'm not so
sure. Do you really believe it was "Horribly Wrong" to discuss Ken
Russell? The degree of your objection is a little weird.

I am sometimes serious and sometimes frivolous. I let the reader
decide which meaning they read into any post. I cannot decide on my
own performance. Perhaps you should improve your mind by extensive
reading.

Post by poisoned rose
ObBeatles: The Beatles were once young, fresh spirits.

I have enough young, fresh spirits to deal with, thank you. Some of us
made a vow to grow up disgracefully. It's perhaps the only vow I've
ever kept in thought, word and deed.

ObBeatles: I really love 'Every Little Thing' but to me it sounds like
John sings the verses and Paul joins in the chorus.

Lizz 'A Very Little Thing I Was...' Holmans

[poisoned rose]

Post by Lizz Holmans
By reminding everyone who reads rec.music.beatles that the topic *is*
supposed to be the Beatles. Do you think I write only for my own
amusement?

Well, I think there's a difference between "reminding everyone
that the topic is supposed to be the Beatles," and acting like
it's a grave, remorseful transgression to talk about something
else (something which isn't even strictly unrelated).

Post by Lizz Holmans
That kind of sloppiness is what is allowing Usenet to deteriorate.

"Sloppy" again, just like your prime criticism of Russell. The
emerging motif is a bit eerie. Are you a little too fixated on
"order"? I'm starting to picture beds made with military corners.

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
ObBeatles: The Beatles were once young, fresh spirits.

I have enough young, fresh spirits to deal with, thank you. Some of us
made a vow to grow up disgracefully. It's perhaps the only vow I've
ever kept in thought, word and deed.

Well, so much for trying humor.

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by poisoned rose
Well, I think there's a difference between "reminding everyone
that the topic is supposed to be the Beatles," and acting like
it's a grave, remorseful transgression to talk about something
else (something which isn't even strictly unrelated).

I think you read into it more than I said. I was accusing myself more
than anyone else, and also admitting that I was unlikely to change. I
am remorseful that I don't have that kind of discipline, but neither
do I lose sleep over it. God gave me an enquiring spirit, but sie left
me short on the self-discipline, and I used that up long ago.

Post by poisoned rose
"Sloppy" again, just like your prime criticism of Russell. The
emerging motif is a bit eerie. Are you a little too fixated on
"order"? I'm starting to picture beds made with military corners.

Y'know,the only test I ever flunked in nursing school? Bed-making, of
all things. I made the bed, teacher tore up the bed, I made the bed,
she tore up the bed...you get the gist. Now you know how I used up all
that self-discipline.

So when I get to the hospital where I work, what do I find? Fitted
sheets.

If you think of me as an obsessive neatnik, oy, you really don't know
me at all. I am a pedant and I admit it. I don't see anything wrong
with wanting documentable facts when things are presented as facts. If
they're Wild-Ass Guesses, then they should be labelled as such. I've
nowt against the odd WAG; been known to indulge myself there, too.
See, I lack all sorts of discipline. Perhaps that's why I recognize
kindred sloppiness.

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
ObBeatles: The Beatles were once young, fresh spirits.

I have enough young, fresh spirits to deal with, thank you. Some of us
made a vow to grow up disgracefully. It's perhaps the only vow I've
ever kept in thought, word and deed.

Well, so much for trying humor.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was a statement of fact: they were once
fresh, young spirits. I didn't realize it was 'trying humor.'

ObBeatles: This thread has become about me, not the Beatles, so I'm
out of here. I'm just not that interesting.

Lizz 'I've been very trying all my life' Holmans

[McFeeley]

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
Well, I think there's a difference between "reminding everyone
that the topic is supposed to be the Beatles," and acting like
it's a grave, remorseful transgression to talk about something
else (something which isn't even strictly unrelated).

I think you read into it more than I said. I was accusing myself more
than anyone else, and also admitting that I was unlikely to change. I
am remorseful that I don't have that kind of discipline, but neither
do I lose sleep over it. God gave me an enquiring spirit, but sie left
me short on the self-discipline, and I used that up long ago.

Post by poisoned rose
"Sloppy" again, just like your prime criticism of Russell. The
emerging motif is a bit eerie. Are you a little too fixated on
"order"? I'm starting to picture beds made with military corners.

Y'know,the only test I ever flunked in nursing school? Bed-making, of
all things. I made the bed, teacher tore up the bed, I made the bed,
she tore up the bed...you get the gist. Now you know how I used up all
that self-discipline.
So when I get to the hospital where I work, what do I find? Fitted
sheets.
If you think of me as an obsessive neatnik, oy, you really don't know
me at all. I am a pedant and I admit it. I don't see anything wrong
with wanting documentable facts when things are presented as facts. If
they're Wild-Ass Guesses, then they should be labelled as such. I've
nowt against the odd WAG; been known to indulge myself there, too.
See, I lack all sorts of discipline. Perhaps that's why I recognize
kindred sloppiness.

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
ObBeatles: The Beatles were once young, fresh spirits.

I have enough young, fresh spirits to deal with, thank you. Some of us
made a vow to grow up disgracefully. It's perhaps the only vow I've
ever kept in thought, word and deed.

Well, so much for trying humor.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was a statement of fact: they were once
fresh, young spirits. I didn't realize it was 'trying humor.'
ObBeatles: This thread has become about me, not the Beatles, so I'm
out of here. I'm just not that interesting.

Looks like Eric has a new victim to yammer to death.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by McFeeley

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
Well, I think there's a difference between "reminding everyone
that the topic is supposed to be the Beatles," and acting like
it's a grave, remorseful transgression to talk about something
else (something which isn't even strictly unrelated).

I think you read into it more than I said. I was accusing myself more
than anyone else, and also admitting that I was unlikely to change. I
am remorseful that I don't have that kind of discipline, but neither
do I lose sleep over it. God gave me an enquiring spirit, but sie left
me short on the self-discipline, and I used that up long ago.

Post by poisoned rose
"Sloppy" again, just like your prime criticism of Russell. The
emerging motif is a bit eerie. Are you a little too fixated on
"order"? I'm starting to picture beds made with military corners.

Y'know,the only test I ever flunked in nursing school? Bed-making, of
all things. I made the bed, teacher tore up the bed, I made the bed,
she tore up the bed...you get the gist. Now you know how I used up all
that self-discipline.
So when I get to the hospital where I work, what do I find? Fitted
sheets.
If you think of me as an obsessive neatnik, oy, you really don't know
me at all. I am a pedant and I admit it. I don't see anything wrong
with wanting documentable facts when things are presented as facts. If
they're Wild-Ass Guesses, then they should be labelled as such. I've
nowt against the odd WAG; been known to indulge myself there, too.
See, I lack all sorts of discipline. Perhaps that's why I recognize
kindred sloppiness.

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
ObBeatles: The Beatles were once young, fresh spirits.

I have enough young, fresh spirits to deal with, thank you. Some of us
made a vow to grow up disgracefully. It's perhaps the only vow I've
ever kept in thought, word and deed.

Well, so much for trying humor.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was a statement of fact: they were once
fresh, young spirits. I didn't realize it was 'trying humor.'
ObBeatles: This thread has become about me, not the Beatles, so I'm
out of here. I'm just not that interesting.

Looks like Eric has a new victim to yammer to death.

I can't believe that Lizz is apologizing for making OT posts that
aren't really OT.

Lizz, listen to me, it's OK. You are one of the more refreshing
posters in RMB...keep on keeping on.

"On the other hand, from the sublime to the ridiculous:

"Worrying about "alt" vs. "rec" is so '90s. Usenet is *dying*, slowly
being phased out by chatrooms, instant messages and
web-based friend networks. If I'm not mistaken, the standard AOL
software doesn't even support it anymore....I feel like I can tangibly
see the population of Usenet fading to gray. Usenet is becoming like
that phenomenon of how older people
often dominate bank queues, just because they're uncomfortable with
those newfangled ATMs. "Young, fresh spirits" are awfully hard to find,
nowadays. I've seen some MySpace forums -- they read like what Usenet
*used* to be."

Now if that isn't a proclamation begging for a response(and most
likely, a calculated move, but what the heck...I'll respond anyway).

OK, Bob/Rose/Eric, if you truly believe that Usenet is *dying", and
fading to gray, then you really have no alternative except to leave
now...leave now...while you still have your youth, and no one has to
stand behind you, stifling laughter, in the queue.

[poisoned rose]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I can't believe that Lizz is apologizing for making OT posts that
aren't really OT.

This hapless provocation tries to insinuate that I *asked* for an
apology, rather than the direct opposite: me wondering why she
felt so remorseful about those harmless posts.

You are criticizing Liz here and agreeing with me, you oblivious
fool.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I can't believe that Lizz is apologizing for making OT posts that
aren't really OT.

This hapless provocation tries to insinuate that I *asked* for an
apology, rather than the direct opposite: me wondering why she
felt so remorseful about those harmless posts.
You are criticizing Liz here and agreeing with me, you oblivious
fool.

Wow, when you are wrong...you are really wrong. It's not always about
you, Gondola. I was telling Lizz that she need not apologize...she was
into self-apology, no one asked her to. And you feel it necessary to
inject yourself. Please, get over yourself.

[poisoned rose]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
You are criticizing Liz here and agreeing with me, you oblivious
fool.

Wow, when you are wrong...you are really wrong. It's not always about
you, Gondola. I was telling Lizz that she need not apologize...she was
into self-apology, no one asked her to. And you feel it necessary to
inject yourself. Please, get over yourself.

Oh yes. How could I have *possibly* interpreted your previous post
as something designed to antagonize me? [groan]

Tell you what, Marcus, while you're here brown-nosing Lizz....
Being RMB's most dependably off-topic poster (heck, even Sharp
chooses Lennon's murder as his #1 subject), why don't you ask her
what she thinks of your oft-made assertion that you're justified
in starting threads about whatever self-indulgent subject you
like, just as long as you drop an "OT:" in the topic line? Her
answer should be fun. That is, if her "effective killfile" isn't
set to delete your off-topic political bludgeoning on sight.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
You are criticizing Liz here and agreeing with me, you oblivious
fool.

Wow, when you are wrong...you are really wrong. It's not always about
you, Gondola. I was telling Lizz that she need not apologize...she was
into self-apology, no one asked her to. And you feel it necessary to
inject yourself. Please, get over yourself.

Oh yes. How could I have *possibly* interpreted your previous post
as something designed to antagonize me? [groan]
Tell you what, Marcus, while you're here brown-nosing Lizz....
Being RMB's most dependably off-topic poster, why don't you ask her
what she thinks of your oft-made assertion that you're justified
in starting thread just as long as you drop an "OT:" in the topic line?

You just did.

[Lizz Holmans]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
Tell you what, Marcus, while you're here brown-nosing Lizz....
Being RMB's most dependably off-topic poster, why don't you ask her
what she thinks of your oft-made assertion that you're justified
in starting thread just as long as you drop an "OT:" in the topic line?

You just did.

I loathe off-topic threads unless they are sufficiently amusing to
keep me interested, but I generally don't read them. Marcus is
preaching to the choir, Runner (or however consonants he's using these
days) I will never agree with politically. So why bother? This *is*
rec.music.beatles. There are plenty of newsgroups that deal with
politics, and when I want to see reams of political posts from either
end of the spectrum, that's where I go.

You, Poisoned Rose, are very occasionally amusing, but I had you KF'd
for a while and you know what? I didn't miss the posts very much. So
don't get too comfy.

Lizz 'you might not get the answer you expected to' Holmans

[poisoned rose]

Post by Lizz Holmans
I loathe off-topic threads unless they are sufficiently amusing to
keep me interested, but I generally don't read them. Marcus is
preaching to the choir, Runner (or however consonants he's using these
days) I will never agree with politically. So why bother? This *is*
rec.music.beatles. There are plenty of newsgroups that deal with
politics, and when I want to see reams of political posts from either
end of the spectrum, that's where I go.
You, Poisoned Rose, are very occasionally amusing, but I had you KF'd
for a while and you know what? I didn't miss the posts very much. So
don't get too comfy.
Lizz 'you might not get the answer you expected to' Holmans

I hardly expected an endorsement from you. But the first paragraph
was as expected, even if you didn't address M.'s recurrent "Hey, I
put 'OT: ' in the subject line, so you have nothing to complain
about" defense. Or for that matter, we could examine his alternate
"The Beatles had political views, so contemporary politics are
on-topic" riff.

ObBeatles: "Day Tripper" had a good riff.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Lizz Holmans
I loathe off-topic threads unless they are sufficiently amusing to
keep me interested, but I generally don't read them. Marcus is
preaching to the choir, Runner (or however consonants he's using these
days) I will never agree with politically. So why bother? This *is*
rec.music.beatles. There are plenty of newsgroups that deal with
politics, and when I want to see reams of political posts from either
end of the spectrum, that's where I go.
You, Poisoned Rose, are very occasionally amusing, but I had you KF'd
for a while and you know what? I didn't miss the posts very much. So
don't get too comfy.
Lizz 'you might not get the answer you expected to' Holmans

I hardly expected an endorsement from you. But the first paragraph
was as expected, even if you didn't address M.'s recurrent "Hey, I
put 'OT: ' in the subject line, so you have nothing to complain
about" defense. Or for that matter, we could examine his alternate
"The Beatles had political views, so contemporary politics are
on-topic" riff.

yawn.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
Tell you what, Marcus, while you're here brown-nosing Lizz....
Being RMB's most dependably off-topic poster, why don't you ask her
what she thinks of your oft-made assertion that you're justified
in starting thread just as long as you drop an "OT:" in the topic line?

You just did.

I loathe off-topic threads unless they are sufficiently amusing to
keep me interested, but I generally don't read them. Marcus is
preaching to the choir, Runner (or however consonants he's using these
days) I will never agree with politically. So why bother? This *is*
rec.music.beatles. There are plenty of newsgroups that deal with
politics, and when I want to see reams of political posts from either
end of the spectrum, that's where I go.
You, Poisoned Rose, are very occasionally amusing, but I had you KF'd
for a while and you know what? I didn't miss the posts very much. So
don't get too comfy.
Lizz 'you might not get the answer you expected to' Holmans
--
I was too far out all my life

Lizz,

I understand your criticism of Off Topic posts, and I respect it. Just
as I respect your sensible solution...you ignore them. That's really
the most logical approach. I ignore most, if not all, of the Off Topic
posts, unless they are from someone whose posts I usually like. It's
like the situation where someone complains about a TV program...the
solution...turn it off...turn the channel...push the arrows up and down
on the remote. Problem solved. The fact that you don't read my off
topic posts doesn't bother me or offend me in the least.

However, when I first began posting here in 1999, and afterwards, I
could tell that there were people in this group that were interested in
subjects having nothing at all to do with The Beatles, and sometimes
tangentially connected to the Fabs, so I posted those topics to RMB.
Since I didn't know all the other ngs these folks posted to, I posted
those Off Topic subjects to RMB. Admittedly, in the build-up to the
immoral US invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003, and during the first full
year of the war in 2003-2004, I probably posted more off topics than I
ever did before. I have substantially lessened my off-topic posts.
I'll bet the total number of the off-topic posts that I initiated in
RMB during 2005 were about two dozen or less.

And yet, our dear fiend, Poisoned Rose, jabbers on about the many many
off topic posts I make. Always full of hyperbole and exaggeration is
he.

btw, Lizz, your observations about Eric/Bob/Rose are spot-on.

[poisoned rose]

***@hotmail.com wrote:

[to someone else]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I'd tell you to get over yourself if you had a self to get over.

Mercy. It's that dazzling Marcus wit again. Suggested next retort:
"You're so dumb that you don't even know stuff."

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
I hardly expected an endorsement from you. But the first
paragraph was as expected, even if you didn't address M.'s
recurrent "Hey, I put 'OT: ' in the subject line, so you have
nothing to complain about" defense. Or for that matter, we
could examine his alternate "The Beatles had political views,
so contemporary politics are on-topic" riff.

yawn.

Aha. I see C. has been tutoring you about using the feigned "yawn"
as a substitute for content.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I'll bet the total number of the off-topic posts that I initiated in
RMB during 2005 were about two dozen or less.

Mmmm, I'm going to assume that you made an absent-minded mistake
here (what...you, absent-minded?), and meant to use the word
"threads" rather than "posts." Since your tally of off-topic
*posts* was obviously many, many more than "about two dozen."

Post by m***@hotmail.com
And yet, our dear fiend, Poisoned Rose, jabbers on about the many many
off topic posts I make. Always full of hyperbole and exaggeration is
he.

"Hyperbole and exaggeration," eh?

What a knowingly dishonest whitewash. First, you emphasize the
small (?) number of off-topic threads which you *started*, and
then sneakily use this number to suggest that you wrote as few
off-topic *posts* (a much larger sum). Thus, casually sweeping
under the rug all the multiple posts you made in your own threads,
as well as in other people's off-topic threads.

Meanwhile, your disingenuous defense also doesn't take into
account that you took a break from the newsgroup for some sizeable
periods (see your melodramatic "I've come to the conclusion"
speech in September and the subsequent break, as well as your weak
presence during the first half of the year). So, we can safely
assume that you would have launched many more off-topic threads,
if you had been active throughout the year.

But, never mind. You take an intellectual shortcut and emptily
accuse me of exaggerating, so I'll give you some hard data in
return. Something you always hate, of course. Much easier to lay
back and make grand, detail-free generalizations. About me,
politics, music, the business world, people who are this age or
that age...whatever.

Google's "Advanced Search" capabilities make finding the truth
quite easy. Searching for off-topic 2005 threads you launched
yields the below. Parentheses contain the month of the thread, and
how many total posts are archived in the thread.

1. OFF TOPIC: Auld Lang Syne to 9/11 (December...4 posts)
2. How about a Poisoned Rose action figure (December...65 posts)
3. OT: Richard Pryor dead at age 65 (December...6 posts)
4. 12/2 Amnesty International Statement (December...1 post)
5. OFF TOPIC: Straight Talk From A Marine (December...1 post)
6. Off Topic: Happy Holidays (December...114 posts)
7. Somewhat Off Topic: Now In Paperback For The First Time
(October...25 posts)
8. OT: I've come to the conclusion (September...32 posts)
9. The failure to respond to Katrina (September...105 posts)
10. OFF TOPIC !!!!!---More From Moore (September...12 posts)
11. Off Topic: No Snipers Shooting At Helicopters (September...34
posts)
12. OT : Dear Mr. President (September...84 posts)
13. McCartney and Sheehan (August [the use of McCartney's name was
just a cheap smokescreen]...46 posts)
14. OT: Cindy Sheehan--8/20/05 (August...12 posts)
15. Off Topic: Sixty Years (August...124 posts)
16. Hey, I just realized something..... (August...37 posts)
17. What's up with this? (August...28 posts)
18. Slightly Off Topic: Let's take a vote (August...36 posts)
19. OFF TOPIC: Oops...sorry...a bloody shame (July...92 posts)
20. WAAAAAY OFF TOPIC: The Plame Game (July...19 posts)
21. OT: Densmore and Morrison estate win suit (July...12 posts)
22. OFF TOPIC: BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT (July...152 posts)
23. OFF TOPIC: Extra Extra...Read all about it (July...1 post)
24. OT: Does anyone know... (July...9 posts)
25. OT: MONSTER (June...4 posts)
26. Off Topic: How do you feel about Felt? (June...40 posts)
27. OT: Eve Of Destruction--2005 (April...9 posts)
28. OT: Swan Song (March...3 posts)
29. OT: Baseball oriented topic (February...10 posts)
30. Slightly: The Prostitution Of Our Music (February...60 posts)
31. Book about 60s era (January...1 post)
32. OT: At last, someone is saying it (January...1 post)
33. OT: Martin Luther King Jr. Day (January...4 posts)
34. Response to Francie (January...14 posts)

So, it's not "about two dozen or less," but 34. Squeezed within
roughly seven months' worth of active participation.

Total up those threads, and that's...uhhh...at least 1,197
off-topic posts you generated in 2005 with your
political/sociocultural trolling and other indulgences (begging
for book sales, a narcissistic poll about your trivial address
change, goading me or Francie, etc.). And this doesn't even count
however many non-archived responses were written by me and anyone
else who doesn't archive. Much more importantly, it doesn't count
the significant number of off-topic posts which you wrote and/or
generated by bounding into political threads started by *others*.
And all this, despite taking some significant breaks.

So, "hyperbole and exaggeration"? How about hard facts? You'll
probably chide me for not laboring to count how many posts *you*
made in each of those threads, but we both know your
"contributions" go well beyond the initial threadstarters.

Now, please ignore every fact above and churn out some recycled,
deflective character attack on me, to show everyone just how
difficult it is to defend your own bulldozer tactics.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
btw, Lizz, your observations about Eric/Bob/Rose are spot-on.

Another dopey bit of brown-nosing and phony righteousness. The
only direct "observation" she made about me was that I was "very
occasionally amusing." If your "spot-on" was in response to her
saying she didn't miss my posts much while she had me killfiled,
that is nonsensical. She was relating her own personal experience,
so you saying this was "spot-on" only commends her for accurately
describing that subjective experience. Silly wabbit.

[m***@hotmail.com]

poisoned rose wrote feverishly in his daily attempt to follow my every
words:

<snip>

I counted 23 threads of an off-topic nature that I started in RMB
during the calendar year of 2005. My participation in posting to
another person's initiated OT is totally irrelevant since the subject
was about how many threads of an OT nature I start. The point is that
my number of OT initiated threads is but a drop of water in the pool of
OT topics in RMB in a year. But, apparently enough to irk you. And
enough to have you draw me out and accuse me of being one of the
biggest OT contributors to RMB.

An interesting question would be, how many threads of any interest, OT
or on topic, have you initiated in RMB in any year? Of course, one
can't research your posts for reasons that you know all too well. Your
contributions in RMB, most of the time, are posts to other posters'
threads, and many times using your posts solely as a bully pulpit to
chastise, demean, and denigrate those posters.

[McFeeley]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
poisoned rose wrote feverishly in his daily attempt to follow my every

Which is what he does, all he does, every day. Mr. Hyperbole. Mr Liar.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
<snip>
I counted 23 threads of an off-topic nature that I started in RMB
during the calendar year of 2005. My participation in posting to
another person's initiated OT is totally irrelevant since the subject
was about how many threads of an OT nature I start. The point is that
my number of OT initiated threads is but a drop of water in the pool of
OT topics in RMB in a year. But, apparently enough to irk you. And
enough to have you draw me out and accuse me of being one of the
biggest OT contributors to RMB.
An interesting question would be, how many threads of any interest, OT
or on topic, have you initiated in RMB in any year? Of course, one
can't research your posts for reasons that you know all too well. Your
contributions in RMB, most of the time, are posts to other posters'
threads, and many times using your posts solely as a bully pulpit to
chastise, demean, and denigrate those posters.

He's a prick. Pure and simple. Just another loud-mouthed prick with
nothing to offer but bile. BFD.

[poisoned rose]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I counted 23 threads of an off-topic nature that I started in RMB
during the calendar year of 2005.

You may have "counted" 23, but I explicitly listed 34 by name. So,
guess which tally is more credible?

Post by m***@hotmail.com
My participation in posting to
another person's initiated OT is totally irrelevant since the subject
was about how many threads of an OT nature I start.

It's not "totally irrelevant" when you accuse me of hyperbolizing
and exaggerating your volume of off-topic posts.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
The point is that
my number of OT initiated threads is but a drop of water in the pool of
OT topics in RMB in a year.

But yours are generally bitter, vengeful, self-serving,
self-righteous and condescending, and designed to start conflicts
(what your chum selectively calls "trolling"). Starting a thread
about Soupy Sales or Richard Pryor isn't really a problem, but
your haughty "Here are the political/ethical views which you
naive, brainwashed sheep SHOULD have" threads are pure
flagellation.

Meanwhile, imagine if some *other* transgressor tried this "I'm
just a drop in the water..." defense. You'd start talking about
the Nuremberg trials and compare him to a Nazi. One of your
standard tactics.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
An interesting question would be, how many threads of any interest, OT
or on topic, have you initiated in RMB in any year?

Hey, I tried with this thread. You weren't able to offer a
constructive response. Oh well. At least you poured in plenty of
destructive ones to compensate.

Starting "good" threads is not an important issue. Starting "bad"
ones is. Someone like "paramucho" posts almost nothing but
constructive posts, yet rarely starts threads. Do you scorn him?

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Which is what he does, all he does, every day. Mr. Hyperbole. Mr Liar.
He's a prick. Pure and simple. Just another loud-mouthed prick with
nothing to offer but bile. BFD.

Well, I guess I'll give Charlie a few more chances to stop venting
his red-faced rage from "killfile safety," before I tweak my
address again. Though I'll grant that he's more justified in
calling me a "prick" than a "troll," so perhaps that's some teensy
degree of progress (even if it's a shame that this newsgroup's
"NC-17" rating owes so very much to his incessant namecalling).

It's funny to hear him bellow that I'm "Mr. Liar," and then follow
this with declaring that I have "nothing to offer but bile."
Again...even beyond the obvious "bile" of his own words, his
repeated accusations are easily turned aside simply by reading my
posts. One fact, for starters: I posted seven times yesterday, and
only two of those posts contained "bile." Shrug. He makes it so
easy.

[TAR]

Post by poisoned rose
[to someone else]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I'd tell you to get over yourself if you had a self to get over.

"You're so dumb that you don't even know stuff."

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
I hardly expected an endorsement from you. But the first
paragraph was as expected, even if you didn't address M.'s
recurrent "Hey, I put 'OT: ' in the subject line, so you have
nothing to complain about" defense. Or for that matter, we
could examine his alternate "The Beatles had political views,
so contemporary politics are on-topic" riff.

yawn.

Aha. I see C. has been tutoring you about using the feigned "yawn"
as a substitute for content.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I'll bet the total number of the off-topic posts that I initiated in
RMB during 2005 were about two dozen or less.

Mmmm, I'm going to assume that you made an absent-minded mistake
here (what...you, absent-minded?), and meant to use the word
"threads" rather than "posts." Since your tally of off-topic
*posts* was obviously many, many more than "about two dozen."

Post by m***@hotmail.com
And yet, our dear fiend, Poisoned Rose, jabbers on about the many many
off topic posts I make. Always full of hyperbole and exaggeration is
he.

"Hyperbole and exaggeration," eh?
What a knowingly dishonest whitewash. First, you emphasize the
small (?) number of off-topic threads which you *started*, and
then sneakily use this number to suggest that you wrote as few
off-topic *posts* (a much larger sum). Thus, casually sweeping
under the rug all the multiple posts you made in your own threads,
as well as in other people's off-topic threads.
Meanwhile, your disingenuous defense also doesn't take into
account that you took a break from the newsgroup for some sizeable
periods (see your melodramatic "I've come to the conclusion"
speech in September and the subsequent break, as well as your weak
presence during the first half of the year). So, we can safely
assume that you would have launched many more off-topic threads,
if you had been active throughout the year.
But, never mind. You take an intellectual shortcut and emptily
accuse me of exaggerating, so I'll give you some hard data in
return. Something you always hate, of course. Much easier to lay
back and make grand, detail-free generalizations. About me,
politics, music, the business world, people who are this age or
that age...whatever.
Google's "Advanced Search" capabilities make finding the truth
quite easy. Searching for off-topic 2005 threads you launched
yields the below. Parentheses contain the month of the thread, and
how many total posts are archived in the thread.
1. OFF TOPIC: Auld Lang Syne to 9/11 (December...4 posts)
2. How about a Poisoned Rose action figure (December...65 posts)
3. OT: Richard Pryor dead at age 65 (December...6 posts)
4. 12/2 Amnesty International Statement (December...1 post)
5. OFF TOPIC: Straight Talk From A Marine (December...1 post)
6. Off Topic: Happy Holidays (December...114 posts)
7. Somewhat Off Topic: Now In Paperback For The First Time
(October...25 posts)
8. OT: I've come to the conclusion (September...32 posts)
9. The failure to respond to Katrina (September...105 posts)
10. OFF TOPIC !!!!!---More From Moore (September...12 posts)
11. Off Topic: No Snipers Shooting At Helicopters (September...34
posts)
12. OT : Dear Mr. President (September...84 posts)
13. McCartney and Sheehan (August [the use of McCartney's name was
just a cheap smokescreen]...46 posts)
14. OT: Cindy Sheehan--8/20/05 (August...12 posts)
15. Off Topic: Sixty Years (August...124 posts)
16. Hey, I just realized something..... (August...37 posts)
17. What's up with this? (August...28 posts)
18. Slightly Off Topic: Let's take a vote (August...36 posts)
19. OFF TOPIC: Oops...sorry...a bloody shame (July...92 posts)
20. WAAAAAY OFF TOPIC: The Plame Game (July...19 posts)
21. OT: Densmore and Morrison estate win suit (July...12 posts)
22. OFF TOPIC: BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT (July...152 posts)
23. OFF TOPIC: Extra Extra...Read all about it (July...1 post)
24. OT: Does anyone know... (July...9 posts)
25. OT: MONSTER (June...4 posts)
26. Off Topic: How do you feel about Felt? (June...40 posts)
27. OT: Eve Of Destruction--2005 (April...9 posts)
28. OT: Swan Song (March...3 posts)
29. OT: Baseball oriented topic (February...10 posts)
30. Slightly: The Prostitution Of Our Music (February...60 posts)
31. Book about 60s era (January...1 post)
32. OT: At last, someone is saying it (January...1 post)
33. OT: Martin Luther King Jr. Day (January...4 posts)
34. Response to Francie (January...14 posts)
So, it's not "about two dozen or less," but 34. Squeezed within
roughly seven months' worth of active participation.
Total up those threads, and that's...uhhh...at least 1,197
off-topic posts you generated in 2005 with your
political/sociocultural trolling and other indulgences (begging
for book sales, a narcissistic poll about your trivial address
change, goading me or Francie, etc.). And this doesn't even count
however many non-archived responses were written by me and anyone
else who doesn't archive. Much more importantly, it doesn't count
the significant number of off-topic posts which you wrote and/or
generated by bounding into political threads started by *others*.
And all this, despite taking some significant breaks.
So, "hyperbole and exaggeration"? How about hard facts? You'll
probably chide me for not laboring to count how many posts *you*
made in each of those threads, but we both know your
"contributions" go well beyond the initial threadstarters.
Now, please ignore every fact above and churn out some recycled,
deflective character attack on me, to show everyone just how
difficult it is to defend your own bulldozer tactics.

Don't bother, Marcus. I'll do it.

Sorry, but the truth is that the above post reads, "yakety yakety yak,
I'm better then him because.... here, let me compose 10 or more
paragraphs about it, research this for a couple of hours and I'll prove
it to you. I'll show you all. Look, see how I assembled, and typed out
this long, long list of OT threads, numbered them and dated them, citing
the number of posts in each? There, you see everybody? See how this
justifies my criticism? See how much better I am than Marcus? See why
he's bad and I'm good?"... at which time the reader is probably
thinking, "I don't know about this Marcus guy, but this poisoned rose
must be a little whacko".

[McFeeley]

Post by TAR

Post by poisoned rose
[to someone else]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I'd tell you to get over yourself if you had a self to get over.

"You're so dumb that you don't even know stuff."

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by poisoned rose
I hardly expected an endorsement from you. But the first
paragraph was as expected, even if you didn't address M.'s
recurrent "Hey, I put 'OT: ' in the subject line, so you have
nothing to complain about" defense. Or for that matter, we
could examine his alternate "The Beatles had political views,
so contemporary politics are on-topic" riff.

yawn.

Aha. I see C. has been tutoring you about using the feigned "yawn"
as a substitute for content.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I'll bet the total number of the off-topic posts that I initiated in
RMB during 2005 were about two dozen or less.

Mmmm, I'm going to assume that you made an absent-minded mistake
here (what...you, absent-minded?), and meant to use the word
"threads" rather than "posts." Since your tally of off-topic
*posts* was obviously many, many more than "about two dozen."

Post by m***@hotmail.com
And yet, our dear fiend, Poisoned Rose, jabbers on about the many many
off topic posts I make. Always full of hyperbole and exaggeration is
he.

"Hyperbole and exaggeration," eh?
What a knowingly dishonest whitewash. First, you emphasize the
small (?) number of off-topic threads which you *started*, and
then sneakily use this number to suggest that you wrote as few
off-topic *posts* (a much larger sum). Thus, casually sweeping
under the rug all the multiple posts you made in your own threads,
as well as in other people's off-topic threads.
Meanwhile, your disingenuous defense also doesn't take into
account that you took a break from the newsgroup for some sizeable
periods (see your melodramatic "I've come to the conclusion"
speech in September and the subsequent break, as well as your weak
presence during the first half of the year). So, we can safely
assume that you would have launched many more off-topic threads,
if you had been active throughout the year.
But, never mind. You take an intellectual shortcut and emptily
accuse me of exaggerating, so I'll give you some hard data in
return. Something you always hate, of course. Much easier to lay
back and make grand, detail-free generalizations. About me,
politics, music, the business world, people who are this age or
that age...whatever.
Google's "Advanced Search" capabilities make finding the truth
quite easy. Searching for off-topic 2005 threads you launched
yields the below. Parentheses contain the month of the thread, and
how many total posts are archived in the thread.
1. OFF TOPIC: Auld Lang Syne to 9/11 (December...4 posts)
2. How about a Poisoned Rose action figure (December...65 posts)
3. OT: Richard Pryor dead at age 65 (December...6 posts)
4. 12/2 Amnesty International Statement (December...1 post)
5. OFF TOPIC: Straight Talk From A Marine (December...1 post)
6. Off Topic: Happy Holidays (December...114 posts)
7. Somewhat Off Topic: Now In Paperback For The First Time
(October...25 posts)
8. OT: I've come to the conclusion (September...32 posts)
9. The failure to respond to Katrina (September...105 posts)
10. OFF TOPIC !!!!!---More From Moore (September...12 posts)
11. Off Topic: No Snipers Shooting At Helicopters (September...34
posts)
12. OT : Dear Mr. President (September...84 posts)
13. McCartney and Sheehan (August [the use of McCartney's name was
just a cheap smokescreen]...46 posts)
14. OT: Cindy Sheehan--8/20/05 (August...12 posts)
15. Off Topic: Sixty Years (August...124 posts)
16. Hey, I just realized something..... (August...37 posts)
17. What's up with this? (August...28 posts)
18. Slightly Off Topic: Let's take a vote (August...36 posts)
19. OFF TOPIC: Oops...sorry...a bloody shame (July...92 posts)
20. WAAAAAY OFF TOPIC: The Plame Game (July...19 posts)
21. OT: Densmore and Morrison estate win suit (July...12 posts)
22. OFF TOPIC: BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT (July...152 posts)
23. OFF TOPIC: Extra Extra...Read all about it (July...1 post)
24. OT: Does anyone know... (July...9 posts)
25. OT: MONSTER (June...4 posts)
26. Off Topic: How do you feel about Felt? (June...40 posts)
27. OT: Eve Of Destruction--2005 (April...9 posts)
28. OT: Swan Song (March...3 posts)
29. OT: Baseball oriented topic (February...10 posts)
30. Slightly: The Prostitution Of Our Music (February...60 posts)
31. Book about 60s era (January...1 post)
32. OT: At last, someone is saying it (January...1 post)
33. OT: Martin Luther King Jr. Day (January...4 posts)
34. Response to Francie (January...14 posts)
So, it's not "about two dozen or less," but 34. Squeezed within
roughly seven months' worth of active participation.
Total up those threads, and that's...uhhh...at least 1,197
off-topic posts you generated in 2005 with your
political/sociocultural trolling and other indulgences (begging
for book sales, a narcissistic poll about your trivial address
change, goading me or Francie, etc.). And this doesn't even count
however many non-archived responses were written by me and anyone
else who doesn't archive. Much more importantly, it doesn't count
the significant number of off-topic posts which you wrote and/or
generated by bounding into political threads started by *others*.
And all this, despite taking some significant breaks.
So, "hyperbole and exaggeration"? How about hard facts? You'll
probably chide me for not laboring to count how many posts *you*
made in each of those threads, but we both know your
"contributions" go well beyond the initial threadstarters.
Now, please ignore every fact above and churn out some recycled,
deflective character attack on me, to show everyone just how
difficult it is to defend your own bulldozer tactics.

Don't bother, Marcus. I'll do it.
Sorry, but the truth is that the above post reads, "yakety yakety yak,
I'm better then him because.... here, let me compose 10 or more
paragraphs about it, research this for a couple of hours and I'll prove
it to you. I'll show you all. Look, see how I assembled, and typed out
this long, long list of OT threads, numbered them and dated them, citing
the number of posts in each? There, you see everybody? See how this
justifies my criticism? See how much better I am than Marcus? See why
he's bad and I'm good?"... at which time the reader is probably
thinking, "I don't know about this Marcus guy, but this poisoned rose
must be a little whacko".

More than a little. A bitter, spiteful little turd. THIS is what his life
is about. Who else would have spent ten seconds going thru al this in the
daily attempt to humiliate someone?

Eric Broome is a major dick and he knows it. And everyone else is going to
as well, if they don't already.

[poisoned rose]

Post by TAR
Don't bother, Marcus. I'll do it.
Sorry, but the truth is that the above post reads, "yakety yakety yak,
I'm better then him because.... here, let me compose 10 or more
paragraphs about it, research this for a couple of hours and I'll prove
it to you. I'll show you all. Look, see how I assembled, and typed out
this long, long list of OT threads, numbered them and dated them, citing
the number of posts in each? There, you see everybody? See how this
justifies my criticism? See how much better I am than Marcus? See why
he's bad and I'm good?"... at which time the reader is probably
thinking, "I don't know about this Marcus guy, but this poisoned rose
must be a little whacko".

This is another one of those TAR posts which is so blatantly
deflective and dishonest that it scarcely requires a rebuttal. Her
posts become easier and easier to ignore.

A tale of intellectual bankruptcy:

Marcus: You're exaggerating.
Marcus' buddies: Of course he is.
Me: No, I'm not...here's the proof.
Marcus' buddies: We won't dispute the proof, but haha you made the
effort to find it. You lose.

No integrity in this daisy-chain gang.

PS Donna, you should discover the wonders of clipping/pasting
sometime. It saves one the trouble of "typing out a long, long
list of OT threads."

[Sycorax]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Please, get over yourself.

That's funny coming from Mr Condescension himself.

[McFeeley]

Post by Sycorax

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Please, get over yourself.

That's funny coming from Mr Condescension himself.

Hard to tell what's funny coming from you, a bitter sock puppet.

[Sycorax]

Post by McFeeley
Hard to tell what's funny coming from you, a bitter sock puppet.

I've had the mispleasure of encountering you before. You're a
particularly nasty and loathsome example of the Usenet species.

[McFeeley]

Post by Sycorax

Post by McFeeley
Hard to tell what's funny coming from you, a bitter sock puppet.

I've had the mispleasure of encountering you before. You're a
particularly nasty and loathsome example of the Usenet species.

Yeah yeah, right. And until you id where and when you're just another
malcontent who no one will regard. (I know who you are anyway, jerk.)

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Sycorax

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Please, get over yourself.

That's funny coming from Mr Condescension himself.

I'd tell you to get over yourself if you had a self to get over.

[McFeeley]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
OK, Bob/Rose/Eric, if you truly believe that Usenet is *dying", and
fading to gray, then you really have no alternative except to leave
now...leave now...while you still have your youth, and no one has to
stand behind you, stifling laughter, in the queue.

He CAN'T....no matter what he says, he CANNOT not post. He is as
compulsive, if not more so, than all the people he blows hard at.

I think Rosie needs a page dedicated to him as does David. It's about time
people saw what a poisoned rose looked like.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by McFeeley

Post by m***@hotmail.com
OK, Bob/Rose/Eric, if you truly believe that Usenet is *dying", and
fading to gray, then you really have no alternative except to leave
now...leave now...while you still have your youth, and no one has to
stand behind you, stifling laughter, in the queue.

He CAN'T....no matter what he says, he CANNOT not post. He is as
compulsive, if not more so, than all the people he blows hard at.
I think Rosie needs a page dedicated to him as does David. It's about time
people saw what a poisoned rose looked like.

It's not a pretty sight...hypocrisy rarely is.

[Sycorax]

Post by McFeeley
He CAN'T....no matter what he says, he CANNOT not post. He is as
compulsive, if not more so, than all the people he blows hard at.

This is from the man who claims to killfile Rose, yet jumps into 4000
threads frothing at the mouth STILL ranting about him.

[TAR]

Post by Sycorax

Post by McFeeley
He CAN'T....no matter what he says, he CANNOT not post. He is as
compulsive, if not more so, than all the people he blows hard at.

This is from the man who claims to killfile Rose, yet jumps into 4000
threads frothing at the mouth STILL ranting about him.

In case you didn't realize it, pr always changes the numbers in his
address so that he can slip out of Charlie's killfiles. PR never denied
this.

[Sycorax]

Post by TAR
In case you didn't realize it, pr always changes the numbers in his
address so that he can slip out of Charlie's killfiles. PR never denied
this.

That is not what is happening. McFeeley seems to be talking an awful lot
about a poster he claims that "he can't see". If he's still going to
berate PR through piggybacking yours or Marcus's responses to PR then the
KF charade is pointless, and he looks like a hypocrite spouting off that
Rose can't control himself.

[McFeeley]

Post by Sycorax

Post by TAR
In case you didn't realize it, pr always changes the numbers in his
address so that he can slip out of Charlie's killfiles. PR never denied
this.

That is not what is happening. McFeeley seems to be talking an awful lot
about a poster he claims that "he can't see". If he's still going to
berate PR through piggybacking yours or Marcus's responses to PR then the
KF charade is pointless, and he looks like a hypocrite spouting off that
Rose can't control himself.

I only k/f'ed PR again yesterday, the post you're referencing is before that
when I could "see" him. And if I "see" him quoted in someone else's post
then it's fair game, no hypocrisy at all.

But why would you care, sockie?

The hypocrite is you, too cowardly to post under your known name. And PR's
hypocrisy would overshadow -any- amount of mine, and always has.

[poisoned rose]

Post by TAR
In case you didn't realize it, pr always changes the numbers in his
address so that he can slip out of Charlie's killfiles. PR never denied
this.

I haven't changed it in weeks. If you search Google, you can find
this address as far back as 11/25/05. Which means I've actually
been using it longer than your immortal beloved has been using
"McFeeley."

Generally, the only time I change it is when Charlie pulls his
faux-macho "*PLONK*" theatrics, just to give himself a way to post
petty tirades against others and then duck the response without
looking like he has "dropped his guns." So...I don't allow him
that face-saving crutch. Around the time I first switched to this
address, I wrote to him (I even found the quote) "It's too bad
that you only killfile people for the sake of bellowing your
mighty 'PLONK' kissoff, because otherwise you'd realize that you
could keep me killfiled for much longer if you just didn't
*announce* it each time. Silly, silly man." And shortly after
that, he stopped attacking me, so I assumed that he followed my
advice. OK, fine...I let him have that, since he had filtered me
in an adult manner for once. But a couple of weeks later, he
started flailing at me with renewed delirium, a reversal which
again suggested that he only views killfiling as a fleeting,
theatrical way to announce he's "bringing the hammer down" on
someone. Rather than it being a private newsreading tool.
But...still I haven't tweaked the address lately, all the same.
However, now he's "boasting" about filtering me again, and eager
to return to his pitiful "I'm going to flame you just as much, and
lalalalalalalalala I can't hear you" game. And you know how I'll
deal with that childish charade.

For adults, killfiling is a way to avoid spending energy (via
reading *or* writing) on someone whose posts never interest
you...not a way to throw stones in safety, because you know your
uncontrollable temper won't be inflamed by what the target
"invisibly" writes back.

[McFeeley]

Post by Sycorax

Post by McFeeley
He CAN'T....no matter what he says, he CANNOT not post. He is as
compulsive, if not more so, than all the people he blows hard at.

This is from the man who claims to killfile Rose, yet jumps into 4000
threads frothing at the mouth STILL ranting about him.

4000? Really? My what an inaccurate little sock puppet YOU are!

[Sycorax]

Post by McFeeley
4000? Really? My what an inaccurate little sock puppet YOU are!

Humorless earthling.

[McFeeley]

Post by Sycorax

Post by McFeeley
4000? Really? My what an inaccurate little sock puppet YOU are!

Humorless earthling.

YAWN.

Tiresome bore.

[poisoned rose]

Post by Lizz Holmans

Post by poisoned rose
Well, I think there's a difference between "reminding everyone
that the topic is supposed to be the Beatles," and acting like
it's a grave, remorseful transgression to talk about something
else (something which isn't even strictly unrelated).

I think you read into it more than I said.

Very well.

Post by Lizz Holmans
Y'know,the only test I ever flunked in nursing school? Bed-making, of
all things.

Well, if you're going to flunk one nursing test, this sounds like
the optimal one to flunk. :)

Post by Lizz Holmans
If you think of me as an obsessive neatnik, oy, you really don't know
me at all. I am a pedant and I admit it.

All right.

Post by Lizz Holmans
ObBeatles: This thread has become about me, not the Beatles, so I'm
out of here.

Agreed. Let's cut out of this, because RMB's ubiquitous Fight
Escalator is obviously vulturing, eager to work his magic again.

ObBeatles: The Beatles mentioned a nurse in "Penny Lane," but
never a vulture or escalator.

[Ehtue]

Post by Lizz Holmans
ObBeatles: They played in Boulder, didn't they?

Nope. But near here (Morrison).

-Ehtue

[gofab.com]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:39:47 GMT, in article

Post by poisoned rose

Post by Ehtue

Post by poisoned rose
I'm really surprised at all the people here who are barely
familiar with the film (especially, because its age isn't a
problem with this older crowd). I mean, RMBers study each note of
every crummy McCartney/Harrison/Starr cut-out album much more than
I do. And I bet someone could start a decent-sized thread
discussing film flops like, say, "Caveman" or "Give My Regards to
Broad Street"....

Well, you see, those film flops were made by members of the Beatles, which
is the subject of this newsgroup. Discussion of *covers* of Beatles
material comes up every so often, but it hardly holds a candle, does it?
Surely you can see the difference.

Threads about Beatles covers may be sporadic, but this doesn't
mean everyone hasn't heard a lot of them. Your above reply
justifies why the film isn't discussed much, rather than why
people haven't even seen the thing. Maybe there just aren't many
film fans here -- I'd probably be horrified at how many blank
looks my mention of Ken Russell drew.

Quite honestly, I find Russell to be hugely overrated. He's testament to the
adage that not every colorful
avant garde badboy filmmaker manages to be an "artist." I've enjoyed bits of his
films (and even though
its widely regarded as continuing the "sell out" that started with Tommy, I
think "Altered States" is his
best film, if you can forgive the ending -- the first hour is literally
stunning). But films like "Devils" that
have everyone falling all over themselves -- they strike me as the kind of
undisciplined, low budget
surrealism of the type that folks like Arrabal trafficked in (compare "Viva La
Muerte" -- a mess that
routinely gets praised to the heavens -- to a great piece of surrealism like
"Japon" or Altman's "3
Women"). Russell got some good moments out of Teresa Russell but could never
find a way to use her
in the hypnotic way that others like Nick Roeg did (see, e.g. "Bad Timing"). A
lot of people find those
Russell-type films revelatory but I always found them over the top and annoying.
You compare films
like that to someone who has really knows how to use those random associations
and moments and
harness them to some kind of cinematic focus (e.g. Jarmusch) -- and they don't
stand up. I'm willing to
give these guys props as pioneers of a sort but I never saw Ken Russell as a
successful and coherent
"artist." I also find Cassavettes trying and I'm often tempted to lump him into
the same crowd -- but in
the end his films always have a kind of compelling realness/rawness to them,
overtones of a Western
Chekov, that saves him from the same fate.

Just my 2 cents. I thank you for raising the interesting topic.

[poisoned rose]

Post by gofab.com
Quite honestly, I find Russell to be hugely overrated. He's testament to the
adage that not every colorful
avant garde badboy filmmaker manages to be an "artist."

I'm not saying that he's the greatest director ever, and I do
think he's too self-indulgent and distastefully "lurid" at times.
But...the "Pepper" film is very much in his vein, and I think the
film wouldn't be such a notorious bomb if Russell had directed it
(and presumably, cast it differently). Agree or no?

Maybe next, we can debate what he would have done with "Car Wash."
;)

[brink]

Post by poisoned rose

Post by DanKaye
This is the ONE Beatles-related movie that I never had any desire to
see.

I'm really surprised at all the people here who are barely
familiar with the film (especially, because its age isn't a
problem with this older crowd).

why is that surprising? As you noted, it was a huge bomb. Not only that,
it's such a wisp of a "film," it's hard to remember for being anything other
than a strange mess.

It was a disaster but not a particularly memorable disaster...

I mean, RMBers study each note of

Post by poisoned rose
every crummy McCartney/Harrison/Starr cut-out album much more than
I do.

I thought most people round these parts were like me... I've never even
*heard* most of Ringo's and George's solo stuff...

And I bet someone could start a decent-sized thread

Post by poisoned rose
discussing film flops like, say, "Caveman" or "Give My Regards to
Broad Street"....

Give it a shot, I doubt it.

My opinion of the Sgt Pepper film is that the music is for the most part
better than was given credit for. Obviously the Aerosmith track was cool,
but the Earth Wind Fire take on "Into My Life" is a classic
re-interpretation in my opinion. I also like some of the the Bee Gees and
Frampton tracks, Nowhere Man done like a Bee Gees ballad works well as does
the female version of Here Comes The Sun. I can't remember a lot of the
tracks but I seem to recall A Day In The Life not sucking.

The "robot voice" stuff as well as the Because cover are awful, as are I
think I Want You (isn't that another spoken one?) Not sure what they were
thinking desecrating some great songs with that stuff. I can see jerking
around with "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" but the Because take is just creepy.

The movie is awful in so many ways it's difficult to find anything to
praise. The script, acting, design, look, and overall concept of the film
are so poor that I'm not sure where to begin...

brink

[Chek]

Post by DanKaye
This is the ONE Beatles-related movie that I never had any
desire to
see.
Just the idea that the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton and a
bunch of
other untalented or lame acts were in it, was enough for
me to stay
away from it.
Someone would have to pay me to watch this travesty.

Never really took to the Brother's Gibb - harmonies so high
that
they were only really appreciated fully by dogs, and anyway,
disco was the enemy.

Although betwixt his Brit 60's teeny hero days in The Herd
and his 70's
US teeny hero careers, Peter Frampton could knock out some
cool
guitar when the occasion demanded.
I well remember trading Marriott/Frampton Humble Pie type
riffs
in the days when nobody wanted to be just a rhythm guitar
player any more
(a fine and noble calling, let me add, and one I wish I was
better at).
And his Wind of Change solo outing is still a minor classic,
with 'Plain Shame'
still a respectable rocker, and his reworking of 'Jumpin'
Jack Flash' as radical
as Vanilla Fudge's 'You Just Keep Me Hangin' On' or Isaac
Hayes' 'Walk On By'.

Oh boy, defending Peter Frampton; it's true we never know
what'll turn up before
a day is passed.

As it is, whenever the subject of Pete F comes up now, I
tend to recall his
'...Comes Alive' period and the mega hit 'I'm in You'.
Which Uncle Frank nicely subverted with his Mother's song 'I
Have Been in You'.
Classic.