Discussion:
Article considers possibilities for A Clockwork Orange sequel
(too old to reply)
Pops Freshenmeyer
2006-05-24 10:52:32 UTC
Permalink
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/28983/three_movies_in_search_of_a_sequel.html

Three films are contemplated for possibility of a sequel. One of them
is A Clockwork Orange.
Wordsmith
2006-05-24 17:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/28983/three_movies_in_search_of_a_sequel.html
Three films are contemplated for possibility of a sequel. One of them
is A Clockwork Orange.
Lemme see. Alex, now married, has a daughter who's rowdy. Very rowdy.
Worse than that, even. She forms a gang of estrogen-crazed gals who
go on regular wilding sprees. Alex
and Mrs. A try to no avail to calm her. She's jailed and is given a
chance to change by agreeing...hey, this has been done already.

W ; )
ichorwhip
2006-05-25 00:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/28983/three_movies_in_search_of_a_sequel.html
Three films are contemplated for possibility of a sequel. One of them
is A Clockwork Orange.
"Well, now .. . let's just see if there's anything missing!"

<snip to the chase>
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
Probably the most controversial movie on this list will be my last one. I'm not saying that A >Clockwork Orange cries out for a sequel. I'm not even saying it would be a good idea.
Then why do you continue sir?
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I'm just saying that there are elements of this classic that lend credence to the idea of a >sequel.
I disagree!
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
And, besides, they made a sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, so it's not like Kubrick is >untouchable. I would hope, however, that a sequel to A Clockwork Orange would be infinitely >better than 2010 was.
The "usual" simple and thoughtless rationale....
I'll bet it's sacrilegious within itself and ignorant...
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
If they can make a sequel to the Old Testament without the world coming to an end, then they can certainly make a sequel to a Kubrick movie.
Well one out of two ain't bad... Oh yeah, but what about that whole
Revelation thing at the end of the "sequel?"
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
Why even bother?
Answering one's own questions and then proceeding? What is this?
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
There is a problem with the original; a flaw if you will.
I think I won't, but let's keep plugging away here. It's not like
there's much else doing on AMK today.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
It may be the only flaw in this masterpiece, but it's there. Unlike President Bush who has >held fast to the philosophy of life and beliefs that held at age 20 (and unlike his ideal >Supreme Court justice, who is expected to hold the same judicial views twenty years from >now as when he chose them) most of us evolve mentally as we age.
Mentioning President Douche doesn't help make your "point" about a
supposed flaw in ACO having anything to do with "mental evolution".
What it does is call attention to your own political bent.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
We find that we truly didn't have all the answers at age 20. We learn new things; we are >exposed to new ideas. We incorporate these new ideas and develop new patterns of thinking >and new philosophies.
This just in from the metaphysical journal "Duh!" (thanks to Norm
Macdonald on that one.)
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
A Clockwork Orange has a decide<sic> generation gap at play within it. There is a divide >between the youth and the older generation. Alex is a hero (antihero) with a youth-based >outlook on life. And that is there the germ of an idea for the sequel should begin.
That was so awkward it tied my optic nerves in a knot...
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
If A Clockwork Orange is about anything, it is about how emotions and response can be >controlled and manipulated. The film speaks eloquently on behalf of the psychology of >conditioned response put forward by Pavlov and Skinner.
Among other things actually. I've always felt that the main issue in
ACO is Determinism versus Free Will with Retributionism versus
Utilitarianism running a close second.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
But Alex was young and his violent response was characterized, in part, as a youthful >response. But how would Alex respond to violence around him as he grew older and less >capable of protecting himself against a new generation of Alexes?
I think you have REALLY missed the point. Alex is innately evil and
will remain that way until the day he snuffs it. This is central to
ACO. "I was cured all right." What you're saying is not necessarily
true; that youthful violence must mellow with age. Aleister Crowley,
for example, tended to become an even bigger evil "asshole" as he aged.
Age brings greater conviction if anything although some do get scared
and repent (read Sartre). I just don't see Alex ever transcending his
own evil; it's just not in his character especially after what he goes
through.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
The terrific thing about a sequel to A Clockwork Orange is that there are two distinctly >separate paths to take and both of them have the potential to be fascinating. In the first idea, >the sequel could focus on how Alex responds to an increasingly violent world in his older >years. Does Alex willingly choose to move closer to what he had become as a result of the >Ludovico Technique in the first film?
To be good? Nah! If anything he would be repelled by the thought of
it having once been conditioned against his will to be the model
christian, so to speak. Perhaps, if Alex had never been given the
Ludovico, he may have later saw some error in his ways, but it's highly
doubtful and even pointless to speculate within the context of the
novel or the film.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
Perhaps Alex reaches a moment of epiphany in which he admits that he has rejected that >vision of himself and life expressed at the end of the original. Could it be that an Alex allowed >free will would freely choose to move back toward his fascistic personality that he was >conditioned to accept?
NO! You're using "fascistic" more like a buzz word here in any event
and not entirely correctly for your purposes at least. Yes, Alex had
dictatorial tendencies, but he was chiefly just a violent and savage
sociopath.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
An alternative and oppositional idea for a sequel could present a world that has moved toward the fascism desired by those who conditioned Alex without the need for such intense, personalized methods. Instead of changing personality one at a time through the Ludovico Technique, the television and the computer could have been used for conditioning the masses.
So why on earth would such a plot device have to be a sequel to ACO?
Seems to me like any number of screenplays could go in this direction
without bringing Alex back into the mix.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
Indeed, in the sequel, the world in which Alex lives more closely resembles our own world >more than any bizarre outgrowth of the world of his youth. Alex could still be the wild child he >was as a youth, but the world around him has followed suit. The question then becomes: >how does the older Alex respond to this conditioning of responses that he recognizes as >being nothing more than a less extreme version of what he was put through?
I think he would laugh at it and at how much simpler it would be to
take cruel and violent advantage of all the defenseless "sheep"
suckered in by such a dumb plot device.

<snip the rest of this C-minus blog entry, or whatever the hell it is>

"They're paying for it, you eat it!"
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2006-05-25 02:55:03 UTC
Permalink
God what an idiot...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/28983/three_movies_in_search_of_a_s
equel.html
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
Three films are contemplated for possibility of a sequel. One of them
is A Clockwork Orange.
"Well, now .. . let's just see if there's anything missing!"
Like your brain?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
We find that we truly didn't have all the answers at age 20. We learn new
things; we are >exposed to new ideas. We incorporate these new ideas and
develop new patterns of thinking >and new philosophies.
Post by ichorwhip
This just in from the metaphysical journal "Duh!" (thanks to Norm
Macdonald on that one.)
I've always felt that the main issue in
ACO is Determinism versus Free Will with Retributionism versus
Utilitarianism running a close second.
Duh what an idiot...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
But Alex was young and his violent response was characterized, in part,
as a youthful >response. But how would Alex respond to violence around him
as he grew older and less >capable of protecting himself against a new
generation of Alexes?
Post by ichorwhip
I think you have REALLY missed the point. Alex is innately evil and
will remain that way until the day he snuffs it. This is central to
ACO. "I was cured all right."
God what a complete and total idiot.
Post by ichorwhip
Age brings greater conviction if anything although some do get scared
and repent (read Sartre).
You might want to take your own advice so you can discuss
existentialism with some of the other idiots here.
Post by ichorwhip
I just don't see Alex ever transcending his
own evil; it's just not in his character especially after what he goes
through.
What a unfathomable blithering idiot.
Post by ichorwhip
To be good? Nah! If anything he would be repelled by the thought of
it having once been conditioned against his will to be the model
christian, so to speak. Perhaps, if Alex had never been given the
Ludovico, he may have later saw some error in his ways, but it's highly
doubtful and even pointless to speculate within the context of the
novel or the film.
What an idi...oh I'm getting carpal tunnel so I'll cut to the chase...

You idiots are aware that the novel "A Clockwork Orange" had
a 21st chapter that was edited out of the American edition, right?
In that chapter, Alex gets out of the hospital, gets married, has
children, and lives a quiet exemplary life. The End.

Kubrick claims he only became aware of the original English
version of the novel after he made the movie (allegedly an American
producer or some American sent him the book in the first place).

Burgess wasn't happy with the American version of the book or
with Kubrick using that version (though he wasn't so unhappy that
he didn't actively promote the movie in America in the absence of
the director).

He had carefully written a book with three distinct parts of seven
chapters each, each part beginning with the question "What's it going
to be then, eh?", and didn't like that the payoff to that TRULY existential
question was thrown away in the movie and the American novel...

---
William Ernest "I Want A Sequel To Dr. Stranglove" Reid
ichorwhip
2006-05-25 23:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
God what an idiot...
Reidiot must be back off his meds.... Got tired of peddling his
puke-stupid Buffy quotes and hacking on babbling baboons like Bedpan
Dan. You craving blood now Billy? Not ever content to settle for
douche juice, the bipolar bitchfrog hops back into battle mode...what
an idiothead!
Was this another of your many faces? Prolly...
Post by Bill Reid
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/28983/three_movies_in_search_of_a_s
equel.html
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
Three films are contemplated for possibility of a sequel. One of them
is A Clockwork Orange.
"Well, now .. . let's just see if there's anything missing!"
Like your brain?
Must be yours coming at me with such pathetic insults... One thing I
really don't care for about you is your total lack of creativity. "Like
your brain?"????? Have you ever heard anything so dull and juvenile?!
You may be abusive, but you're not clever at all.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
We find that we truly didn't have all the answers at age 20. We learn new
things; we are >exposed to new ideas. We incorporate these new ideas and
develop new patterns of thinking >and new philosophies.
Post by ichorwhip
This just in from the metaphysical journal "Duh!" (thanks to Norm
Macdonald on that one.)
I've always felt that the main issue in
ACO is Determinism versus Free Will with Retributionism versus
Utilitarianism running a close second.
Duh what an idiot...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
But Alex was young and his violent response was characterized, in part,
as a youthful >response. But how would Alex respond to violence around him
as he grew older and less >capable of protecting himself against a new
generation of Alexes?
Post by ichorwhip
I think you have REALLY missed the point. Alex is innately evil and
will remain that way until the day he snuffs it. This is central to
ACO. "I was cured all right."
God what a complete and total idiot.
Post by ichorwhip
Age brings greater conviction if anything although some do get scared
and repent (read Sartre).
You might want to take your own advice so you can discuss
existentialism with some of the other idiots here.
So it's not just me at this point in your pattern of abuse... What a
foaming flaming fool! Reidiot Riedzsche Dildoturd von Douchecough
wants all the attention! What is hilarious, by no intention of your
own, is when you make some "big" arrogant statement and get completely
ignored. You can practically hear the crickets most of the time...
Tell you what... Since your so goddam fixated on "existentialism" why
don't you post on the subject. Maybe, just MAYBE, I'll respond to it
even if it is Reidiotic.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I just don't see Alex ever transcending his
own evil; it's just not in his character especially after what he goes
through.
What a unfathomable blithering idiot.
Post by ichorwhip
To be good? Nah! If anything he would be repelled by the thought of
it having once been conditioned against his will to be the model
christian, so to speak. Perhaps, if Alex had never been given the
Ludovico, he may have later saw some error in his ways, but it's highly
doubtful and even pointless to speculate within the context of the
novel or the film.
What an idi...oh I'm getting carpal tunnel so I'll cut to the chase...
That was so unclever I forgot to sneer derisively...
Post by Bill Reid
You idiots are aware that the novel "A Clockwork Orange" had
a 21st chapter that was edited out of the American edition, right?
In that chapter, Alex gets out of the hospital, gets married, has
children, and lives a quiet exemplary life. The End.
Yeah, and it was bullshit with all due respect to Burgess...
Post by Bill Reid
Kubrick claims he only became aware of the original English
version of the novel after he made the movie (allegedly an American
producer or some American sent him the book in the first place).
So are you saying that Kubrick would have included the original ending
chapter in his film OR NOT?
Post by Bill Reid
Burgess wasn't happy with the American version of the book or
with Kubrick using that version (though he wasn't so unhappy that
he didn't actively promote the movie in America in the absence of
the director).
So what's your big point then douchegoo? This is already well known
around here like most everything you have to say that's actually
on-topic.
Post by Bill Reid
He had carefully written a book with three distinct parts of seven
chapters each, each part beginning with the question "What's it going
to be then, eh?", and didn't like that the payoff to that TRULY existential
question was thrown away in the movie and the American novel...
Well I guess he should have made his own movie then. I half-expected a
response like this, but I didn't really figure on your cycle coming
back around so soon. I'll deal with it. You're an idiot and douche,
but your "opinion" has been registered.

There, I fed the chupacabra, now back to my affairs...

"Do you wear any false teeth or false limbs?"
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2006-05-26 02:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
Three films are contemplated for possibility of a sequel. One of them
is A Clockwork Orange.
"Well, now .. . let's just see if there's anything missing!"
Like your brain?
Must be yours coming at me with such pathetic insults... One thing I
really don't care for about you is your total lack of creativity. "Like
your brain?"????? Have you ever heard anything so dull and juvenile?!
You may be abusive, but you're not clever at all.
"Oh yeah, well...so's your face!"
- Willow Rosenberg (hmmm...RosenBERG), "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
But Alex was young and his violent response was characterized, in part,
as a youthful >response. But how would Alex respond to violence around him
as he grew older and less >capable of protecting himself against a new
generation of Alexes?
Post by ichorwhip
I think you have REALLY missed the point. Alex is innately evil and
will remain that way until the day he snuffs it. This is central to
ACO. "I was cured all right."
I just don't see Alex ever transcending his
own evil; it's just not in his character especially after what he goes
through.
What a unfathomable blithering idiot.
Post by ichorwhip
To be good? Nah! If anything he would be repelled by the thought of
it having once been conditioned against his will to be the model
christian, so to speak. Perhaps, if Alex had never been given the
Ludovico, he may have later saw some error in his ways, but it's highly
doubtful and even pointless to speculate within the context of the
novel or the film.
What an idi...oh I'm getting carpal tunnel so I'll cut to the chase...
You idiots are aware that the novel "A Clockwork Orange" had
a 21st chapter that was edited out of the American edition, right?
In that chapter, Alex gets out of the hospital, gets married, has
children, and lives a quiet exemplary life. The End.
Yeah, and it was bullshit with all due respect to Burgess...
Oh yeah, I can smell your "respect" for a brilliant and well-regarded
author from here...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Kubrick claims he only became aware of the original English
version of the novel after he made the movie (allegedly an American
producer or some American sent him the book in the first place).
So are you saying that Kubrick would have included the original ending
chapter in his film OR NOT?
God what an idiot...listen carefully, what I wrote above is what
is known as "fact", what HE said about it.

However, if you read it carefully "between the lines", a reasonable
interpretation of my wording of "the facts" would be: Kubrick was
aware of the English version of the book before he made the movie,
decided he didn't want to portray the "redemption" theme of the book,
so he made the "nihilistic" (and many would call "juvenile") movie he
made, then...well, then...how can I put this gently...then he "didn't tell
the truth" about his foreknowledge of the unabridged novel.

There are several supporting "facts" that would tend to support
those conclusions: the loci of his domocile, his legendary research
into all details of his projects, etc. But thinkin's not what your
good at Botch...
Post by ichorwhip
So what's your big point then douchegoo? This is already well known
around here like most everything you have to say that's actually
on-topic.
Gee, I never would have guessed you two idiots were aware of this
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Perhaps, if Alex had never been given the
Ludovico, he may have later saw some error in his ways, but it's highly
doubtful and even pointless to speculate within the context of the
novel or the film.
"pointless to speculate within the context of the NOVEL or the film"

Hmmm...but now you claim to have known it all along...

"It doesn't gel, and if it doesn't gel, it isn't aspic" - "Psycho"

Since you have such apparent difficulty reading between the lines
or the lines themselves, let me be as simply clear as possible: I think
you idiotically forgot all about the missing chapter in the original novel
when you pecked out your latest bit of idiotic drivel. You almost
certainly had heard about it previously, but because you are an
idiot, you just forgot about it.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
He had carefully written a book with three distinct parts of seven
chapters each, each part beginning with the question "What's it going
to be then, eh?", and didn't like that the payoff to that TRULY existential
question was thrown away in the movie and the American novel...
Well I guess he should have made his own movie then.
Your sloooowwwww and poor reading comprehension, coupled
with your poor fact retention, makes coherent and thoughtful writing
impossible for you, which is probably why you lash out angrily
at writers of extreme accomplishment such as Anthony Burgess...
Post by ichorwhip
I half-expected a
response like this, but I didn't really figure on your cycle coming
back around so soon. I'll deal with it.
As soon as I figure out what you're trying to jabber here about what
you "didn't really figure", I'll "half-respond" to it, or something...
Post by ichorwhip
You're an idiot and douche,
but your "opinion" has been registered.
But will not be remembered, just like all those other "facts" that
swim into your porous skill like so many little reef fish temporarily
hiding amongst the coral.

Certainly, I've clearly stated before that Kubrick deliberately
managed to miss or downplay some elements of the novel "A
Clockwork Orange". What he gave the audience was geared
a little more to certain type of individual, perhaps an angrier,
more thoughtless, crueler breed of "human"...

But as I've said before, the descent of a "person" into inhumane
barbarism begins with the first stumble of idiocy. So, let's get things
nice and sparkling clear, not that this can possibly redeem you from
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I just don't see Alex ever transcending his
own evil; it's just not in his character especially after what he goes
through.
To be good? Nah! If anything he would be repelled by the thought of
it having once been conditioned against his will to be the model
christian, so to speak. Perhaps, if Alex had never been given the
Ludovico, he may have later saw some error in his ways, but it's highly
doubtful and even pointless to speculate within the context of the
novel or the film.
But as the novel asks several times, and the movie once, "What's
it going to be then, eh?" What can an INTELLIGENT person conclude
about what Alex would do after getting out of the hospital?

Well, both the movie and the novel make it VERY clear that Alex
hated prison, and he considered the Ludovico treatment to be "the
tortures of the damned". So why would he commit any further violent
crimes, and run the risk of either going back to prison or possibly
subjected to another experimental treatment, or both?

But there's something else that occurs quite obviously in both the
movie and the novel. Alex is transformed from the supreme undefeated
predator in the beginning, to a whimpering victim by the end. And
there is clear evidence that these experiences have ingrained at least
some amount of "empathy" into him. Note his response when he is
told that the writer's wife is dead: he seems genuinely shocked and
remorseful. It seems as if his ordeal really has FINALLY taught him
that "people have the right to live without being tolchocked".

And he was offered "a good job at a good salary". Hmmm..."what's
it going to be then, eh?"

Put it all together, his desire not to go back to prison, at
least a little understanding of the feelings of victims, an offer
of a "cushy" middle-class life, and it is not UNREASONABLE
to think that Alex might choose a more peaceful lifestyle...and
that is exactly how the SUCCESSFUL writer of the novel
choose to end his story.

But maybe YOU should write your own book...sorry, forgot
that first, you'll have to learn how to READ them a little quicker
and better, not to mention follow the plot of a "juvenile" movie...

---
William Ernest "Not Even A Traffic Ticket For 15 Years" Reid
ichorwhip
2006-05-27 00:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Like I didn't see this spastic foment of caustic frothy vomit coming...
I guess I mixed in too many habaneros into the chupa's FC gruel...

<snip a whole pile of it, since you got selective. I always know when
I've "burned your ass" based on what you've cut out, brahahahaha!!!!!!>
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You idiots are aware that the novel "A Clockwork Orange" had
a 21st chapter that was edited out of the American edition, right?
In that chapter, Alex gets out of the hospital, gets married, has
children, and lives a quiet exemplary life. The End.
Well Reidiot, in my initial skimming of your "literary" scum I almost
missed this. In the 21st chapter Alex does NOT get married, does NOT
have a child and his "exemplary life" is left up in the air. There's a
tone of ambivalence and ambiguity in the 21st chapter to be certain,
but I STILL don't think it works, and it definitely would have marred
Kubrick's film to include it. For the record, Alex realizes that he's
growing up: "I was like growing up." Past 18 and so forth, ya folla?
He does contemplate a wife and child, but there is no real "happy
ending" afforded. The last line is "And all that cal.", which is
telling within the context of Alex's supposed will to change his
lifestyle. I guess you just forgot that since you're an idiot.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Yeah, and it was bullshit with all due respect to Burgess...
Oh yeah, I can smell your "respect" for a brilliant and well-regarded
author from here...
What you're smelling is prolly your underpants, idiot. I happen to
hold the opinion that the 21st chapter was a mistake that didn't quite
fit. Chapter 20 should have been Chapter 21 if he wanted the whole
numerical reference to 21 being the age of maturity. He could have
rewritten it that way, but who really cares at this point? Just a bunch
of stupid shit...

One thing about Burgess, he certainly wrote better than you! What did
he have to say about ACO in total?: "I first published the novella _A
Clockwork Orange_ in 1962, which ought to be far enough in the past for
it to be erased from the world's literary memory. It refuses to be
erased, however, and for this the film version of the book made by
Stanley Kubrick may be held chiefly responsible. I should myself be
glad to disown it for various reasons, but this is not permitted."
Always the sardonic card this guy...
Post by Bill Reid
However, if you read it carefully "between the lines", a reasonable
interpretation of my wording of "the facts" would be: Kubrick was
aware of the English version of the book before he made the movie,
decided he didn't want to portray the "redemption" theme of the book,
so he made the "nihilistic" (and many would call "juvenile") movie he
made, then...well, then...how can I put this gently...then he "didn't tell
the truth" about his foreknowledge of the unabridged novel.
Calling Kubrick a liar again, eh? That's nice. And how can you
possibly expect me to "read between the lines" when it comes to pinning
your dumb, slippery, disingenuous ass down? I often read YOU between
the lines, but I don't want to repeat all that garbage. Nobody gives a
good goddam about you anyway...idiot.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
So what's your big point then douchegoo? This is already well known
around here like most everything you have to say that's actually
on-topic.
Gee, I never would have guessed you two idiots were aware of this
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Perhaps, if Alex had never been given the
Ludovico, he may have later saw some error in his ways, but it's
highly
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
doubtful and even pointless to speculate within the context of the
novel or the film.
"pointless to speculate within the context of the NOVEL or the film"
That's right idiot. I guess I should have clarified that I was talking
about the American version of the novel as it relates to the film
especially for idiot stalking flamers like you looking for any excuse
whatsoever to start another retarded "argument." I had all but
forgotten the 21st chapter in the UK version because it just doesn't
fit well within the flow of the rest of the novel despite what Burgess
said. That's my opinion, and you can smell it all you want. You'll be
finding a lot of others with similar scents, snort their asses as well.
Kubrick especially deserves a good wafting because he "lied" and left
the 21st chapter out of his film. Also what's more important to me is
Kubrick's film, and it works just fine without that somewhat "gloopy"
21st chapter. Burgess said in his typically facetious way: "Readers of
the twenty-first chapter must decide for themselves whether it enhances
the book they presumably know or is really a discardable limb. I meant
the book to end in this way, but my aesthetic judgement may have been
faulty. Writers are rarely their own best critics, nor are critics.
'Quod scripsi scripsi' said Pontius Pilate when he made Jesus Christ
the King of the Jews. 'What I have written I have Written.' We can
destroy what we have written but we cannot unwrite it. I leave what I
wrote with what Dr. Johnson called frigid indifference to the judgement
of that .00000001 of the American population which cares about such
things. Eat this sweetish segment or spit it out. You are free."

So let me state this in a way that even a retard like you can hopefully
understand: Having the 21st chapter with a "naturally" reforming and
contemplative Alex is about as predictable and believable as you
suddenly making a post on AMK without any insulting behavior in it.
You need the 21st chapter you idiot! Burgess was at least more of a
sport about bellyaching on how Kubrick "ruined" his novel etcetera.
Thank bog there were no lousy topiary droogs made out of shrubbery to
be excised; at least Burgess was better than that.
Post by Bill Reid
Hmmm...but now you claim to have known it all along...
"It doesn't gel, and if it doesn't gel, it isn't aspic" - "Psycho"
Since you have such apparent difficulty reading between the lines
or the lines themselves, let me be as simply clear as possible: I think
you idiotically forgot all about the missing chapter in the original novel
when you pecked out your latest bit of idiotic drivel. You almost
certainly had heard about it previously, but because you are an
idiot, you just forgot about it.
Well idiot, I didn't bring up the 21st chapter because the "idiot" who
wrote the stupid article calling for a ACO sequel didn't bring it up.
I could have approached Sexton's essay, or whatever it was, from that
direction, but I didn't. Big deal! A missed opportunity on my part
since the "douche" seemed to be pitching the "idea" of the 21st chapter
without even knowing it (although, once again, there is no "happy"
ending.) Yay! Reidiot scored a free point! Would you like to see a
sequel to ACO such as Sexton suggested? I think it's a stupid idea,
and I don't need the often forgotten 21st chapter to say so, but thanks
for the reminder; even an idiot can read a noodle in a bowl of alphabet
soup every once in a while. Afterall, you botched the facts having to
do with the 21st chapter yourself making you King of the Idiots. I'll
still give you the point though. You need it more than I do.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
He had carefully written a book with three distinct parts of seven
chapters each, each part beginning with the question "What's it going
to be then, eh?", and didn't like that the payoff to that TRULY
existential
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
question was thrown away in the movie and the American novel...
Well I guess he should have made his own movie then.
Your sloooowwwww and poor reading comprehension, coupled
with your poor fact retention, makes coherent and thoughtful writing
impossible for you, which is probably why you lash out angrily
at writers of extreme accomplishment such as Anthony Burgess...
No, I "lash out" at idiots like you, Burgess doesn't make me angry, in
fact, he's pretty funny. Read the rest of Burgess then? Well let's
hear your idiot's exigesis! I've read a few of his other novels, but I
don't think any of them approach ACO. One of his most interesting
books to me was "Re Joyce." In fact, I'd say that his literary and
musical criticism was spot on while his fiction was hit or miss.
"Extreme accomplishment"? I don't think Burgess rates as that fine a
novelist compared to the real heavyweights of English and American
literature. A book like "Enderby" is funny, but it lacks the stuff of
what I'd call a classic, and I don't think I'm alone in that regard.
The fact that he didn't even like ACO is part of the reason I don't
have super-esteem for his body of fiction. I think it's far and away
the best novel he wrote and that would include, per his wishes, the
21st chapter as weak and out of place as it is. I could be wrong since
I haven't read all his novels, but I'm open for suggestions and ready
to read anything worth reading as usual.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You're an idiot and douche,
but your "opinion" has been registered.
But will not be remembered, just like all those other "facts" that
swim into your porous skill like so many little reef fish temporarily
hiding amongst the coral.
Visions of Nemo swim through his head.
The lil' yellow douchefin darts through sewers fouling his gills.
My porous skill is penetrating your porous skull.
It's full of dookie you dumbass wookie.
Post by Bill Reid
Certainly, I've clearly stated before that Kubrick deliberately
managed to miss or downplay some elements of the novel "A
Clockwork Orange". What he gave the audience was geared
a little more to certain type of individual, perhaps an angrier,
more thoughtless, crueler breed of "human"...
Sounds like you're describing yourself, but praps you're just wrong
anyway.
Post by Bill Reid
But as I've said before, the descent of a "person" into inhumane
barbarism begins with the first stumble of idiocy. So, let's get things
nice and sparkling clear, not that this can possibly redeem you from
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I just don't see Alex ever transcending his
own evil; it's just not in his character especially after what he goes
through.
To be good? Nah! If anything he would be repelled by the thought of
it having once been conditioned against his will to be the model
christian, so to speak. Perhaps, if Alex had never been given the
Ludovico, he may have later saw some error in his ways, but it's
highly
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
doubtful and even pointless to speculate within the context of the
novel or the film.
But as the novel asks several times, and the movie once, "What's
it going to be then, eh?" What can an INTELLIGENT person conclude
about what Alex would do after getting out of the hospital?
I thought for a second you were going to include yourself in this,
idiot.
Post by Bill Reid
Well, both the movie and the novel make it VERY clear that Alex
hated prison, and he considered the Ludovico treatment to be "the
tortures of the damned".
You're attempting to argue it both ways here. Kubrick made some
significant changes to the novel that all but obliterate any hint of
the 21st crapture. I'll stick to the film as we plod on here refuting
you point by point.
Post by Bill Reid
So why would he commit any further violent
crimes, and run the risk of either going back to prison or possibly
subjected to another experimental treatment, or both?
Because that is the nature of the beast you stupid idiot! Why do
career criminals become repeat offenders and on to the point of doing
life in prison? They know the risks, but they run them anyway. It's
like I'm trying to explain things to a kindergartener here!
Post by Bill Reid
But there's something else that occurs quite obviously in both the
movie and the novel. Alex is transformed from the supreme undefeated
predator in the beginning, to a whimpering victim by the end. And
there is clear evidence that these experiences have ingrained at least
some amount of "empathy" into him.
That can be your interpretation, but I see it differently since I'm not
an idiot like you. Your "clear evidence" is tainted just like you are
with little giveaways such as the minister's speech about Alex:
"Unchanged, do I say - not quite. Prison taught him a false smile, the
rubbed hands of hypocrisy, the fawning, greased, obsequious leer."
Kubrick chose a pessimism that's far more accurate than the bleak
optimism Burgess offered with the 21st chapter, that's my read on it.
Post by Bill Reid
Note his response when he is
told that the writer's wife is dead: he seems genuinely shocked and
remorseful.
And yet ere he finds out this information he has no qualms about
returning to a favorite ol' ditty of ultraviolence while bathing...
The same wretched scoundrel lurks beneath. Didn't you listen to
anything that Deltoid, the Priest, the Minister, the Chief Guard and
the Prison Governor said at all?
Post by Bill Reid
It seems as if his ordeal really has FINALLY taught him
that "people have the right to live without being tolchocked".
What it taught him was not to get caught the next time.
Post by Bill Reid
And he was offered "a good job at a good salary". Hmmm..."what's
it going to be then, eh?"
Maybe the police! He can be just like Georgie and Dim, such virtuous
officers of the law...
Post by Bill Reid
Put it all together, his desire not to go back to prison, at
least a little understanding of the feelings of victims, an offer
of a "cushy" middle-class life, and it is not UNREASONABLE
to think that Alex might choose a more peaceful lifestyle...and
that is exactly how the SUCCESSFUL writer of the novel
chose to end his story.
Thinks he's making big points with all the caps, that's ALWAYS funny.
But Kubrick knew better! IDIOT!!!!
Post by Bill Reid
But maybe YOU should write your own book...sorry, forgot
that first, you'll have to learn how to READ them a little quicker
and better, not to mention follow the plot of a "juvenile" movie...
---
William Ernest "Not Even A Traffic Ticket For 15 Years" Reid
I'm starting to think that you might actually really be an idiot. You
certainly can't read worth a damn and your comprehension skills are
void. I doubt seriously that you're allowed to drive or go to the
bathroom by yourself. What are you?

"What's it going to be then, eh?"
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2006-05-27 18:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Like I didn't see this spastic foment of caustic frothy vomit coming...
I guess I mixed in too many habaneros into the chupa's FC gruel...
<snip a whole pile of it, since you got selective. I always know when
I've "burned your ass" based on what you've cut out, brahahahaha!!!!!!>
"You hurt me, you really hurt me." What is it with this ongoing obsession
to "get my goat"? You should know by now it ain't never gonna happen...

If you want to de-elide anything I've snipped, feel free. I'm quite
sure I only edited it because it was off the original topic and too stupid
to
respond to in any event.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You idiots are aware that the novel "A Clockwork Orange" had
a 21st chapter that was edited out of the American edition, right?
In that chapter, Alex gets out of the hospital, gets married, has
children, and lives a quiet exemplary life. The End.
Well Reidiot, in my initial skimming of your "literary" scum I almost
missed this. In the 21st chapter Alex does NOT get married, does NOT
have a child and his "exemplary life" is left up in the air.
No, you're right. What he does is state is his decision to get married,
and his intense desire to have children, and his lack of desire to return
to violence. Same difference, unless you're an idiot.
Post by ichorwhip
There's a
tone of ambivalence and ambiguity in the 21st chapter to be certain,
The only thing that's certain is that you're an idiot. Oh, and that there
is a "tonne" of certainty that in the chapter, Alex has lost most all
interest
in violence, is fantasizing about having children, and has set himself
a goal of finding a wife.
Post by ichorwhip
but I STILL don't think it works, and it definitely would have marred
Kubrick's film to include it.
Well, I agree with you, but at this point you might want to ask: WHY
doesn't it "work" for you? (I'll skip the reason it doesn't "work" for
me, which is probably the same reason, because I'm not the idiot here,
and I already know the answer anyway.)

This is great little test to see if the Quote Monkey can comprehend
and communicate his own reactions to the Rorsharch...I predict he can't,
because he never has. I'm going out on a limb and predict more idiotic
non-sequitur jabbering...
Post by ichorwhip
For the record, Alex realizes that he's
growing up: "I was like growing up." Past 18 and so forth, ya folla?
Sure, which is exactly what the original poster contemplated as the
theme of a sequel, which you idiotically rejected as "pointless to speculate
within the context of the novel or the film".
Post by ichorwhip
He does contemplate a wife and child, but there is no real "happy
ending" afforded. The last line is "And all that cal.", which is
telling within the context of Alex's supposed will to change his
lifestyle.
And the next to last line is "Amen", after he says he has decided to
find a wife and get married and have children. "Amen", from the
Greek "a menous", meaning "I have thought, and have concluded,
and now believe with all my heart and mind."

"What's it going to be then, eh?" You see, a REAL writer, a REALLY
good writer, like Burgess, knows SO much: words, their meanings,
people, their behavior, and uses the former to illustrate the latter.

"And all that cal." "Alex" uses that phrase several times in the last
chapter mocking his own fantasies about marriage and fatherhood.
Burgess paints the picture of the boy at the transition to manhood,
with the boy weakly deriding the values of the man he will become.

Gee, last time I checked, this is kind of like a fundamental part
of human life, something that any "artist" can incorporate and explicate
in their work. Just about every everybody is shocked at some time
about how they're now "thinking like my parents, which I used to
think was sooooooo stupid".

The only way you couldn't accept this is if you were permanently
trapped with the emotional maturity of a child...
Post by ichorwhip
I guess you just forgot that since you're an idiot.
Didn't really forget anything, certainly not your idiotic and childish
and almost certainly disingenuous interpretation of "ambiguity" in the
21st chapter...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Yeah, and it was bullshit with all due respect to Burgess...
Oh yeah, I can smell your "respect" for a brilliant and well-regarded
author from here...
What you're smelling is prolly your underpants, idiot.
"Oh yeah, well...so's your face!!!" Hypocritical idiot...
Post by ichorwhip
I happen to
hold the opinion that the 21st chapter was a mistake that didn't quite
fit.
But why? What is it in YOU that makes you "feel" this way?
Post by ichorwhip
Chapter 20 should have been Chapter 21 if he wanted the whole
numerical reference to 21 being the age of maturity.
Then chapter 20 would have been blank, like "Genji" lost among
the clouds!!!
Post by ichorwhip
He could have
rewritten it that way, but who really cares at this point? Just a bunch
of stupid shit...
"And all that cal."

Apparently you care, enough to try to re-write or just criticise something
that I must regretfully again inform you that you will NEVER come close to
accomplishing in your pitiful life.
Post by ichorwhip
One thing about Burgess, he certainly wrote better than you!
That's true of so many writers!
Post by ichorwhip
What did
he have to say about ACO in total?: "I first published the novella _A
Clockwork Orange_ in 1962, which ought to be far enough in the past for
it to be erased from the world's literary memory. It refuses to be
erased, however, and for this the film version of the book made by
Stanley Kubrick may be held chiefly responsible. I should myself be
glad to disown it for various reasons, but this is not permitted."
Always the sardonic card this guy...
You'll never understand the "artist", that's for damn sure...

You just don't "get it"; in addition to having the emotional maturity
of "little child", you have the understanding of the creative process
of an eight-year-old, which you display with every slathering post
here...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
However, if you read it carefully "between the lines", a reasonable
interpretation of my wording of "the facts" would be: Kubrick was
aware of the English version of the book before he made the movie,
decided he didn't want to portray the "redemption" theme of the book,
so he made the "nihilistic" (and many would call "juvenile") movie he
made, then...well, then...how can I put this gently...then he "didn't tell
the truth" about his foreknowledge of the unabridged novel.
Calling Kubrick a liar again, eh? That's nice.
Well, I can't factually call him a "liar", and I NEVER have, and I didn't
above, because I don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he
ever LIED about anything.
Post by ichorwhip
And how can you
possibly expect me to "read between the lines" when it comes to pinning
your dumb, slippery, disingenuous ass down? I often read YOU between
the lines, but I don't want to repeat all that garbage. Nobody gives a
good goddam about you anyway...idiot.
You asked me to speculate about his mental state, I answered it with
a series of FACTS that tend to support the conclusion that Kubrick
never would have used the 21st chapter in any event. Apparently you
care what I think since you asked the question.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
So what's your big point then douchegoo? This is already well known
around here like most everything you have to say that's actually
on-topic.
Gee, I never would have guessed you two idiots were aware of this
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Perhaps, if Alex had never been given the
Ludovico, he may have later saw some error in his ways, but it's
highly
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
doubtful and even pointless to speculate within the context of the
novel or the film.
"pointless to speculate within the context of the NOVEL or the film"
That's right idiot. I guess I should have clarified that I was talking
about the American version of the novel as it relates to the film
especially for idiot stalking flamers like you looking for any excuse
whatsoever to start another retarded "argument."
The "American version" of the novel is the exact same version as
the English version, just minus the last chapter! As Burgess explicitly
states, he carefully constructed the ENTIRE novel with that ending
in mind.

There is no "argument" here except that you make it one. I merely
pointed out a simple fact: that you two idiots were discussing a sequel
to "A Clockwork Orange" covering subject matter that was in the
21st chapter of the novel.

Aside from the pejorative use of the word "idiot", everything I've
said on the topic has been based on simple facts that either you
didn't know beforehand, or forgot about, which is all I said in the
first place. Be very aware that the word "idiot", though hurtful,
can be properly applied to persons who are unaware of well-known
facts, or who forget them.

The "argument", for the umpteenth time, is you back on your
backpedalling bike trying to "prove" that you're "right" while
simultaneously and ridiculously admitting you're wrong.

You just forgot the 21st chapter, period. You've admitted it,
you could just leave it at that. You're an idiot, we all know that,
why fight it?
Post by ichorwhip
I had all but
forgotten the 21st chapter in the UK version because it just doesn't
fit well within the flow of the rest of the novel despite what Burgess
said.
You see, you come so close to admitting the simple truth here,
you just forgot about the 21st chapter, but you just got to pedal
that bike backwards just a little bit "to save face".

And hilariously, you used the word "flow". The word "flow" has
special meaning to me, because years ago a very immature idiot that
I was forced to work with, a giant Kubrick fan, a person like yourself
who is like a child with his nose pressed against the window display
of "art" but will never be admitted to the store, used to use the word
"flow" all the time, but he could never describe what he meant
by "flow".

Now I already know the probable repsonse to this, and I've basically
asked this before, but what about the 21st chapter doesn't "flow" for
you?
Post by ichorwhip
That's my opinion, and you can smell it all you want.
Well, where do you think that "opinion" came from?
Post by ichorwhip
You'll be
finding a lot of others with similar scents, snort their asses as well.
Maybe Americans just don't like the concept of redemption...
Post by ichorwhip
Kubrick especially deserves a good wafting because he "lied" and left
the 21st chapter out of his film. Also what's more important to me is
Kubrick's film, and it works just fine without that somewhat "gloopy"
21st chapter.
Yeah, I liked the movie too. Of course none of this has anything to
do with you being an idiot who idiotically forgot that there was a 21st
chapter in the first place...man, is your herring red...
Post by ichorwhip
Burgess said in his typically facetious way: "Readers of
the twenty-first chapter must decide for themselves whether it enhances
the book they presumably know or is really a discardable limb. I meant
the book to end in this way, but my aesthetic judgement may have been
faulty. Writers are rarely their own best critics, nor are critics.
'Quod scripsi scripsi' said Pontius Pilate when he made Jesus Christ
the King of the Jews. 'What I have written I have Written.' We can
destroy what we have written but we cannot unwrite it. I leave what I
wrote with what Dr. Johnson called frigid indifference to the judgement
of that .00000001 of the American population which cares about such
things. Eat this sweetish segment or spit it out. You are free."
OK, if forced to the choice, I will spit it out.

I will say that I immensely enjoyed him slyly inserting the concept of
"free will" into his little dissertation about the "quality" of the 21st
chapter
which was all about, you guessed it, "free will"...

But once again, what does this have to do with you being an idiot?
Post by ichorwhip
So let me state this in a way that even a retard like you can hopefully
understand: Having the 21st chapter with a "naturally" reforming and
contemplative Alex is about as predictable and believable as you
suddenly making a post on AMK without any insulting behavior in it.
I've done so many times. People are little more complex than you,
with your sub-adolescent maturity level, can comprehend.

This may, though, serve as the most "politically correct" answer to
my question as to why you don't think the 21st chapter has the right
"flow". I was really looking for a more introspective insight, but
of course that would require an adult perspective, so I guess we
can just go with, "If a bad guy is a bad guy at the beginning of a
book, he must be a bad guy at the end."

For the record, I also didn't like that they turned Darth Varder into
such a wuss in "Star Wars". Also, those light sabers were NEAT!!!
Post by ichorwhip
You need the 21st chapter you idiot! Burgess was at least more of a
sport about bellyaching on how Kubrick "ruined" his novel etcetera.
Thank bog there were no lousy topiary droogs made out of shrubbery to
be excised; at least Burgess was better than that.
Burgess was a better man and writer than King.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Hmmm...but now you claim to have known it all along...
"It doesn't gel, and if it doesn't gel, it isn't aspic" - "Psycho"
Since you have such apparent difficulty reading between the lines
or the lines themselves, let me be as simply clear as possible: I think
you idiotically forgot all about the missing chapter in the original novel
when you pecked out your latest bit of idiotic drivel. You almost
certainly had heard about it previously, but because you are an
idiot, you just forgot about it.
Well idiot, I didn't bring up the 21st chapter because the "idiot" who
wrote the stupid article calling for a ACO sequel didn't bring it up.
No, idiot, you're back backpedalling on your bike again and again.
You've admitted that you "all but forgot" about the 21st chapter, and
certainly you would have "flamed" the original poster about the
similarities between his proposed sequel and the 21st chapter had
a functioning synapse in your tiny little brain been able to make the
connection.
Post by ichorwhip
I could have approached Sexton's essay, or whatever it was, from that
direction, but I didn't.
I am in the mind of that Queen song that starts with "Bi-cycle...bi-cycle"
except with the lyric "Back-pedal...back-pedal".
Post by ichorwhip
Big deal!
To you, yes. To me, just another day laughing at the idiotic monkeys
in the Usenet zoo...
Post by ichorwhip
A missed opportunity on my part
since the "douche" seemed to be pitching the "idea" of the 21st chapter
without even knowing it
And of course, he wasn't the only clueless one, riiiiiiiiiight?!!???!!???
You "forgot" it too,
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?!?!!!????!!???!!??
Post by ichorwhip
(although, once again, there is no "happy"
ending.)
You see, this is why I'd like a more fullsome answer to the question
about what busts your chops so bad about the missing chapter. Why
is a chapter about a young man working a "good job" for a music
publisher, looking for wife so he can settle down and have an adorable
fat baby, not a "happy" ending?

And how does this tie in with the critics who claim that the movie
"glorified violence"? Would a really "happy" ending have been if Alex
had pulled a machine gun out from under his bed and blown away
the Minister of the Interior or Inferior and the photographers? "I
was cured, all right!!!"
Post by ichorwhip
Yay! Reidiot scored a free point!
Yay me! I win again!
Post by ichorwhip
Would you like to see a
sequel to ACO such as Sexton suggested?
No. I clearly stated I wanted a sequel to "Dr. Strangelove", a whole
battle over "mineshaft rights".
Post by ichorwhip
I think it's a stupid idea,
and I don't need the often forgotten
By you, you backpedalling idiot!!!
Post by ichorwhip
21st chapter to say so, but thanks
for the reminder; even an idiot can read a noodle in a bowl of alphabet
soup every once in a while.
OK, I think we've come to a conclusion here: you just forgot the 21st
chapter. Let's see how long this fact sticks in your head...
Post by ichorwhip
Afterall, you botched the facts having to
do with the 21st chapter yourself making you King of the Idiots.
Ah, I was close enough, come on, you're still the King, I am but
a mere peasant in the Land of the Idiots awaiting your latest idiotic
proclamation...
Post by ichorwhip
I'll
still give you the point though. You need it more than I do.
Charity becomes the King!!! "Sometimes you have give and
like show generous to your unders."
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
He had carefully written a book with three distinct parts of seven
chapters each, each part beginning with the question "What's it going
to be then, eh?", and didn't like that the payoff to that TRULY
existential
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
question was thrown away in the movie and the American novel...
Well I guess he should have made his own movie then.
Your sloooowwwww and poor reading comprehension, coupled
with your poor fact retention, makes coherent and thoughtful writing
impossible for you, which is probably why you lash out angrily
at writers of extreme accomplishment such as Anthony Burgess...
No, I "lash out" at idiots like you, Burgess doesn't make me angry, in
fact, he's pretty funny. Read the rest of Burgess then? Well let's
hear your idiot's exigesis!
The fact that he didn't even like ACO is part of the reason I don't
have super-esteem for his body of fiction.
You just don't get "it", do you? "It" being...well, everything...
Post by ichorwhip
I think it's far and away
the best novel he wrote and that would include, per his wishes, the
21st chapter as weak and out of place as it is. I could be wrong since
I haven't read all his novels, but I'm open for suggestions and ready
to read anything worth reading as usual.
I hesitate to recommend anything for you to read as you've made
it very clear that you are an incredibly slow reader with very poor
comprehension of what you've read. You literally take longer to
read books than I take to write them; I was particularly amused
to hear jabbering here about "They Call Me PROFESSOR" Cocks'
book being a weighty ca. 225 pages with ca. 20 pages of footnotes.

Seeing as how that took you months to get through, and you are
apparently still working on follow-up read a half a year later, in the
interest of getting an "opinion" from you within my lifetime I would
like to recommend "The Cat In The Hat" by "They Don't Call
Me A DOCTOR" Gisel...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Certainly, I've clearly stated before that Kubrick deliberately
managed to miss or downplay some elements of the novel "A
Clockwork Orange". What he gave the audience was geared
a little more to certain type of individual, perhaps an angrier,
more thoughtless, crueler breed of "human"...
Sounds like you're describing yourself, but praps you're just wrong
anyway.
Maybe I am describing myself, I will admit that. Now tell us again
why redemption is such an "unhappy" concept to YOU?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Well, both the movie and the novel make it VERY clear that Alex
hated prison, and he considered the Ludovico treatment to be "the
tortures of the damned".
You're attempting to argue it both ways here. Kubrick made some
significant changes to the novel that all but obliterate any hint of
the 21st crapture.
What changes would those be? Alex was nothing if not even a
WORSE psychopath in the novel than in the movie.

Kubrick actually changed very little of importance in the novel.
The narration, dialog, and scenes in the movie were basically just
slightly truncated versions of what was in the novel. Kubrick
only added a few inconsequential scenes, and made some
superficial wardrobe and appearance changes; in general,
this was one of the most faithful adaptations of a book to
film I have ever seen. Your idiocy (and backpedalling) are
showing again...
Post by ichorwhip
I'll stick to the film as we plod on here refuting
you point by point.
Why? What's the "point"? The truth is, all these "points" are
rather "pointless"...isn't that what you said in the first place?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
So why would he commit any further violent
crimes, and run the risk of either going back to prison or possibly
subjected to another experimental treatment, or both?
Because that is the nature of the beast you stupid idiot! Why do
career criminals become repeat offenders and on to the point of doing
life in prison? They know the risks, but they run them anyway. It's
like I'm trying to explain things to a kindergartener here!
But some people do their jail time and never commit another crime.
I feel like I'm talking to a zygote here...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
But there's something else that occurs quite obviously in both the
movie and the novel. Alex is transformed from the supreme undefeated
predator in the beginning, to a whimpering victim by the end. And
there is clear evidence that these experiences have ingrained at least
some amount of "empathy" into him.
That can be your interpretation, but I see it differently since I'm not
an idiot like you. Your "clear evidence" is tainted just like you are
"Unchanged, do I say - not quite. Prison taught him a false smile, the
rubbed hands of hypocrisy, the fawning, greased, obsequious leer."
I thought he was describing himself! He had a plan to use the space
freed up by "cured" criminals for political prisoners: "Concentrate
politicians
together, and what do you get? Concentrated politics!!!"

In any event, your reading comprehension is the problem here again.
I talked about him being a "whimpering victim AT THE END"; he was
only part way through his journey to that point when the Minister
gave his speech. Idiot.
Post by ichorwhip
Kubrick chose a pessimism that's far more accurate than the bleak
optimism Burgess offered with the 21st chapter, that's my read on it.
"Bleak optimism"...what an idiot. Kubrick actually left it open-ended;
his classic "we'll meet again" ending. We'll always have criminals, we'll
always have scheming politicians, we'll always have failed political schemes
and attempts to repair the images of politicians using media manipulation,
etc.

In other words, the basics of human society don't change. That DOESN'T
mean anything about the future life of any particular INDIVIDUAL, but
you'd have to have greater than an eight-year-old's appreciation of the
world and movie themes to understand that...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Note his response when he is
told that the writer's wife is dead: he seems genuinely shocked and
remorseful.
And yet ere he finds out this information he has no qualms about
returning to a favorite ol' ditty of ultraviolence while bathing...
Well, he doesn't find out the writer's wife is dead until AFTER he
takes his bath, idiot, but you've managed to miss one of the most
salient points of the original BRILLIANT novel, which is that
a person's EMOTIONAL response to a movie or book or music
is not necessarily tied to any particular INTERPRETATION.
Alex's love of music is similar to many other peoples', but with
one important distinction: he is explicitly shown to have violent
fantasies when listening to music.

Now there was actually one "significant" change between the novel
and the film. In the novel, Alex is APPEARS to have been conditioned
to be repulsed by ALL music. In the film, he is ACCIDENTALLY
conditioned to be repulsed ONLY by Beethoven's Ninth. This is
a "significant" change in that his reactions to music serve as a guide
to how truly he has been "cured".

Now, this is also a "significant" change because it really illustrates
a central issue about how Stanley Kubrick made movies. Why did
he make that change? I won't require to you read between the lines
for this one: he didn't make the change because of some great "artistic"
difference with the source material, but rather as a matter of convenience
for his particular style of presentation. Once he got the "Singin' In The
Rain" rape scene on film, he didn't want to let it go, and then he wanted
to tie it into the "reveal" of Alex's true identity to the writer.

But the change is most "significant" as it lends insight into the
THOUGHTS of Alex after he is "cured". And ironically enough,
it tends to remove any possible ambiguity about what Alex is
THINKING in the scene in the bathroom, UNLESS YOU'RE
A COMPLETE AND TOTAL IDIOT. Is he truly indulging in an
ultra-violent flashback, or is he thinking of the happy-go-lucky
Gene Kelly dance scene?

We can actually determine this PRECISELY in the "context" of the
film. Remember, he was conditioned to be "sick to the very heart at
the THOUGHT of killing a fly", and as we saw explicitly and in his
first-person narration, that if he had a violent THOUGHT, he
would become ill.

So he was NOT having a VIOLENT THOUGHTS when he
hummed "Singin' In The Rain" in the bathroom. And yet, the
comprehension-challenged idiot Quote Monkey comes to exactly
Post by ichorwhip
The same wretched scoundrel lurks beneath. Didn't you listen to
anything that Deltoid, the Priest, the Minister, the Chief Guard and
the Prison Governor said at all?
Yes, DID YOU? And to the extent that they claimed he could
never be redeemed (and the Priest clearly stated the central theme
of the novel that a man could be redeemed if it "came from within,
if he truly wants to be good"), did you ever consider the possibility
that they were just "characters" expressing their perhaps incorrect
"opinions"?

Going by your logic, the commies really did put flouride in our drinking
water to "impurify our precious bodily fluids"; after all, a "character"
said it...IDIOT!!!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
It seems as if his ordeal really has FINALLY taught him
that "people have the right to live without being tolchocked".
What it taught him was not to get caught the next time.
What better way not to get caught than to never actually do the
crime in the first place; "there's the deterrent element."
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
And he was offered "a good job at a good salary". Hmmm..."what's
it going to be then, eh?"
Maybe the police! He can be just like Georgie and Dim, such virtuous
officers of the law...
Maybe! "Every cop is a criminal...and all the sinners, saints!!!"

"Artists" try so hard to get through to you, what a waste of effort, but
only in your case, at least I can truly "appreciate" what they are saying...

Look, in the 21st chapter he has a "dream job" working for a music
company for good money, so we don't need to discuss THAT issue
any further...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Put it all together, his desire not to go back to prison, at
least a little understanding of the feelings of victims, an offer
of a "cushy" middle-class life, and it is not UNREASONABLE
to think that Alex might choose a more peaceful lifestyle...and
that is exactly how the SUCCESSFUL writer of the novel
chose to end his story.
Thinks he's making big points with all the caps, that's ALWAYS funny.
MY ONLY POINT IS THAT YOU'RE A JUVENILE ANGRY
ABUSIVE IDIOTIC LOSER QUOTE MONKEY!!!

lol
Post by ichorwhip
But Kubrick knew better! IDIOT!!!!
No, not really, he just made a brilliant movie based on a brilliant novel.
He did have a certain on-going "nihilistic" theme throughout his movies
that clearly precluded the "happy" ending of a free-will redemption of
an individual person, but the movie he made DOES NOT preclude
that possibility, just doesn't present it.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
But maybe YOU should write your own book...sorry, forgot
that first, you'll have to learn how to READ them a little quicker
and better, not to mention follow the plot of a "juvenile" movie...
I'm starting to think that you might actually really be an idiot. You
certainly can't read worth a damn and your comprehension skills are
void.
I always love the part where they throw things back at you that are
clearly true about them after you've stated them...lack of creativity
indeed.

Monkey see, monkey fling poo?

---
William Ernest "Not An Idiot, But I Play With Them On Usenet" Reid
ichorwhip
2006-05-29 03:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Like I didn't see this spastic foment of caustic frothy vomit coming...
I guess I mixed in too many habaneros into the chupa's FC gruel...
<snip a whole pile of it, since you got selective. I always know when
I've "burned your ass" based on what you've cut out, brahahahaha!!!!!!>
"You hurt me, you really hurt me." What is it with this ongoing obsession
to "get my goat"? You should know by now it ain't never gonna happen...
Yeah, right..... LOL! Okay, goatboy, keep yer flea-bitten ass....
Post by Bill Reid
If you want to de-elide anything I've snipped, feel free. I'm quite
sure I only edited it because it was off the original topic and too stupid
to
respond to in any event.
Oh, kind of like what I do to you? I guess that's fair enough.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You idiots are aware that the novel "A Clockwork Orange" had
a 21st chapter that was edited out of the American edition, right?
In that chapter, Alex gets out of the hospital, gets married, has
children, and lives a quiet exemplary life. The End.
Well Reidiot, in my initial skimming of your "literary" scum I almost
missed this. In the 21st chapter Alex does NOT get married, does NOT
have a child and his "exemplary life" is left up in the air.
No, you're right. What he does is state is his decision to get married,
and his intense desire to have children, and his lack of desire to return
to violence. Same difference, unless you're an idiot.
<sigh>
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
There's a
tone of ambivalence and ambiguity in the 21st chapter to be certain,
The only thing that's certain is that you're an idiot. Oh, and that there
is a "tonne" of certainty that in the chapter, Alex has lost most all
interest
in violence, is fantasizing about having children, and has set himself
a goal of finding a wife.
Yes, (now that we've corrected everything, and we're speaking about
the 21st chapter) but there is no indication that this will be
successful, this foray into matrimony and parenthood. It's my opinion
that Alex will turn to violence again. He has this ambivalence, and
it's temporarily masking his inherently evil nature. It's all
speculation at this point, but my guess for the future of a type such
as Alex would probably involve some sort of domestic abuse.
Wife-beating and child abuse are likely on the horizon, and then a
return to what he had liked the most.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
but I STILL don't think it works, and it definitely would have marred
Kubrick's film to include it.
Well, I agree with you, but at this point you might want to ask: WHY
doesn't it "work" for you? (I'll skip the reason it doesn't "work" for
me, which is probably the same reason, because I'm not the idiot here,
and I already know the answer anyway.)
Well idiot, if you already know the answer, I'm not going to waste time
on it.
Post by Bill Reid
This is great little test to see if the Quote Monkey can comprehend
and communicate his own reactions to the Rorsharch...I predict he can't,
because he never has. I'm going out on a limb and predict more idiotic
non-sequitur jabbering...
You won't be "testing" me idiot; I've already made myself clear.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
For the record, Alex realizes that he's
growing up: "I was like growing up." Past 18 and so forth, ya folla?
Sure, which is exactly what the original poster contemplated as the
theme of a sequel, which you idiotically rejected as "pointless to speculate
within the context of the novel or the film".
That's been since clarified idiot, and also that you're an idiot
because you can't even fault me without making mistakes yourself. I
know I overlooked the 21st chapter, but at least I know the 21st
chapter.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
He does contemplate a wife and child, but there is no real "happy
ending" afforded. The last line is "And all that cal.", which is
telling within the context of Alex's supposed will to change his
lifestyle.
And the next to last line is "Amen", after he says he has decided to
find a wife and get married and have children. "Amen", from the
Greek "a menous", meaning "I have thought, and have concluded,
and now believe with all my heart and mind."
Let's just get the whole last paragraph out here:

"But where I itty now, O my brothers, is all on my oddy knocky, where
you cannot go. Tomorrow is all like sweet flowers and the turning vonny
earth and the stars and the old Luna up there and your old droog Alex
all on his oddy knocky seeking like a mate. And all that cal. A
terrible grahzny vonny world, really, O my brothers. And so farewell
from your little droog. And to all others in this story profound shooms
of lip-music brrrrr. And they can kiss my sharries. But you, O my
brothers, remember sometimes thy little Alex that was. Amen. And all
that cal."

I don't think your interpretation of "Amen" is correct. As written it
has a hint of sacrilege in fact. Also Alex calls the world stinking
twice, "farts" on all the characters in his life and tells them they
can kiss his balls. Yeah, he's really going to change and become Ward
Cleaver now, what a joke! Seems to me the 21st chapter was just that.
Post by Bill Reid
"What's it going to be then, eh?" You see, a REAL writer, a REALLY
good writer, like Burgess, knows SO much: words, their meanings,
people, their behavior, and uses the former to illustrate the latter.
"And all that cal." "Alex" uses that phrase several times in the last
chapter mocking his own fantasies about marriage and fatherhood.
Burgess paints the picture of the boy at the transition to manhood,
with the boy weakly deriding the values of the man he will become.
No, he's showing signs that he'll take his monstrous pathology right
into adulthood.
Post by Bill Reid
Gee, last time I checked, this is kind of like a fundamental part
of human life, something that any "artist" can incorporate and explicate
in their work. Just about every everybody is shocked at some time
about how they're now "thinking like my parents, which I used to
think was sooooooo stupid".
Even evildoers have to grow up. Why would Alex be immune from
maturity?
Post by Bill Reid
The only way you couldn't accept this is if you were permanently
trapped with the emotional maturity of a child...
ditto!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I guess you just forgot that since you're an idiot.
Didn't really forget anything,
"Then you did that on purpose! You want to be different!!!"
Post by Bill Reid
certainly not your idiotic and childish
and almost certainly disingenuous interpretation of "ambiguity" in the
21st chapter...
"Almost certainly"??? What nerve! He's going to be ambiguous about me
being ambiguous about the ambiguities in the 21st Chapter. They're
there!!! Nothing disingenuous about that!

<snip>
Post by Bill Reid
I happen to
Post by ichorwhip
hold the opinion that the 21st chapter was a mistake that didn't quite
fit.
But why? What is it in YOU that makes you "feel" this way?
It doesn't logically follow what comes before it. It takes away the
great ironic tour de force of the 20th chapter's ending. And it's
ambiguous and ambivalent. You think it works, but you've failed to
convince me.

<snip>
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Calling Kubrick a liar again, eh? That's nice.
Well, I can't factually call him a "liar", and I NEVER have, and I didn't
above, because I don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he
ever LIED about anything.
So it's somehow different to say he didn't tell the truth.... no-k

<snip>
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
That's right idiot. I guess I should have clarified that I was talking
about the American version of the novel as it relates to the film
especially for idiot stalking flamers like you looking for any excuse
whatsoever to start another retarded "argument."
The "American version" of the novel is the exact same version as
the English version, just minus the last chapter! As Burgess explicitly
states, he carefully constructed the ENTIRE novel with that ending
in mind.
Well no cal, but this is AMK and Kubrick comes first...
Post by Bill Reid
There is no "argument" here except that you make it one.
Iron content high!!!
Post by Bill Reid
I merely
pointed out a simple fact: that you two idiots were discussing a sequel
to "A Clockwork Orange" covering subject matter that was in the
21st chapter of the novel.
Well when you point out your "simple facts" they are invariably laced
with inflammatory remarks and commentary. You are not going to blame
me for starting this "fight", idiot!
Post by Bill Reid
Aside from the pejorative use of the word "idiot", everything I've
said on the topic has been based on simple facts that either you
didn't know beforehand, or forgot about, which is all I said in the
first place. Be very aware that the word "idiot", though hurtful,
can be properly applied to persons who are unaware of well-known
facts, or who forget them.
Oh yeah, this is almost funny, the lighter more tender side of the word
"idiot". IDIOT!
Post by Bill Reid
The "argument", for the umpteenth time, is you back on your
backpedalling bike trying to "prove" that you're "right" while
simultaneously and ridiculously admitting you're wrong.
You just forgot the 21st chapter, period. You've admitted it,
you could just leave it at that. You're an idiot, we all know that,
why fight it?
Because the only truth is that I overlooked it idiot. I admit fault,
but it was understandable how it came to pass. You feel like you've
nailed me to the cross for this, but the truth is you made yourself
look really idiotic when you couldn't "close the deal" as a result of
having your "simple facts" fucked up on the 21st chapter. Twit for
Twat! But no, you can't accept that and move on, you have to keep
repeating and fixating on one little oversight to a post that doesn't
even mention the oversight at all to help cover up for the fact that
you are the real Reidiot that everybody knows by name. It ain't
working! And my patience is finally starting to run out....

<snip>
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Burgess said in his typically facetious way: "Readers of
the twenty-first chapter must decide for themselves whether it enhances
the book they presumably know or is really a discardable limb. I meant
the book to end in this way, but my aesthetic judgement may have been
faulty. Writers are rarely their own best critics, nor are critics.
'Quod scripsi scripsi' said Pontius Pilate when he made Jesus Christ
the King of the Jews. 'What I have written I have Written.' We can
destroy what we have written but we cannot unwrite it. I leave what I
wrote with what Dr. Johnson called frigid indifference to the judgement
of that .00000001 of the American population which cares about such
things. Eat this sweetish segment or spit it out. You are free."
OK, if forced to the choice, I will spit it out.
I will say that I immensely enjoyed him slyly inserting the concept of
"free will" into his little dissertation about the "quality" of the 21st
chapter
which was all about, you guessed it, "free will"...
Very good! I got that too. But I can STILL make a case for Alex going
back to his evil ways. It occurred to me that the 21st chapter can be
taken as a sort of joke. FWIW, I'm really glad you brought it up. I
really hadn't thought of it in a while. For once you made a decent
contribution even with all the idiot-this idiot-that bullshit that came
along with it.
Post by Bill Reid
But once again, what does this have to do with you being an idiot?
It has everything to do with you being an idiot of course, idiot!

<snip>

I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to the rest of your
voluminous, manic, flaming garbage, which is basically a variation on
the theme "you're an idiot" ad infinitum... If you want to dredge up
some of your leading questions later feel free to waste your time. I
answered most of your "concerns" in my response to the original poster.
I'm not about to answer the same stupid questions posed a hundred
different ways. When you get off on these overextended rabid tirades
of yours it makes me think you're smoking something out of a lightbulb.
Either keep it concise or be snipped. I have limited time for
chupacabra-idiots. You see, I don't spend my whole life at the
computer waiting on a guv-ment check pretending to be someone I ain't.
Well Happy Kubricking to ya!

"Pick that up and put it down properly."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2006-06-04 22:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Yes, (now that we've corrected everything, and we're speaking about
the 21st chapter) but there is no indication that this will be
successful, this foray into matrimony and parenthood. It's my opinion
that Alex will turn to violence again. He has this ambivalence, and
it's temporarily masking his inherently evil nature. It's all
speculation at this point, but my guess for the future of a type such
as Alex would probably involve some sort of domestic abuse.
Wife-beating and child abuse are likely on the horizon, and then a
return to what he had liked the most.
So "The Shining" was the sequel to "A Clockwork Orange"?

Maybe Alex will briefly explore career opportunities as a failed
writer, the surest path to madness...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
but I STILL don't think it works, and it definitely would have marred
Kubrick's film to include it.
Well, I agree with you, but at this point you might want to ask: WHY
doesn't it "work" for you? (I'll skip the reason it doesn't "work" for
me, which is probably the same reason, because I'm not the idiot here,
and I already know the answer anyway.)
Well idiot, if you already know the answer, I'm not going to waste time
on it.
Well, it's simple to express: at all times, you think and talk like a
little child. You love "Darth Alex", live vicariously through his
tolchocks,
and can't bear the thought of your "hero" changing his ways.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
This is great little test to see if the Quote Monkey can comprehend
and communicate his own reactions to the Rorsharch...I predict he can't,
because he never has.
You won't be "testing" me idiot; I've already made myself clear.
Clearly factually wrong many times. You're clearly projecting your
own desires onto the material, and outright falsifying what you cannot
ridiculously twist.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
He does contemplate a wife and child, but there is no real "happy
ending" afforded. The last line is "And all that cal.", which is
telling within the context of Alex's supposed will to change his
lifestyle.
And the next to last line is "Amen", after he says he has decided to
find a wife and get married and have children. "Amen", from the
Greek "a menous", meaning "I have thought, and have concluded,
and now believe with all my heart and mind."
"But where I itty now, O my brothers, is all on my oddy knocky, where
you cannot go. Tomorrow is all like sweet flowers and the turning vonny
earth and the stars and the old Luna up there and your old droog Alex
all on his oddy knocky seeking like a mate. And all that cal. A
terrible grahzny vonny world, really, O my brothers. And so farewell
from your little droog. And to all others in this story profound shooms
of lip-music brrrrr. And they can kiss my sharries. But you, O my
brothers, remember sometimes thy little Alex that was. Amen. And all
that cal."
I don't think your interpretation of "Amen" is correct.
You have an alternate etymology in your childish violent fantasy world?
Post by ichorwhip
As written it
has a hint of sacrilege in fact.
Heh. That's about all I can say is...heh.

What I tried to drill into your tiny little brain is the
word "Amen" has a specific NON-RELIGIOUS meaning that almost
surely Burgess was referencing, along with the more common
religious overtones alluding back to the prison chaplain and
Alex's faked conversion to Christianity.

But it's hopeless...you just can't "get" clever wordplay, subtle
irony, brilliantly nuanced writing, even when it is explained to
you carefully.

Again, Burgess is a WRITER, a knowledgable and clever manipulator
of WORDS, and I, at the very least, am a READER, able to understand
the meaning of the words he writes. As you've demonstrated once
again, you're neither, just an idi...see if you can fill in the
blank there, that's about your speed...
Post by ichorwhip
Also Alex calls the world stinking
twice, "farts" on all the characters in his life and tells them they
can kiss his balls. Yeah, he's really going to change and become Ward
Cleaver now, what a joke! Seems to me the 21st chapter was just that.
No, like the rest of the novel, it's funny, but I know he didn't write
it as "a joke". Rather, it does resemble several other of his "suprise
endings", and carries out a theme in many of his books, the transition
between the fascistic-violent-destructive urge and the
creative-nuturing-productive urge within individuals and
society at large.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Gee, last time I checked, this is kind of like a fundamental part
of human life, something that any "artist" can incorporate and explicate
in their work. Just about every everybody is shocked at some time
about how they're now "thinking like my parents, which I used to
think was sooooooo stupid".
Even evildoers have to grow up. Why would Alex be immune from
maturity?
"Evildoers"! Again I must say "heh". Good Lord, how blatently
can you reveal your intellectual peers than that?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
certainly not your idiotic and childish
and almost certainly disingenuous interpretation of "ambiguity" in the
21st chapter...
"Almost certainly"??? What nerve! He's going to be ambiguous about me
being ambiguous about the ambiguities in the 21st Chapter. They're
there!!! Nothing disingenuous about that!
I can't be CERTAIN of anything you "think" because your "mind"
works so much differently than mine. I can observe and predict
your behavior, much like any particular animal in a zoo, but
I can't really "grok" what's going "under the hood"...

Is this all just more backpedalling? Very likely, you got
caught red-handed having forgotten the 21st chapter, and now
you appear to be trying to wave red-herrings around in some
type of idiotic attempt to re-write the meaning of the chapter.

But it's clear that you have an "emotional attachment" to the
violent hate-filled Alex, so this may color your "perception" of
any attempt by the actual author to paint him with a different shade
of character.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Calling Kubrick a liar again, eh? That's nice.
Well, I can't factually call him a "liar", and I NEVER have, and I didn't
above, because I don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he
ever LIED about anything.
So it's somehow different to say he didn't tell the truth.... no-k
I said you might come to that conclusion "reading between the lines"
of the facts of the situation. I never call somebody a liar unless I
have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt certainly exists
for Kubrick for all the times one might allege he "fudged the facts";
however, I have called you a liar because you supplied the proof by the
bucketful and removed any possible doubt.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
The "American version" of the novel is the exact same version as
the English version, just minus the last chapter! As Burgess explicitly
states, he carefully constructed the ENTIRE novel with that ending
in mind.
Well no cal, but this is AMK and Kubrick comes first...
You're all over the map. You quote large sections of the novel,
then say you first take things in the context of the movie, then
refer back to the novel again..."back-pedal, BACK-PEDAL, I like
to ride my bicycle, I like to back it up"...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
The "argument", for the umpteenth time, is you back on your
backpedalling bike trying to "prove" that you're "right" while
simultaneously and ridiculously admitting you're wrong.
You just forgot the 21st chapter, period. You've admitted it,
you could just leave it at that. You're an idiot, we all know that,
why fight it?
Because the only truth is that I overlooked it idiot.
And the truth that you said it was "pointless to speculate within
the context of the novel or the film" that Alex would ever become
non-violent as he grew older. And the truth that when I "reminded"
you that the ending intended by the original author "speculated"
on exactly that possibility, you tried to "interpret" the chapter
as being "ambiguous", and then "speculated" that it was just
"a joke".

You look like an idiot when you do this. Here's how NOT to look
like an idiot: just stick with your premise that you personally
didn't like the 21st chapter, didn't think it "rang true" to the
character presented in the rest of the novel. You're on pretty
solid ground there, you can come up with more than a few "facts"
to support what really is only your "opinion", and you don't have
to resort to any ridiculous and unsupported interpretations of
the 21st chapter.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Burgess said in his typically facetious way: "Readers of
the twenty-first chapter must decide for themselves whether it enhances
the book they presumably know or is really a discardable limb. I meant
the book to end in this way, but my aesthetic judgement may have been
faulty. Writers are rarely their own best critics, nor are critics.
'Quod scripsi scripsi' said Pontius Pilate when he made Jesus Christ
the King of the Jews. 'What I have written I have Written.' We can
destroy what we have written but we cannot unwrite it. I leave what I
wrote with what Dr. Johnson called frigid indifference to the judgement
of that .00000001 of the American population which cares about such
things. Eat this sweetish segment or spit it out. You are free."
OK, if forced to the choice, I will spit it out.
I will say that I immensely enjoyed him slyly inserting the concept of
"free will" into his little dissertation about the "quality" of the 21st
chapter
which was all about, you guessed it, "free will"...
Very good! I got that too.
"Yayyyyyy!!! I've got mail!!!!!!! Yayyyyyyyy!!! I've got mail!!!!!!!"
Post by ichorwhip
But I can STILL make a case for Alex going
back to his evil ways. It occurred to me that the 21st chapter can be
taken as a sort of joke. FWIW, I'm really glad you brought it up. I
really hadn't thought of it in a while. For once you made a decent
contribution even with all the idiot-this idiot-that bullshit that came
along with it.
I told you a long time ago that I was the only person here capable
of carrying on an intelligent conversation about Kubrick's movies,
thanks for admitting it...and double thanks for not noting that it
is impossible for a single person to carry on a "conversation"...
Post by ichorwhip
I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to the rest of your
voluminous, manic, flaming garbage, which is basically a variation on
the theme "you're an idiot" ad infinitum... If you want to dredge up
some of your leading questions later feel free to waste your time. I
answered most of your "concerns" in my response to the original poster.
I'm not about to answer the same stupid questions posed a hundred
different ways. When you get off on these overextended rabid tirades
of yours it makes me think you're smoking something out of a lightbulb.
Either keep it concise or be snipped.
You sound like you're plumb tuckered out now. Sorry if I exceeded
your reading ability again, little feller. I acknowledged this was a
problem, the central problem of your life, the "issue" that drives
all of your anger and death-wishes and stalking...

But I can't help but notice that what you snipped was my pointing
out that FACTUALLY you were incorrect that Alex was indulging in a
violent fantasy in the writer's bathroom. Although I can't read your
"mind", I'll go out on limb here and just conclude you realized you'd
mucked it up again for the umpteenth time and disingenuously decided to
cut and run out with a few ridiculous parting insults.

One basic question here was: can a person change at least some
anti-social behaviors over the course of their lifetime? The answer
I think is yes. For example, you stopped your obvious stalking
behavior. It wasn't because of "choice to be good", but a threat
of possible action by "authorities". I noted the same behavior
modification (at least temporarily) when I mentioned that copying
and pasting entire copyrighted news stories without permission
constitutes copyright infringement.

But the other question is: what is the "core quality" of a
person, and can that change? You seem to believe that the
"core quality" of Alex is "violence", and that it cannot be
changed. Without commenting on the "flow" of the 21st chapter,
I think this is a short-sighted and childish interpretation of
the themes of the novel, and of life in general.

I believe, and I think that both Burgess AND Kubrick believe,
that one "core quality" of the HUMAN RACE is "violence", that
all human beings have some innate tendency to violence and destruction.
I think that Burgess believes that paradoxically all human beings
have some innate tendency to nurturing and creation as well, while
Kubrick was more of a "showman" of the "bad" nature of man while
denigrating the more positive aspects of mankind to mere "tool usage".

You "liked" the destructive nature of Alex, and "enjoyed" it so
much you resist any notion that it might be supplanted by a "better"
nature. You "liked" the ending of the movie better than the
original novel, because it was easier to maintain the fantasy
of endless violence that appeals so much to your destructive
nature.

I guess the question here isn't whether Alex could ever be
truly redeemed, but whether you could be...

---
William Ernest "Not Getting Older Just Getting Bitter" Reid
ichorwhip
2006-06-05 02:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Reidiot wrote a delayed extra-heaping helping of yeasty doucherot:

<snipped into snowflakes, no two alike!>
Post by Bill Reid
So "The Shining" was the sequel to "A Clockwork Orange"?
Maybe Alex will briefly explore career opportunities as a failed
writer, the surest path to madness...
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, maybe...Speaking to you about the interconnectivity of
Kubrick's films would certainly get at least a chapter of "carefully
prepared" petty torments from you featuring the word "idiot" endlessly.
You want to redeem someone? Now that's the biggest laugh of the year
so far. No lol or HAHA could do it justice. Your persistent attacks
on me are only your own, fella.

<snip total rot, Alex is not MY "shit sandwich" and there can be no
understanding between us when you deliberately "misunderstand"
everything I say to further your childish vendetta against me because I
make you look stupid on a consistent basis...>
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
So it's somehow different to say he didn't tell the truth.... no-k
I said you might come to that conclusion "reading between the lines"
of the facts of the situation. I never call somebody a liar unless I
have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm sure this is a lie, but I don't feel like proving it.<snip the
rest, you're boring me>
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Because the only truth is that I overlooked it idiot.
And the truth that you said it was "pointless to speculate within
the context of the novel or the film" that Alex would ever become
non-violent as he grew older. And the truth that when I "reminded"
you that the ending intended by the original author "speculated"
on exactly that possibility, you tried to "interpret" the chapter
as being "ambiguous", and then "speculated" that it was just
"a joke".
That's right, a miracle! I definitely see ambiguity and ambivalence in
the last chapter for like the third time! You haven't convinced me
otherwise because you barely know the chapter yourself, or such was the
case, I suspect you've been reading up. And now all these manic goings
ons because you're furious with yourself for having not insulted me
better. You're just sick man! Admit it!
Post by Bill Reid
You look like an idiot when you do this. Here's how NOT to look
like an idiot: just stick with your premise that you personally
didn't like the 21st chapter, didn't think it "rang true" to the
character presented in the rest of the novel. You're on pretty
solid ground there, you can come up with more than a few "facts"
to support what really is only your "opinion", and you don't have
to resort to any ridiculous and unsupported interpretations of
the 21st chapter.
The truth is I never really considered the ambiguities and so forth in
the 21st Chapter the first few times I read it long ago. When it came
up, I went and read it and this stuff struck me. You accuse me of not
being able to see Burgesses' cleverness? I always suspect it with him.
Burgess was clever. You seem to think that I don't have any respect
for him, but I do and made that clear, but you didn't acknowledge that
because it was contrary to your agenda or something. More so, now that
the "lost chapter" is in the forefront of our "sumo match", I have
given it extra attention.
Post by Bill Reid
I told you a long time ago that I was the only person here capable
of carrying on an intelligent conversation about Kubrick's movies,
thanks for admitting it...and double thanks for not noting that it
is impossible for a single person to carry on a "conversation"...
Well AMKers, there ya have it! There are 140 suscribers to AMK through
Google(TM)Groups alone at this moment that are all being insulted at
once minus Reidiot himself, assuming he suscribes. I say the Reidiot
is delusional with some sick fantasy of self-grandeur and megalomania.
We are all idiots in his eyes, Amen.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to the rest of your
voluminous, manic, flaming garbage, which is basically a variation on
the theme "you're an idiot" ad infinitum... If you want to dredge up
some of your leading questions later feel free to waste your time. I
answered most of your "concerns" in my response to the original poster.
I'm not about to answer the same stupid questions posed a hundred
different ways. When you get off on these overextended rabid tirades
of yours it makes me think you're smoking something out of a lightbulb.
Either keep it concise or be snipped.
You sound like you're plumb tuckered out now. Sorry if I exceeded
your reading ability again, little feller. I acknowledged this was a
problem, the central problem of your life, the "issue" that drives
all of your anger and death-wishes and stalking...
Piss on you Reidiot. I am "plumb tuckered out" trying to get anywhere
with you. If anybody's the stalker, you are. You lose your temper far
more than I do. And your "death wish" fetish is just insidious at this
point and you know it.
Post by Bill Reid
But I can't help but notice that what you snipped was my pointing
out that FACTUALLY you were incorrect that Alex was indulging in a
violent fantasy in the writer's bathroom. Although I can't read your
"mind", I'll go out on limb here and just conclude you realized you'd
mucked it up again for the umpteenth time and disingenuously decided to
cut and run out with a few ridiculous parting insults.
No, I just skimmed over your long-ass, ad hominem shitstorm and
responded to a few things, got tired of YOU and cut out just like I
said. You're lucky I respond at all little cuss. I clearly said to
dredge up any of your leading questions later. I just don't have the
time or patience to sort through long garbage-filled posts in detail,
sorry! I'll say that there was no remorse in Alex when he found out
that Mrs. Alexander had died, only fear. He'd just been nearly killed
by his old friends before he arrived HOME, and his apprehension was
still very clear. I may have gotten the events out of order, but that
doesn't matter a whole lot. Alex was pretty much terrified by the time
he got HOME. The bath served to loosen him up some and give him
perhaps a bit of false comfort as evidenced by his return to song. The
only remorse Alex would feel would be artificially induced by the
Ludovico technique. "I'm sorry to hear about that, sir." That's not a
particularily remorseful response Alex gives when Mr. Alexander tells
him that his wife had died.
Post by Bill Reid
One basic question here was: can a person change at least some
anti-social behaviors over the course of their lifetime? The answer
I think is yes. For example, you stopped your obvious stalking
behavior. It wasn't because of "choice to be good", but a threat
of possible action by "authorities".
So funny when your real concerns come bubbling to the surface like
this. VENDETTA-man! LOL!!! As I've said at least three or four times
before to no acknowledgment is that I indeed did check out your posting
history (accessible to anyone) when you first started your "100 year
reign" over AMK. One likes to know what kind of animals one is dealing
with especially when they bite. I stopped because I found out what I
wanted to know, and because you are a yawn-fest with a vampire fetish
who likes to do fake stock trades and cheat at cards etcetera. Nothing
illegal about that! What's illegal is libel. You lie also, because
when you totally wet your pants like a toddler in Pull-ups(TM) when I
posted on your dumb stock group warning them about you (as if they
didn't already know, there was one guy on that group that totally had
your number. How'd you like it if I posted a link to that? HAHA!!) ,
you clearly said that you'd reported me among other baby-like hysteria.
I was prepared for whatever, but the charges never arrived. They
wouldn't have accomplished anything anyway. There is a far bigger case
of abuse to be made against you, but it's water under the bridge as far
as I'm concerned. I'm used to your lunacy now, and I know when to
dismiss it.
Post by Bill Reid
I noted the same behavior
modification (at least temporarily) when I mentioned that copying
and pasting entire copyrighted news stories without permission
constitutes copyright infringement.
Ahem, I never was one to post a lot of copyrighted articles in full. I
most usually place a link, but whatever.... I wonder why you fixate on
the copyright thing so much. Something bad from your past I imagine.
Post by Bill Reid
But the other question is: what is the "core quality" of a
person, and can that change? You seem to believe that the
"core quality" of Alex is "violence", and that it cannot be
changed. Without commenting on the "flow" of the 21st chapter,
I think this is a short-sighted and childish interpretation of
the themes of the novel, and of life in general.
I believe, and I think that both Burgess AND Kubrick believe,
that one "core quality" of the HUMAN RACE is "violence", that
all human beings have some innate tendency to violence and destruction.
I think that Burgess believes that paradoxically all human beings
have some innate tendency to nurturing and creation as well, while
Kubrick was more of a "showman" of the "bad" nature of man while
denigrating the more positive aspects of mankind to mere "tool usage".
You "liked" the destructive nature of Alex, and "enjoyed" it so
much you resist any notion that it might be supplanted by a "better"
nature.
This is total ad hominem horse shit afterall. Just when I think you
may want to expand on an idea and get somewhere you revert right back
to the same "personal" garbage flow.
You make a macro out of a micro and try to label me "evil." I thought
you were concerned with ACO, but it's always about getting back at me.
Detach lamprey!
Post by Bill Reid
You "liked" the ending of the movie better than the
original novel, because it was easier to maintain the fantasy
of endless violence that appeals so much to your destructive
nature.
I don't appreciate you projecting on me at all. It was only a few
posts back where you admitted you were something like Alex. I made my
case on Alex, and you ignored it and tried to talk around it only to
get back at insulting me. Patience elapsed.....
Post by Bill Reid
I guess the question here isn't whether Alex could ever be
truly redeemed, but whether you could be...
You should make a refrigerator magnet of that for yourself...
---
Post by Bill Reid
William Ernest "Not Getting Older Just Getting Bitter" Reid
Aw now! Doan get bitter!

"And now you, another victim of the modern age. But you can be helped.
I phoned some friends while you were having a bath."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2006-06-06 01:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
<snipped into snowflakes, no two alike!>
It's a mackeral!!!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
So "The Shining" was the sequel to "A Clockwork Orange"?
Maybe Alex will briefly explore career opportunities as a failed
writer, the surest path to madness...
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, maybe...Speaking to you about the interconnectivity of
Kubrick's films would certainly get at least a chapter of "carefully
prepared" petty torments from you featuring the word "idiot" endlessly.
Why? I've repeatedly posted the thematic connections between
all Stanley Kubrick movies. As long as you agree with every word
I say, we're copacetic...

Frankly, I think a good sequel to "The Shining" would be if
Jack Nicholson thawed himself out and bought Wendy a box
of non-fat chocolates and Danny a cowboy cap gun to make
up for his bad behavior, then they bought an inn in Vermont
and lived happily for ever and ever and ever and ever...
Post by ichorwhip
You want to redeem someone? Now that's the biggest laugh of the year
so far. No lol or HAHA could do it justice. Your persistent attacks
on me are only your own, fella.
As is your persistent stalking of me.
Post by ichorwhip
<snip total rot, Alex is not MY "shit sandwich" and there can be no
understanding between us when you deliberately "misunderstand"
everything I say to further your childish vendetta against me because I
make you look stupid on a consistent basis...>
What part of "it's pointless to speculate within the context of the
film or the novel" about Alex's future did I not understand?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
So it's somehow different to say he didn't tell the truth.... no-k
I said you might come to that conclusion "reading between the lines"
of the facts of the situation. I never call somebody a liar unless I
have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm sure this is a lie, but I don't feel like proving it.
You ain't much on factual facts, are you, but very keen on
your "special" made-up ones...

<snip the
Post by ichorwhip
rest, you're boring me>
I can feel the stalking coming on!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
And the truth that you said it was "pointless to speculate within
the context of the novel or the film" that Alex would ever become
non-violent as he grew older. And the truth that when I "reminded"
you that the ending intended by the original author "speculated"
on exactly that possibility, you tried to "interpret" the chapter
as being "ambiguous", and then "speculated" that it was just
"a joke".
That's right, a miracle! I definitely see ambiguity and ambivalence in
the last chapter for like the third time! You haven't convinced me
otherwise because you barely know the chapter yourself,
Or because I used big words like "Amen"?
Post by ichorwhip
or such was the
case, I suspect you've been reading up. And now all these manic goings
ons because you're furious with yourself for having not insulted me
better. You're just sick man! Admit it!
It is at this point I must remind you again that I am in almost
ridiculously robust good health, in every aspect of my mind and
body.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You look like an idiot when you do this. Here's how NOT to look
like an idiot: just stick with your premise that you personally
didn't like the 21st chapter, didn't think it "rang true" to the
character presented in the rest of the novel. You're on pretty
solid ground there, you can come up with more than a few "facts"
to support what really is only your "opinion", and you don't have
to resort to any ridiculous and unsupported interpretations of
the 21st chapter.
The truth is I never really considered the ambiguities and so forth in
the 21st Chapter the first few times I read it long ago. When it came
up, I went and read it and this stuff struck me.
When it came up in the context of you mucking it up by forgetting
the chapter even existed while you blathered "it's pointless to speculate
within the context of the movie or the book", you suddenly became
aware of "ambiguities" in the chapter, after first complaining about
the "flow" and the incongruity with the rest of the novel. Yes, strangely
enough, that IS "the truth", or about as close as we're gonna get from
you...
Post by ichorwhip
You accuse me of not
being able to see Burgesses' cleverness? I always suspect it with him.
Burgess was clever. You seem to think that I don't have any respect
for him, but I do and made that clear, but you didn't acknowledge that
because it was contrary to your agenda or something.
Gee, I could just directly replay the several disrespectful things
you've said about him, but that would just engender more idiotic
back-pedalling so why bother?
Post by ichorwhip
More so, now that
the "lost chapter" is in the forefront of our "sumo match", I have
given it extra attention.
Post by Bill Reid
I told you a long time ago that I was the only person here capable
of carrying on an intelligent conversation about Kubrick's movies,
thanks for admitting it...and double thanks for not noting that it
is impossible for a single person to carry on a "conversation"...
Well AMKers, there ya have it! There are 140 suscribers to AMK through
Google(TM)Groups alone at this moment that are all being insulted at
once minus Reidiot himself, assuming he suscribes.
Not through GooGooGooGrooops, I "suscribe" through my
$6 a month dial-up Internet provider...
Post by ichorwhip
I say the Reidiot
is delusional with some sick fantasy of self-grandeur and megalomania.
We are all idiots in his eyes, Amen.
Well, we could start going down the lists of posters one by one, but
if you want to start defending them on the same basis, here's a start:

* "Yelps" - <insert proof of intelligent posting here>
* "donstockbauer" - <insert proof of intelligent posting here>
* "Lo...

You get the idea...have at it...I'll make some popcorn...

The other tack is what I've asked repeatedly: please re-post what
you consider to be an intelligent conversation about Stanley Kubrick
movies that occurred here, because I do seem to have missed it.
You've back-pedalled most furiously of all from this one...it's
like Kryptonite to a Quote Monkey...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to the rest of your
voluminous, manic, flaming garbage, which is basically a variation on
the theme "you're an idiot" ad infinitum...
Either keep it concise or be snipped.
You sound like you're plumb tuckered out now. Sorry if I exceeded
your reading ability again, little feller. I acknowledged this was a
problem, the central problem of your life, the "issue" that drives
all of your anger and death-wishes and stalking...
Piss on you Reidiot. I am "plumb tuckered out" trying to get anywhere
with you. If anybody's the stalker, you are. You lose your temper far
more than I do.
And again, I must inform you that I have NEVER "lost my temper",
and certainly never stalked ANYBODY in the two decades I've been
on Usenet because of some name they called me, and I've been
called every name in the book, as long as the book is the dictionary
of poorly-spelled Internet insults.
Post by ichorwhip
And your "death wish" fetish is just insidious at this
point and you know it.
Never wished death on anybody in those two decades, and
more importantly, have rarely seen anybody but the most obviously
demented individuals threaten or wish death on anybody.
Again, you're "special".
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
But I can't help but notice that what you snipped was my pointing
out that FACTUALLY you were incorrect that Alex was indulging in a
violent fantasy in the writer's bathroom. Although I can't read your
"mind", I'll go out on limb here and just conclude you realized you'd
mucked it up again for the umpteenth time and disingenuously decided to
cut and run out with a few ridiculous parting insults.
No, I just skimmed over your long-ass, ad hominem shitstorm and
responded to a few things, got tired of YOU and cut out just like I
said. You're lucky I respond at all little cuss. I clearly said to
dredge up any of your leading questions later. I just don't have the
time or patience to sort through long garbage-filled posts in detail,
sorry!
But you have an apparently infinite amount of time to stalk people!
You can't read my posts here, but you can spend endless hours reading
them and all the replies in twenty other newsgroups!
Post by ichorwhip
I'll say that there was no remorse in Alex when he found out
that Mrs. Alexander had died, only fear.
Maybe, maybe a little nervous at that point...but to me, his reaction
didn't seem entirely like nervous evasion.
Post by ichorwhip
I may have gotten the events out of order, but that
doesn't matter a whole lot.
Yeah, who cares about those pesky "facts" when you can
just make up your own...
Post by ichorwhip
The bath served to loosen him up some and give him
perhaps a bit of false comfort as evidenced by his return to song.
The point is that he was NOT having violent fantasies when singing
his song, as you ridiculously averred. Just another "little" factual
mistake you've made, who's counting at this point, I mean, who's
got a calculator that can handle a number that big?

The point I always make here (and other places even more so), if
your FACTS are wrong it is VERY UNLIKELY your CONCLUSIONS
are CORRECT. However, it really isn't all that important here, because
it can all be sloughed off as "opinion" and it's just a movie, except of
course when it appears to threaten a weaker male ape who thought
he could at least dominate this pathetic watering hole...
Post by ichorwhip
The
only remorse Alex would feel would be artificially induced by the
Ludovico technique.
The "Ludovico" technique was pure aversion therapy, it could not
in and of itself generate "remorse". It could only cause nausea when
Alex had a violent thought. You are 100% incorrect (is that a kinder
gentler "i" word, or is that also "inflammatory"?).
Post by ichorwhip
"I'm sorry to hear about that, sir." That's not a
particularily remorseful response Alex gives when Mr. Alexander tells
him that his wife had died.
"sorry" and "remorse" are both 2-syllable words, look them up, it'll
be good learning experience for you...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
One basic question here was: can a person change at least some
anti-social behaviors over the course of their lifetime? The answer
I think is yes. For example, you stopped your obvious stalking
behavior. It wasn't because of "choice to be good", but a threat
of possible action by "authorities".
So funny when your real concerns come bubbling to the surface like
this.
Of course that is a concern. You're obviously not "well screwed-on",
you wished death on me, and have spent countless hours stalking me.

"He had a mad desire to stick a knife in you. We put him away...for
his own good, and for yours."
Post by ichorwhip
VENDETTA-man! LOL!!! As I've said at least three or four times
before to no acknowledgment
What? I clearly "acknowledged" it.
Post by ichorwhip
is that I indeed did check out your posting
history (accessible to anyone) when you first started your "100 year
reign" over AMK.
This is a lie, as you've revealed in another post. You have persisted
in stalking me long after I "first started" posting here. Just like with
the
case of you revealing your anti-Semitism against young actresses of
Jewish heritage, I can correlate the dates of the posts you stalked
and determine exactly what you're REALLY all about.

Again, again, again, I must remind you that I always give people
my best advice, and my advice to you is simple: you should just
shut your stupid mouth. Everytime you open it, you "remove all
doubt"...
Post by ichorwhip
One likes to know what kind of animals one is dealing
with especially when they bite. I stopped
This is a lie.
Post by ichorwhip
because I found out what I
wanted to know, and because you are a yawn-fest with a vampire fetish
who likes to do fake stock trades and cheat at cards etcetera.
None of this is true.
Post by ichorwhip
Nothing
illegal about that!
Cheating at cards in, for example, a Nevada casino, is a felony,
very much illegal. I've NEVER cheated at cards in a Nevada casino,
or anywhere else for that matter.
Post by ichorwhip
What's illegal is libel.
Actually, it's generally just "unlawful", but those are 3-syllable words
with some specialized legal meaning and you're already over your quota
for learning simple English for today. I won't even mention that generally
"libel" is not practically "actionable" because that's four syllables and
whoops I just did anyway...
Post by ichorwhip
You lie also, because
when you totally wet your pants like a toddler in Pull-ups(TM) when I
posted on your dumb stock group warning them about you (as if they
didn't already know, there was one guy on that group that totally had
your number. How'd you like it if I posted a link to that? HAHA!!) ,
Feel free...maybe I should just cross-post everything I post on Usenet
here and all the replies and save you some time in your stalking obsession.

I went over with your why I was concerned about your behavior at
that time, and alluded to taking certain protective steps to insure that
if you began to exhibit even more aberrent behavior the authorities
could quickly restrain you. I'm sorry to hear that you "think" you
accomplished something in your life with your behavior, but then,
again, again, again, I must inform you that I can't possibly imagine
what is actually going on in that "mind" of yours...
Post by ichorwhip
you clearly said that you'd reported me among other baby-like hysteria.
I was prepared for whatever, but the charges never arrived.
Well, please don't take that as a personal failure on your part! Again,
again, again, again, I must remind you that I do think that it will all "end
badly" for you at some time, and you can then "rejoice" at your
"accomplishment" in your cell...
Post by ichorwhip
They
wouldn't have accomplished anything anyway.
Is this like you boasting about the "copyright police can't lay
a hand on you"?
Post by ichorwhip
There is a far bigger case
of abuse to be made against you, but it's water under the bridge as far
as I'm concerned.
Nope, no case at all. You're dramatically misinformed on this and
all other issues.
Post by ichorwhip
I'm used to your lunacy now, and I know when to
dismiss it.
Which means you'll be up all night stalking me again.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
I noted the same behavior
modification (at least temporarily) when I mentioned that copying
and pasting entire copyrighted news stories without permission
constitutes copyright infringement.
Ahem, I never was one to post a lot of copyrighted articles in full.
That's true, but you certainly jabbered beligerently about your
completely imaginary "right" to do so. But the bigger miscreant
in that case is another idiot here nymed "Bore-Ass", and the same
nym from the same service provider has now been spamming
the stock group (STALK that!).
Post by ichorwhip
I
most usually place a link, but whatever.... I wonder why you fixate on
the copyright thing so much. Something bad from your past I imagine.
Hey, like just about every person on the planet, I've done a little
casual thoughtless infringing. But I know the law; the idiots here
not only don't know the law, but that not knowing the law
isn't everything, or something...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
But the other question is: what is the "core quality" of a
person, and can that change? You seem to believe that the
"core quality" of Alex is "violence", and that it cannot be
changed. Without commenting on the "flow" of the 21st chapter,
I think this is a short-sighted and childish interpretation of
the themes of the novel, and of life in general.
I believe, and I think that both Burgess AND Kubrick believe,
that one "core quality" of the HUMAN RACE is "violence", that
all human beings have some innate tendency to violence and destruction.
I think that Burgess believes that paradoxically all human beings
have some innate tendency to nurturing and creation as well, while
Kubrick was more of a "showman" of the "bad" nature of man while
denigrating the more positive aspects of mankind to mere "tool usage".
You "liked" the destructive nature of Alex, and "enjoyed" it so
much you resist any notion that it might be supplanted by a "better"
nature.
This is total ad hominem horse shit afterall. Just when I think you
may want to expand on an idea and get somewhere you revert right back
to the same "personal" garbage flow.
But I've also admitted the same thing about myself! At least I'm
"man" enough to admit it...
Post by ichorwhip
You make a macro out of a micro and try to label me "evil." I thought
you were concerned with ACO, but it's always about getting back at me.
Nope, I come here to talk about the movies of Stanley Kubrick.
You are just a remarkably illogical unknowledgeable incoherent
poster here, but just one of many of similar ilk. But you're determined
to make yourself "special" one way or another...
Post by ichorwhip
Detach lamprey!
If I swim over to the stock group, I now know like an idiotic
Tom Joad "you'll be there".
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You "liked" the ending of the movie better than the
original novel, because it was easier to maintain the fantasy
of endless violence that appeals so much to your destructive
nature.
I don't appreciate you projecting on me at all. It was only a few
posts back where you admitted you were something like Alex.
Nah, I don't think that's what I said, but WHAT-eva...
Post by ichorwhip
I made my
case on Alex, and you ignored it and tried to talk around it only to
get back at insulting me.
The fundamental problem here is that "Alex" is a character created
by a writer known as "Anthony Burgess", and he is really the only guy
who can CREDIBLY "make a case" on his future. You "forgot"
that he did so, then said "it didn't flow, didn't like it", then said you
didn't think he was that great a writer because he personally didn't
rate "A Clockwork Orange" as his best book, then said it
was "ambiguous". That's really not much of a case, that's a
piece of Samsonite busted up by a rampaging ape...

My best advice, AGAIN: you should have just stuck with your
second premise, you just didn't really like the 21st chapter, didn't
think it "flowed" right, was incongruous with the rest of the book,
and leave it at that. I've mocked that particular one as much
as I care to, so we can just let it lay...

---
William Ernest "Never Even Googled MYSELF" Reid
ichorwhip
2006-06-07 00:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Bill the Reidiot wrote:

<Little worth responding to... The goatse goat-getter striving to
paint a picture of me painting myself into a corner, that's all there
really is here, rabid vendetta musings... The most work the
"healthiest" maniac on AMK will prolly manage this week.>
Post by Bill Reid
Frankly, I think a good sequel to "The Shining" would be if
Jack Nicholson thawed himself out and bought Wendy a box
of non-fat chocolates and Danny a cowboy cap gun to make
up for his bad behavior, then they bought an inn in Vermont
and lived happily for ever and ever and ever and ever...
This from one who never jokes... And we see why he shouldn't, dismally
unfunny...feh!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
<snip total rot, Alex is not MY "shit sandwich" and there can be no
understanding between us when you deliberately "misunderstand"
everything I say to further your childish vendetta against me because I
make you look stupid on a consistent basis...>
What part of "it's pointless to speculate within the context of the
film or the novel" about Alex's future did I not understand?
The part you stupidly ignored of course. This is one way that you are
just annoying and not subject to normal conversation Reidiot. You just
keep yapping like a little dog endlessly... I could write your
responses for you at this point: "yap yap yap YAP yap yap yap... pant
pant pant... YAP YAP scratchyscratch yapyapyapyap YAP (ad
infinitum)...."
Post by Bill Reid
<snip the rest, you're boring me>
I can feel the stalking coming on!
Prolly just need to use the bathroom, been sitting at the taunt station
too long...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
or such was the
case, I suspect you've been reading up. And now all these manic goings
ons because you're furious with yourself for having not insulted me
better. You're just sick man! Admit it!
It is at this point I must remind you again that I am in almost
ridiculously robust good health, in every aspect of my mind and
body.
Almost? heh, whatever Reidiot...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You look like an idiot when you do this. Here's how NOT to look
like an idiot: just stick with your premise that you personally
didn't like the 21st chapter, didn't think it "rang true" to the
character presented in the rest of the novel. You're on pretty
solid ground there, you can come up with more than a few "facts"
to support what really is only your "opinion", and you don't have
to resort to any ridiculous and unsupported interpretations of
the 21st chapter.
The truth is I never really considered the ambiguities and so forth in
the 21st Chapter the first few times I read it long ago. When it came
up, I went and read it and this stuff struck me.
When it came up in the context of you mucking it up by forgetting
the chapter even existed while you blathered "it's pointless to speculate
within the context of the movie or the book", you suddenly became
aware of "ambiguities" in the chapter, after first complaining about
the "flow" and the incongruity with the rest of the novel. Yes, strangely
enough, that IS "the truth", or about as close as we're gonna get from
you...
Lets make ONE MORE attempt at setting this maniac straight, although
I'm almost sure it won't penetrate that extra thick skull. When
Kubrick made his movie he based it on the novel sans Chapter 21. No
further explanation needed unless you are an idiot of course.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You accuse me of not
being able to see Burgesses' cleverness? I always suspect it with him.
Burgess was clever. You seem to think that I don't have any respect
for him, but I do and made that clear, but you didn't acknowledge that
because it was contrary to your agenda or something.
Gee, I could just directly replay the several disrespectful things
you've said about him, but that would just engender more idiotic
back-pedalling so why bother?
Is this a turning point? You mean we are not going to get treated to
another page of replays set to your spins and twists? Brevity be thy
name....
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I say the Reidiot
is delusional with some sick fantasy of self-grandeur and megalomania.
We are all idiots in his eyes, Amen.
Well, we could start going down the lists of posters one by one, but
* "Yelps" - <insert proof of intelligent posting here>
* "donstockbauer" - <insert proof of intelligent posting here>
* "Lo...
You get the idea...have at it...I'll make some popcorn...
I don't like popcorn. I'll have chips and salsa. Anyway, since you
are the one insulting all of AMK you should make the list. 2 1/2 down
at least 137 1/2 to go... (taps foot)
Post by Bill Reid
The other tack is what I've asked repeatedly: please re-post what
you consider to be an intelligent conversation about Stanley Kubrick
movies that occurred here, because I do seem to have missed it.
You've back-pedalled most furiously of all from this one...it's
like Kryptonite to a Quote Monkey...
This loaded request from you is one of the cornerstones of the Reidiot
as Troll scenario... In a nutshell: There is no right answer for you.
It's like arguing with a drunk for chrissakes... Maybe one day you
will have your own FAQ like Lard B... In fact maybe you should write
it yourself. Praps you can get Abbott(TM) or one of the other big
pharmaceutical outfits to sponsor it. Bipolar syndrome needs a poster
boy and you fit the Bill!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I'll say that there was no remorse in Alex when he found out
that Mrs. Alexander had died, only fear.
Maybe, maybe a little nervous at that point...but to me, his reaction
didn't seem entirely like nervous evasion.
You're buckling!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
The bath served to loosen him up some and give him
perhaps a bit of false comfort as evidenced by his return to song.
The point is that he was NOT having violent fantasies when singing
his song, as you ridiculously averred.
At this point he can't have violent fantasies because they make him
sick. Alex still still wants his violent fantasies, but he has learned
to control them per his conditioning. "Singin' in the Rain" is
borderline territory for Alex since he could very easily associate it
with assault and rape. The full-throated ease with which he begins to
croon this of all tunes seems like it's proving a suitable substitute
for something, which would now make him want to puke. The Ludovico has
a few chinks in its armor is the way I see it.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
The
only remorse Alex would feel would be artificially induced by the
Ludovico technique.
The "Ludovico" technique was pure aversion therapy, it could not
in and of itself generate "remorse". It could only cause nausea when
Alex had a violent thought. You are 100% incorrect (is that a kinder
gentler "i" word, or is that also "inflammatory"?).
No id... <sigh> if you had turned your attention to the the phrase
"artificially induced" you might have worked out what I was getting at,
but what's the point? I'll just go on for anyone else who may be
reading, although I have doubts about that. The "Ludovico" technique
may have been intended as "pure aversion therapy", but in practice it
proves to be unwieldy and unpredictable. The CRM-114 experimental
serum has side-effects that were not anticipated hence Brodsky's
laconic statement "Here's the punishment element perhaps." With the
head of the project making statements like this that thinly mask his
surprise one could gather that the "Ludovico" has a rather big question
mark on it. In this sense creating "artificial" thoughts of remorse
may be a way of defeating the deterrent mechanism at work in the
"Ludovico."
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
"I'm sorry to hear about that, sir." That's not a
particularily remorseful response Alex gives when Mr. Alexander tells
him that his wife had died.
"sorry" and "remorse" are both 2-syllable words, look them up, it'll
be good learning experience for you...
Pathetic defense if we can even call it that...
Post by Bill Reid
Again, again, again, I must remind you that I always give people
my best advice, and my advice to you is simple: you should just
shut your stupid mouth. Everytime you open it, you "remove all
doubt"...
And once again I'll tell you to take your own advice to go along with
your meds. You are Reidiculously demented and it's only a matter of
time before you hurt yourself or others based on your pattern of abuse
here. Here again we see you on abUsenet trying to force someone to
"shut up." THAT's what you're really about and you ought to stop it,
but I don't think you can. You lack the strength to control yourself.
Sad little boy...please don't make it real! "A confession of failure
for every one of you who ends up in the stripy hole."
Post by Bill Reid
That's true, but you certainly jabbered beligerently about your
completely imaginary "right" to do so. But the bigger miscreant
in that case is another idiot here nymed "Bore-Ass", and the same
nym from the same service provider has now been spamming
the stock group (STALK that!).
Just had to say "whoa" to the snip pony for a second to fully
appreciate this new "development." Do you ever hear voices in your
head? Delusional, hypocritical, arrogant idiot. How many therapists
have you been through anyway?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I
most usually place a link, but whatever.... I wonder why you fixate on
the copyright thing so much. Something bad from your past I imagine.
Hey, like just about every person on the planet, I've done a little
casual thoughtless infringing. But I know the law; the idiots here
not only don't know the law, but that not knowing the law
isn't everything, or something...
mmmhmmm....
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You "liked" the destructive nature of Alex, and "enjoyed" it so
much you resist any notion that it might be supplanted by a "better"
nature.
This is total ad hominem horse shit afterall. Just when I think you
may want to expand on an idea and get somewhere you revert right back
to the same "personal" garbage flow.
But I've also admitted the same thing about myself!
Ew! Suddenly I want a shower....
Post by Bill Reid
At least I'm
"man" enough to admit it...
If it were true I would admit it, but I do not "get off" on violence
for violence's sake. The rape scenes in ACO I find particularily hard
to watch, prolly my least favorite sequences in all of Kubrick. The
fight scenes aren't so bad as they are choreographed in a rather
comical, cartoonish way. Why you have this manic obsession to draw me
in your own image is something truly bizarre and a little frightening.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You make a macro out of a micro and try to label me "evil." I thought
you were concerned with ACO, but it's always about getting back at me.
Nope, I come here to talk about the movies of Stanley Kubrick.
Oh right, that's why every 99 out of 100 words is spent on me while
you're here.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I don't appreciate you projecting on me at all. It was only a few
posts back where you admitted you were something like Alex.
Nah, I don't think that's what I said, but WHAT-eva...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You "liked" the destructive nature of Alex, and "enjoyed" it so
much you resist any notion that it might be supplanted by a "better"
nature.
This is total ad hominem horse shit afterall. Just when I think you
may want to expand on an idea and get somewhere you revert right back
to the same "personal" garbage flow.
But I've also admitted the same thing about myself!
Ew! Suddenly I want a shower....
Post by Bill Reid
At least I'm
"man" enough to admit it...
ENOUGH? case closed...
Post by Bill Reid
Wilhelm never in Ernest "Never Even Googled MYSELF" Reidiot
"Because next time it's going to be the barry place and all my work
ruined. If you've no respect for your horrible self, you at least might
have some for me who's sweated over you."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2006-06-08 22:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
<Little worth responding to... The goatse goat-getter striving to
paint a picture of me painting myself into a corner, that's all there
really is here, rabid vendetta musings... The most work the
"healthiest" maniac on AMK will prolly manage this week.>
Post by Bill Reid
Frankly, I think a good sequel to "The Shining" would be if
Jack Nicholson thawed himself out and bought Wendy a box
of non-fat chocolates and Danny a cowboy cap gun to make
up for his bad behavior, then they bought an inn in Vermont
and lived happily for ever and ever and ever and ever...
This from one who never jokes... And we see why he shouldn't, dismally
unfunny...feh!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
<snip total rot, Alex is not MY "shit sandwich" and there can be no
understanding between us when you deliberately "misunderstand"
everything I say to further your childish vendetta against me because I
make you look stupid on a consistent basis...>
What part of "it's pointless to speculate within the context of the
film or the novel" about Alex's future did I not understand?
The part you stupidly ignored of course. This is one way that you are
just annoying and not subject to normal conversation Reidiot. You just
keep yapping like a little dog endlessly... I could write your
responses for you at this point: "yap yap yap YAP yap yap yap... pant
pant pant... YAP YAP scratchyscratch yapyapyapyap YAP (ad
infinitum)...."
Post by Bill Reid
<snip the rest, you're boring me>
I can feel the stalking coming on!
Prolly just need to use the bathroom, been sitting at the taunt station
too long...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
or such was the
case, I suspect you've been reading up. And now all these manic goings
ons because you're furious with yourself for having not insulted me
better. You're just sick man! Admit it!
It is at this point I must remind you again that I am in almost
ridiculously robust good health, in every aspect of my mind and
body.
Almost? heh, whatever Reidiot...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You look like an idiot when you do this. Here's how NOT to look
like an idiot: just stick with your premise that you personally
didn't like the 21st chapter, didn't think it "rang true" to the
character presented in the rest of the novel. You're on pretty
solid ground there, you can come up with more than a few "facts"
to support what really is only your "opinion", and you don't have
to resort to any ridiculous and unsupported interpretations of
the 21st chapter.
The truth is I never really considered the ambiguities and so forth in
the 21st Chapter the first few times I read it long ago. When it came
up, I went and read it and this stuff struck me.
When it came up in the context of you mucking it up by forgetting
the chapter even existed while you blathered "it's pointless to speculate
within the context of the movie or the book", you suddenly became
aware of "ambiguities" in the chapter, after first complaining about
the "flow" and the incongruity with the rest of the novel. Yes, strangely
enough, that IS "the truth", or about as close as we're gonna get from
you...
Lets make ONE MORE attempt at setting this maniac straight, although
I'm almost sure it won't penetrate that extra thick skull. When
Kubrick made his movie he based it on the novel sans Chapter 21. No
further explanation needed unless you are an idiot of course.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You accuse me of not
being able to see Burgesses' cleverness? I always suspect it with him.
Burgess was clever. You seem to think that I don't have any respect
for him, but I do and made that clear, but you didn't acknowledge that
because it was contrary to your agenda or something.
Gee, I could just directly replay the several disrespectful things
you've said about him, but that would just engender more idiotic
back-pedalling so why bother?
Is this a turning point? You mean we are not going to get treated to
another page of replays set to your spins and twists? Brevity be thy
name....
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I say the Reidiot
is delusional with some sick fantasy of self-grandeur and megalomania.
We are all idiots in his eyes, Amen.
Well, we could start going down the lists of posters one by one, but
* "Yelps" - <insert proof of intelligent posting here>
* "donstockbauer" - <insert proof of intelligent posting here>
* "Lo...
You get the idea...have at it...I'll make some popcorn...
I don't like popcorn. I'll have chips and salsa. Anyway, since you
are the one insulting all of AMK you should make the list. 2 1/2 down
at least 137 1/2 to go... (taps foot)
Post by Bill Reid
The other tack is what I've asked repeatedly: please re-post what
you consider to be an intelligent conversation about Stanley Kubrick
movies that occurred here, because I do seem to have missed it.
You've back-pedalled most furiously of all from this one...it's
like Kryptonite to a Quote Monkey...
This loaded request from you is one of the cornerstones of the Reidiot
as Troll scenario... In a nutshell: There is no right answer for you.
It's like arguing with a drunk for chrissakes... Maybe one day you
will have your own FAQ like Lard B... In fact maybe you should write
it yourself. Praps you can get Abbott(TM) or one of the other big
pharmaceutical outfits to sponsor it. Bipolar syndrome needs a poster
boy and you fit the Bill!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I'll say that there was no remorse in Alex when he found out
that Mrs. Alexander had died, only fear.
Maybe, maybe a little nervous at that point...but to me, his reaction
didn't seem entirely like nervous evasion.
You're buckling!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
The bath served to loosen him up some and give him
perhaps a bit of false comfort as evidenced by his return to song.
The point is that he was NOT having violent fantasies when singing
his song, as you ridiculously averred.
At this point he can't have violent fantasies because they make him
sick. Alex still still wants his violent fantasies, but he has learned
to control them per his conditioning. "Singin' in the Rain" is
borderline territory for Alex since he could very easily associate it
with assault and rape. The full-throated ease with which he begins to
croon this of all tunes seems like it's proving a suitable substitute
for something, which would now make him want to puke. The Ludovico has
a few chinks in its armor is the way I see it.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
The
only remorse Alex would feel would be artificially induced by the
Ludovico technique.
The "Ludovico" technique was pure aversion therapy, it could not
in and of itself generate "remorse". It could only cause nausea when
Alex had a violent thought. You are 100% incorrect (is that a kinder
gentler "i" word, or is that also "inflammatory"?).
No id... <sigh> if you had turned your attention to the the phrase
"artificially induced" you might have worked out what I was getting at,
but what's the point? I'll just go on for anyone else who may be
reading, although I have doubts about that. The "Ludovico" technique
may have been intended as "pure aversion therapy", but in practice it
proves to be unwieldy and unpredictable. The CRM-114 experimental
serum has side-effects that were not anticipated hence Brodsky's
laconic statement "Here's the punishment element perhaps." With the
head of the project making statements like this that thinly mask his
surprise one could gather that the "Ludovico" has a rather big question
mark on it. In this sense creating "artificial" thoughts of remorse
may be a way of defeating the deterrent mechanism at work in the
"Ludovico."
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
"I'm sorry to hear about that, sir." That's not a
particularily remorseful response Alex gives when Mr. Alexander tells
him that his wife had died.
"sorry" and "remorse" are both 2-syllable words, look them up, it'll
be good learning experience for you...
Pathetic defense if we can even call it that...
Post by Bill Reid
Again, again, again, I must remind you that I always give people
my best advice, and my advice to you is simple: you should just
shut your stupid mouth. Everytime you open it, you "remove all
doubt"...
And once again I'll tell you to take your own advice to go along with
your meds. You are Reidiculously demented and it's only a matter of
time before you hurt yourself or others based on your pattern of abuse
here. Here again we see you on abUsenet trying to force someone to
"shut up." THAT's what you're really about and you ought to stop it,
but I don't think you can. You lack the strength to control yourself.
Sad little boy...please don't make it real! "A confession of failure
for every one of you who ends up in the stripy hole."
Post by Bill Reid
That's true, but you certainly jabbered beligerently about your
completely imaginary "right" to do so. But the bigger miscreant
in that case is another idiot here nymed "Bore-Ass", and the same
nym from the same service provider has now been spamming
the stock group (STALK that!).
Just had to say "whoa" to the snip pony for a second to fully
appreciate this new "development." Do you ever hear voices in your
head? Delusional, hypocritical, arrogant idiot. How many therapists
have you been through anyway?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I
most usually place a link, but whatever.... I wonder why you fixate on
the copyright thing so much. Something bad from your past I imagine.
Hey, like just about every person on the planet, I've done a little
casual thoughtless infringing. But I know the law; the idiots here
not only don't know the law, but that not knowing the law
isn't everything, or something...
mmmhmmm....
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You "liked" the destructive nature of Alex, and "enjoyed" it so
much you resist any notion that it might be supplanted by a "better"
nature.
This is total ad hominem horse shit afterall. Just when I think you
may want to expand on an idea and get somewhere you revert right back
to the same "personal" garbage flow.
But I've also admitted the same thing about myself!
Ew! Suddenly I want a shower....
Post by Bill Reid
At least I'm
"man" enough to admit it...
If it were true I would admit it, but I do not "get off" on violence
for violence's sake. The rape scenes in ACO I find particularily hard
to watch, prolly my least favorite sequences in all of Kubrick. The
fight scenes aren't so bad as they are choreographed in a rather
comical, cartoonish way. Why you have this manic obsession to draw me
in your own image is something truly bizarre and a little frightening.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You make a macro out of a micro and try to label me "evil." I thought
you were concerned with ACO, but it's always about getting back at me.
Nope, I come here to talk about the movies of Stanley Kubrick.
Oh right, that's why every 99 out of 100 words is spent on me while
you're here.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I don't appreciate you projecting on me at all. It was only a few
posts back where you admitted you were something like Alex.
Nah, I don't think that's what I said, but WHAT-eva...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You "liked" the destructive nature of Alex, and "enjoyed" it so
much you resist any notion that it might be supplanted by a "better"
nature.
This is total ad hominem horse shit afterall. Just when I think you
may want to expand on an idea and get somewhere you revert right back
to the same "personal" garbage flow.
But I've also admitted the same thing about myself!
Ew! Suddenly I want a shower....
Post by Bill Reid
At least I'm
"man" enough to admit it...
ENOUGH? case closed...
Post by Bill Reid
Wilhelm never in Ernest "Never Even Googled MYSELF" Reidiot
"Because next time it's going to be the barry place and all my work
ruined. If you've no respect for your horrible self, you at least might
have some for me who's sweated over you."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2006-06-08 23:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Sorry about that little snag, fellas...I accidently sent the previous
100% icky message, without a soupcon of additional redeeming
intelligent rebuttal. This, however, is NOT a test post...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Frankly, I think a good sequel to "The Shining" would be if
Jack Nicholson thawed himself out and bought Wendy a box
of non-fat chocolates and Danny a cowboy cap gun to make
up for his bad behavior, then they bought an inn in Vermont
and lived happily for ever and ever and ever and ever...
This from one who never jokes... And we see why he shouldn't, dismally
unfunny...feh!
I think a good sequel to "Full Metal Jacket" would be if the sniper
doesn't actually die when Joker shoots her, but rather recovers, moves
to America, and becomes a Republican soccer mom...

I think a good sequel to "Eyes Wide Shut" would be if Bill Harford
divorced his harpy ice princess trophy wife, took up with a much younger
baby-faced brunette woman, then broke the springs on a black woman's
couch in the complete joy of having a relationship where the woman does
EVERYTHING YOU TELL HER TO INCLUDING JOINING YOUR
DOPEY PSEUDO-RELIGION AND BIRFIN' MULTITUDES OF
YOUR BABIES WITH HER BARE FEET IN THE STIRRUPS OF A
SILENT ROOM PER YOUR DOPEY PSEUDO-RELIGION...

And the sequel to "2001" should have revealed the monolith was
actually "VGER"...
Post by ichorwhip
You just
keep yapping like a little dog endlessly... I could write your
responses for you at this point: "yap yap yap YAP yap yap yap... pant
pant pant... YAP YAP scratchyscratch yapyapyapyap YAP (ad
infinitum)...."
YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP
YAP YAP YAP YAP!!!

So there! <piddles on leg too>
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I say the Reidiot
is delusional with some sick fantasy of self-grandeur and megalomania.
We are all idiots in his eyes, Amen.
Well, we could start going down the lists of posters one by one, but
* "Yelps" - <insert proof of intelligent posting here>
* "donstockbauer" - <insert proof of intelligent posting here>
* "Lo...
You get the idea...have at it...I'll make some popcorn...
I don't like popcorn. I'll have chips and salsa. Anyway, since you
are the one insulting all of AMK you should make the list. 2 1/2 down
at least 137 1/2 to go... (taps foot)
Sorry, you've admitted you have a short attention span and I'm not a
fan of excessive repetition, so to avoid boring both of us let me again
summarize with mathematical concision: all_posters_here-1=idots.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
The other tack is what I've asked repeatedly: please re-post what
you consider to be an intelligent conversation about Stanley Kubrick
movies that occurred here, because I do seem to have missed it.
You've back-pedalled most furiously of all from this one...it's
like Kryptonite to a Quote Monkey...
This loaded request from you is one of the cornerstones of the Reidiot
as Troll scenario... In a nutshell: There is no right answer for you.
But you've completely missed the point: there should be a right answer
for YOU! You leave me with no alternative but to conclude the height of
your intellectual discussion consists of dwelling on the Jewish heritage
of Stanley Kubrick...and in fact, I HAVE expressed the opinion that is
little more than thinly-veiled anti-Semitism...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I'll say that there was no remorse in Alex when he found out
that Mrs. Alexander had died, only fear.
Maybe, maybe a little nervous at that point...but to me, his reaction
didn't seem entirely like nervous evasion.
You're buckling!
Nope, just honestly acknowledging something called "nuance", which
you apparently are completely unable to do ("there was NO remorse in
Alex when he found out that Mrs. Alexander had died, ONLY fear"--see
how differently your "mind" works?).
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
The bath served to loosen him up some and give him
perhaps a bit of false comfort as evidenced by his return to song.
The point is that he was NOT having violent fantasies when singing
his song, as you ridiculously averred.
At this point he can't have violent fantasies because they make him
sick.
Post by Bill Reid
Note his response when he is
told that the writer's wife is dead: he seems genuinely shocked and
remorseful.
And yet ere he finds out this information he has no qualms about
returning to a favorite ol' ditty of ultraviolence while bathing...
Absolutely wrong and totally idiotic, and of course at this point
a "normal" person would have just said "I was wrong" and left it
at that. Of course, the paradoxical nub of the situation here is
that a "normal" person could not have watched a movie 8 billion
times and still not be able to follow the simple didactic plot points.

So our little Quote Monkey(TM) has learned a simple trick with
the English language, the language that the rest of us use to convey
honest information and build a beautiful world, and that's how to
back-pedal around in circles when caught flat-footed and
prehensile-toed after his latest proof of idiocy.

Let us watch now as he performs his little trick <cue the
Post by ichorwhip
Alex still still wants his violent fantasies, but he has learned
to control them per his conditioning. "Singin' in the Rain" is
borderline territory for Alex since he could very easily associate it
with assault and rape. The full-throated ease with which he begins to
croon this of all tunes seems like it's proving a suitable substitute
for something, which would now make him want to puke. The Ludovico has
a few chinks in its armor is the way I see it.
<the circus audience murmurs with delighted amusement>

The greatest entertainment value of the Quote Monkey(TM)
back-pedal trick is that he winds up making even more idiotic
remarks that will then require even more back-pedalling until
he tires out and tips over like a simian Arte Johnson.

But witness: he has "grasped" (with hand, foot, or tail we know not)
the plot point that Ludivico technique may not be a perfect solution to
the problem of violence! It's too bad that Burgess is dead, because
I'm quite sure he'd be delighted that 44 years after he wrote the
book, even the lowest species of ape finally figured out the plot!!!
I guess if a million monkeys might be able to write Shakespeare, by
luck one might understand it...

Of course, in his furious back-pedalling, what our little Quote
Monkey(TM) is actually trying to imply is that former ultra-violent
teens will now be singing musical show tunes loudly on the subway...THE
CURE IS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE!!!

<cue more calliope music>
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
The
only remorse Alex would feel would be artificially induced by the
Ludovico technique.
The "Ludovico" technique was pure aversion therapy, it could not
in and of itself generate "remorse". It could only cause nausea when
Alex had a violent thought. You are 100% incorrect (is that a kinder
gentler "i" word, or is that also "inflammatory"?).
No id... <sigh> if you had turned your attention to the the phrase
"artificially induced" you might have worked out what I was getting at,
but what's the point?
Just the entertainment value. Get back on your little bike, I've got
a whole tub of popcorn already made from my last post...
Post by ichorwhip
I'll just go on for anyone else who may be
reading, although I have doubts about that. The "Ludovico" technique
may have been intended as "pure aversion therapy", but in practice it
proves to be unwieldy and unpredictable. The CRM-114 experimental
serum has side-effects that were not anticipated hence Brodsky's
laconic statement "Here's the punishment element perhaps." With the
head of the project making statements like this that thinly mask his
surprise one could gather that the "Ludovico" has a rather big question
mark on it. In this sense creating "artificial" thoughts of remorse
may be a way of defeating the deterrent mechanism at work in the
"Ludovico."
"hahahaha mommy lookit the monkey ride the little bike
backwards mommy it's funny hahahahaha"

Of course, it's really only funny to a child who delights in foolish
things. For an intelligent adult, it gets a bit tedious, doesn't it?

I mean, we could put the little monkey back on the bike for the
umpteenth time by pointing out that the only "unintended effect"
of the technique in the movie was the conditioning of Alex
against Beethoven's Ninth because they used it as background
music, that Brodsky's comment acknowledged that this
inadvertant conditioning could ironically be seen as "punishment"
because Alex loved Beethoven, and that Brodsky clearly
and carefully explained that the serum only induced nausea
and that the treatment was to cause the "subject" to associate
his nausea with the violence in the films, and that there was never
a hint in either the novel or the film of any ridiculous
"side-effect" of "causing artifical remorse".

But pointing out these simple facts, that even the most idiotic
of humans could understand after viewing the movie just once,
and causing the Quote Monkey(TM) to hop onto his little bike
again, would just underscore an important point that I make
repeatedly.

That is, the genesis of most bad behavior--lying, stalking,
death wishes, in the instant case--begins with simple idiocy.
As the "subject" is confronted with stupidity of his own brain,
he lashes out angrily at all in the world smarter than he, which
is pretty much the entire world, in the instant case.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
"I'm sorry to hear about that, sir." That's not a
particularily remorseful response Alex gives when Mr. Alexander tells
him that his wife had died.
"sorry" and "remorse" are both 2-syllable words, look them up, it'll
be good learning experience for you...
Pathetic defense if we can even call it that...
Yes, the "dictionary defense", the last refuge of the well-spoken...a
cruel trick that intelligent people pull on the less-fortunately brained...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Again, again, again, I must remind you that I always give people
my best advice, and my advice to you is simple: you should just
shut your stupid mouth. Everytime you open it, you "remove all
doubt"...
And once again I'll tell you to take your own advice to go along with
your meds. You are Reidiculously demented and it's only a matter of
time before you hurt yourself or others based on your pattern of abuse
here. Here again we see you on abUsenet trying to force someone to
"shut up."
I'm not trying to FORCE you, I'm just RECOMMENDING it.
Your anger and associated bad behavior comes out when your
"opinions" are challenged in any way by intelligent people. Even
though it is rare to find an intelligent person on Usenet, which is
probably why you have retreated here to have your "discussions",
every once in a while one will show up, and then the "trouble" starts
again for you. Sooooo..."best not to say more"? "Righty-right?"
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I
most usually place a link, but whatever.... I wonder why you fixate on
the copyright thing so much.
That's true, but you certainly jabbered beligerently about your
completely imaginary "right" to do so. But the bigger miscreant
in that case is another idiot here nymed "Bore-Ass", and the same
nym from the same service provider has now been spamming
the stock group (STALK that!).
Just had to say "whoa" to the snip pony for a second to fully
appreciate this new "development." Do you ever hear voices in your
head? Delusional, hypocritical, arrogant idiot. How many therapists
have you been through anyway?
None, and I have no idea what you're talking about, but that's probably
just the usual case of it being "under my head".
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You "liked" the destructive nature of Alex, and "enjoyed" it so
much you resist any notion that it might be supplanted by a "better"
nature.
If it were true I would admit it, but I do not "get off" on violence
for violence's sake. The rape scenes in ACO I find particularily hard
to watch, prolly my least favorite sequences in all of Kubrick.
Well, that's what you SAY, but you have been judged a LIAR beyond
a reasonable doubt, so who knows? Maybe you've worn out several video
cassettes re-running the rape scenes while sitting in your "special
chair".
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You make a macro out of a micro and try to label me "evil." I thought
you were concerned with ACO, but it's always about getting back at me.
It's mostly about correcting all your idiotic mistakes about the
plot of "A Clockwork Orange", or any other Stanley Kubrick movie,
or really any movie, or any book, or TV show, or comic book, or
6th-grade science book, or doctor's prescription...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Nope, I come here to talk about the movies of Stanley Kubrick.
Oh right, that's why every 99 out of 100 words is spent on me while
you're here.
That's a statistical lie. There are lies, damn lies, statistics,
and statistical lies...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
I don't appreciate you projecting on me at all. It was only a few
posts back where you admitted you were something like Alex.
Nah, I don't think that's what I said, but WHAT-eva...
Oooooh, a rare occurence here, he may have caught me in what appears
to be a misstatement, let's see how this plays out...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You "liked" the destructive nature of Alex, and "enjoyed" it so
much you resist any notion that it might be supplanted by a "better"
nature.
This is total ad hominem horse shit afterall. Just when I think you
may want to expand on an idea and get somewhere you revert right back
to the same "personal" garbage flow.
But I've also admitted the same thing about myself!
Please note however there is a difference between saying I "like"
an evil character (I used the example of Darth Vader previously) and
saying I am LIKE an evil character.

Close, but YOU LOSE AGAIN!!! Once again, your poor reading
comprehension betrays you. You did manage to score one almost clean
point by noting that I initially misstated the actual content of the 21st
chapter, but not the INTENT, so the score now is...what?
About 100000000000000000000000000000000 to 1(/2)?

---
William Ernest "Nose More Than Kubrick Was A Jew" Reid
ichorwhip
2006-06-08 23:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Further Reidiot retaliation:
<snip snip snip>

There! Now can you please get back to talking to yourself you
AMAZINGLY yappy, vindictive little itty-bitty idiot? Your "charm" has
all butt worn off...

"You know what you can do with that watch?"
i
"piop"

JW Moore
2006-05-25 08:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Eigenblimp: A characteristically commendable dismantling of a truly
imbecilic proposition! Dude must have had too much synthmesc.

~~Jack
Korova Milk-Bar
2006-05-26 04:45:08 UTC
Permalink
A sequel to ACWO does NOT need to happen. The film is what it is, and a
remake will only kill it's legacy. These doper babies these days don't
know how to make a good film. All they do is remakes, and poor ones at
that. They'll surely ruin it. I hope it falls through.
Pops Freshenmeyer
2006-05-27 19:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
I think you have REALLY missed the point. Alex is innately evil and
will remain that way until the day he snuffs it. This is central to
ACO. "I was cured all right." What you're saying is not necessarily
true; that youthful violence must mellow with age. Aleister Crowley,
for example, tended to become an even bigger evil "asshole" as he aged.
Age brings greater conviction if anything although some do get scared
and repent (read Sartre). I just don't see Alex ever transcending his
own evil; it's just not in his character especially after what he goes
through.
Although I do feel unjustly attacked on a personal level by much of
what you and others have written, I also must admit that your
arguments are intelligently wrought and worth consideration. I agree
with you completely that age doesn't necessarily bring mellowness--I
myself am far more radical in my perceptions than I was as a youth.

I disagree with your view that Alex is innately evil, however. I
think if that is the case, the entire movie collapses upon itself. The
crux of the movie is that Alex can be manipulated. To say that he can
never transcend his own evil is to say there is no free will. And for
me the message of the film is that we do have free will, but most of
the time we're incapable of practicing it because we're not aware of
why we do things. By the time we reach the age where we have the
freeom to practice it, we've been manipulated by the media, politics,
society, school, friends, family, etc. to where even when we think
we're practicing free will, we're really just exercising a conditioned
concept of free will.

To my mind, Alex is just as much a clockwork orange before the
Ludovico as he is after. His mindset was conditioned by extraneous
factors that exactly mirror the technique, except they were imprinted
upon him over a longer length of time.

In other words, Alex wasn't born the way he was; his personailty--his
evil, if you will--was created. And he's certainly not unique: look
at his conformity in clothing and other societal elements. The point
seems to be that Alex really does think he's cured, but he's not. In
fact, he may never be cured because he may never achieve enough
consciousness to achieve free will.
ichorwhip
2006-05-29 01:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
Post by ichorwhip
I think you have REALLY missed the point. Alex is innately evil and
will remain that way until the day he snuffs it. This is central to
ACO. "I was cured all right." What you're saying is not necessarily
true; that youthful violence must mellow with age. Aleister Crowley,
for example, tended to become an even bigger evil "asshole" as he aged.
Age brings greater conviction if anything although some do get scared
and repent (read Sartre). I just don't see Alex ever transcending his
own evil; it's just not in his character especially after what he goes
through.
Although I do feel unjustly attacked on a personal level by much of
what you and others have written,
Don't take things so personally fella; that way lies madnessssss...
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I also must admit that your
arguments are intelligently wrought and worth consideration.
Well if you are another face of Reidiot, which he is highly suspected
of creating his own "playmates" after he's been ignored for a while,
you are showing some talent right now.... so you must not be him.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I agree
with you completely that age doesn't necessarily bring mellowness--I
myself am far more radical in my perceptions than I was as a youth.
Ok.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I disagree with your view that Alex is innately evil, however. I
think if that is the case, the entire movie collapses upon itself. The
crux of the movie is that Alex can be manipulated.
Well right there we're going to have a problem as to what the "crux" of
the movie is, but that can wait...
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
To say that he can
never transcend his own evil is to say there is no free will. And for
me the message of the film is that we do have free will, but most of
the time we're incapable of practicing it because we're not aware of
why we do things. By the time we reach the age where we have the
freedom to practice it, we've been manipulated by the media, politics,
society, school, friends, family, etc. to where even when we think
we're practicing free will, we're really just exercising a conditioned
concept of free will.
That's a fair point, and it injects an amount of the heredity versus
environment argument into the mix, but I still differ with you on the
nature of Kubrick's (and, to a slightly lesser extent, Burgesses') Alex
himself. Certainly he has the freedom to do as he pleases, as we all
do, but the responsibility for one's own actions is ever present. I
submit that Alex is a bad seed; he was born naturally evil. His
freewill impels him to do no good. He feels "right" only when doing
wrong. Look at the joy he feels from saying all the nasty and abusive
things he gives as responses to the psychiatrist's cards post-Ludovico
deprogramming; "I was quite enjoying that." Deltoid talks around the
puzzling nature of Alex's evil too early in the movie: "What gets into
you all? We study the problem. We've been studying it for damn well
near a century, yes, but we get no further with our studies. You've got
a good home here, good loving parents, you've got not too bad of a
brain. Is it some devil that crawls inside of you?" I'd say yes, "some
devil" crawled inside Alex at his conception. P&M have inadvertantly
given rise to a monster. His upbringing and family environment are
incongruent to what his true nature is. He has some modicum of manners
and protocol for the public, but underneath lies a viper.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
To my mind, Alex is just as much a clockwork orange before the
Ludovico as he is after. His mindset was conditioned by extraneous
factors that exactly mirror the technique, except they were imprinted
upon him over a longer length of time.
I think everyone is "a clockwork orange" in that sense, but I really
don't agree with the idea that there are equivalent degrees of
conditioning to the "brainwashing" afforded by the Ludovico.
Determinism and Free Will are distinct despite extraneous influences,
which tend to meld the two together under certain circumstances such as
you seem to be suggesting.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
In other words, Alex wasn't born the way he was; his personailty--his
evil, if you will--was created.
Well we fundamentally disagree. Even in the 21st chapter of the novel,
which Kubrick either ignored or was ignorant of when his ACO was made,
and which I overlooked early on in this thread much to Reidiot's glee
although I seem to be more familiar with it since he couldn't even get
the basic plot of it right in his attempts to thwart me, there are
signs of Alex's continuing bad disposition. For instance in the part
where Alex and droogs are sitting in the Duke of New York and Alex has
put his money on the table not noticing that a newspaper clip was
included in the pile: "'Give me that,' I snarled and grabbed it skorry.
I couldn't explain how it had got there, brothers, but it was a
photograph I had scissored out of the old gazetta and it was of a baby.
It was of a baby gurgling goo goo goo with all like moloko dribbling
from its rot and looking up and like smecking at everybody, and it was
all nagoy and its flesh was like in all folds with being a very fat
baby. There was then like a bit of haw haw haw struggling to get hold
of this bit of paper from me, so I had to snarl again at them and I
grabbed the photo and tore it up into tiny teeny pieces and let it fall
like a bit of snow on to the floor." Snarly, mean and threatening,
Alex obliterates the photo. It seems Alex is rather ambivalent about
any change he is contemplating. It could be argued weakly that Alex's
possession of a photo of a baby is a sign of his evil heart softening,
but I disagree. Even the most evil dictator would want to have a
successor. And notice how Alex tells us that he couldn't explain how
it had got there? To me it's a signal that his paternal instincts have
involuntarily begun to kick in. You don't have to be a morally
righteous man in order to want to become a father. Also, Alex's
description of the baby is grotesque. Nature may call for a successor,
but the successor may appear disgusting in Alex's eyes. To add some
ambiguity, Alex describes the baby as "gurgling goo goo goo," which is
gross in one sense and potentially cute in another. In addition there
are other signs that Alex still has a very short temper, and he
repeatedly ridicules his own "conflicting thoughts" of matrimony and
parenthood with comments like "and all that cal." What I'm saying is
that the type that Alex is can run from his droogs and all the ways of
his his youth, but he can never hide from being a monster at heart.
Somewhere down the line, he falls back into what brings him real
pleasure. Now that's an opinion.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
And he's certainly not unique: look
at his conformity in clothing and other societal elements.
I think Alex stands out myself. He's the only one with one false
eyelash. He carries a cane (although equipped with secret-nozh), which
he bears with some pomp and swagger. When he goes to the record shop,
he's overdressed like some young foppish aristocrat in his long coat
etcetera. As for his street clothes, only his other droogs dress like
he does and it would be reasonable to assume that they are dressing
after the manner of their "droogen-leader."
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
The point
seems to be that Alex really does think he's cured, but he's not.
Well there is a moral presumption in what you are saying, and I'd have
to agree with it. I don't think it's at all normal to go around
robbing, raping and tolchocking people at will.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
In fact, he may never be cured because he may never achieve enough
consciousness to achieve free will.
Right, and I'm getting a mixed message from you at this point. First
off, free will does not have to be "achieved." Alex is free to go
against his wicked nature and be a miserable goody-goody, but I would
not look for someone like that to stay miserable for long. Alex
doesn't quite know what's coming over him in the 21st chapter, but it
will pass. And as for Kubrick's interpretation, which is tantamount to
this newsgroup, I think it's reasonable to say that Alex's last fantasy
vision of the public fuck with a throng of applauding onlookers, who
appear dressed in height of Victorian fashion, ironically portents that
Alex will be back to doing wrong with all speed.

"As the music came to its climax, I could viddy myself very clear,
running and running on like very light and mysterious feet, carving the
whole face of the creeching world with my cut throat britva. I was
cured all right."
i
"piop"
Pops Freshenmeyer
2006-06-04 11:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Although our fundamental disagreement will probably preclude our
agreeing on minor points as well, I think you make your point very
cogently and with a great deal of textual support. I will also admit
that my view of the filim's themes and meaning have changed over time.
Although I never took Alex to be innately evil, I have moved from a
point that is closer to that idea than what I believe now. I'd like
to suggest that you put these thoughts together and publish them on
AssociatedContent as a counterpoint to my own. I don't mean that you
mention my own article or ideas, but simply that another viewpoint on
ACO would be great.

You can obviously write and you have critically examined the film so
why not make a little cash by sharing your view?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
Post by ichorwhip
I think you have REALLY missed the point. Alex is innately evil and
will remain that way until the day he snuffs it. This is central to
ACO. "I was cured all right." What you're saying is not necessarily
true; that youthful violence must mellow with age. Aleister Crowley,
for example, tended to become an even bigger evil "asshole" as he aged.
Age brings greater conviction if anything although some do get scared
and repent (read Sartre). I just don't see Alex ever transcending his
own evil; it's just not in his character especially after what he goes
through.
Although I do feel unjustly attacked on a personal level by much of
what you and others have written,
Don't take things so personally fella; that way lies madnessssss...
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I also must admit that your
arguments are intelligently wrought and worth consideration.
Well if you are another face of Reidiot, which he is highly suspected
of creating his own "playmates" after he's been ignored for a while,
you are showing some talent right now.... so you must not be him.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I agree
with you completely that age doesn't necessarily bring mellowness--I
myself am far more radical in my perceptions than I was as a youth.
Ok.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I disagree with your view that Alex is innately evil, however. I
think if that is the case, the entire movie collapses upon itself. The
crux of the movie is that Alex can be manipulated.
Well right there we're going to have a problem as to what the "crux" of
the movie is, but that can wait...
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
To say that he can
never transcend his own evil is to say there is no free will. And for
me the message of the film is that we do have free will, but most of
the time we're incapable of practicing it because we're not aware of
why we do things. By the time we reach the age where we have the
freedom to practice it, we've been manipulated by the media, politics,
society, school, friends, family, etc. to where even when we think
we're practicing free will, we're really just exercising a conditioned
concept of free will.
That's a fair point, and it injects an amount of the heredity versus
environment argument into the mix, but I still differ with you on the
nature of Kubrick's (and, to a slightly lesser extent, Burgesses') Alex
himself. Certainly he has the freedom to do as he pleases, as we all
do, but the responsibility for one's own actions is ever present. I
submit that Alex is a bad seed; he was born naturally evil. His
freewill impels him to do no good. He feels "right" only when doing
wrong. Look at the joy he feels from saying all the nasty and abusive
things he gives as responses to the psychiatrist's cards post-Ludovico
deprogramming; "I was quite enjoying that." Deltoid talks around the
puzzling nature of Alex's evil too early in the movie: "What gets into
you all? We study the problem. We've been studying it for damn well
near a century, yes, but we get no further with our studies. You've got
a good home here, good loving parents, you've got not too bad of a
brain. Is it some devil that crawls inside of you?" I'd say yes, "some
devil" crawled inside Alex at his conception. P&M have inadvertantly
given rise to a monster. His upbringing and family environment are
incongruent to what his true nature is. He has some modicum of manners
and protocol for the public, but underneath lies a viper.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
To my mind, Alex is just as much a clockwork orange before the
Ludovico as he is after. His mindset was conditioned by extraneous
factors that exactly mirror the technique, except they were imprinted
upon him over a longer length of time.
I think everyone is "a clockwork orange" in that sense, but I really
don't agree with the idea that there are equivalent degrees of
conditioning to the "brainwashing" afforded by the Ludovico.
Determinism and Free Will are distinct despite extraneous influences,
which tend to meld the two together under certain circumstances such as
you seem to be suggesting.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
In other words, Alex wasn't born the way he was; his personailty--his
evil, if you will--was created.
Well we fundamentally disagree. Even in the 21st chapter of the novel,
which Kubrick either ignored or was ignorant of when his ACO was made,
and which I overlooked early on in this thread much to Reidiot's glee
although I seem to be more familiar with it since he couldn't even get
the basic plot of it right in his attempts to thwart me, there are
signs of Alex's continuing bad disposition. For instance in the part
where Alex and droogs are sitting in the Duke of New York and Alex has
put his money on the table not noticing that a newspaper clip was
included in the pile: "'Give me that,' I snarled and grabbed it skorry.
I couldn't explain how it had got there, brothers, but it was a
photograph I had scissored out of the old gazetta and it was of a baby.
It was of a baby gurgling goo goo goo with all like moloko dribbling
from its rot and looking up and like smecking at everybody, and it was
all nagoy and its flesh was like in all folds with being a very fat
baby. There was then like a bit of haw haw haw struggling to get hold
of this bit of paper from me, so I had to snarl again at them and I
grabbed the photo and tore it up into tiny teeny pieces and let it fall
like a bit of snow on to the floor." Snarly, mean and threatening,
Alex obliterates the photo. It seems Alex is rather ambivalent about
any change he is contemplating. It could be argued weakly that Alex's
possession of a photo of a baby is a sign of his evil heart softening,
but I disagree. Even the most evil dictator would want to have a
successor. And notice how Alex tells us that he couldn't explain how
it had got there? To me it's a signal that his paternal instincts have
involuntarily begun to kick in. You don't have to be a morally
righteous man in order to want to become a father. Also, Alex's
description of the baby is grotesque. Nature may call for a successor,
but the successor may appear disgusting in Alex's eyes. To add some
ambiguity, Alex describes the baby as "gurgling goo goo goo," which is
gross in one sense and potentially cute in another. In addition there
are other signs that Alex still has a very short temper, and he
repeatedly ridicules his own "conflicting thoughts" of matrimony and
parenthood with comments like "and all that cal." What I'm saying is
that the type that Alex is can run from his droogs and all the ways of
his his youth, but he can never hide from being a monster at heart.
Somewhere down the line, he falls back into what brings him real
pleasure. Now that's an opinion.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
And he's certainly not unique: look
at his conformity in clothing and other societal elements.
I think Alex stands out myself. He's the only one with one false
eyelash. He carries a cane (although equipped with secret-nozh), which
he bears with some pomp and swagger. When he goes to the record shop,
he's overdressed like some young foppish aristocrat in his long coat
etcetera. As for his street clothes, only his other droogs dress like
he does and it would be reasonable to assume that they are dressing
after the manner of their "droogen-leader."
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
The point
seems to be that Alex really does think he's cured, but he's not.
Well there is a moral presumption in what you are saying, and I'd have
to agree with it. I don't think it's at all normal to go around
robbing, raping and tolchocking people at will.
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
In fact, he may never be cured because he may never achieve enough
consciousness to achieve free will.
Right, and I'm getting a mixed message from you at this point. First
off, free will does not have to be "achieved." Alex is free to go
against his wicked nature and be a miserable goody-goody, but I would
not look for someone like that to stay miserable for long. Alex
doesn't quite know what's coming over him in the 21st chapter, but it
will pass. And as for Kubrick's interpretation, which is tantamount to
this newsgroup, I think it's reasonable to say that Alex's last fantasy
vision of the public fuck with a throng of applauding onlookers, who
appear dressed in height of Victorian fashion, ironically portents that
Alex will be back to doing wrong with all speed.
"As the music came to its climax, I could viddy myself very clear,
running and running on like very light and mysterious feet, carving the
whole face of the creeching world with my cut throat britva. I was
cured all right."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2006-06-04 22:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
Post by ichorwhip
I think you have REALLY missed the point. Alex is innately evil and
will remain that way until the day he snuffs it. This is central to
ACO.
He is an "evil-doer", as you've said. End of discussion. Glue that
black hat on his head permanently, so Tom Mix will have a nice big
target to hit. And as far as I'm concerned, they never had to make
movies in color, since black and white are all the colors I need to
make a decision, along with nose size...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I also must admit that your
arguments are intelligently wrought and worth consideration.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Post by ichorwhip
Well if you are another face of Reidiot, which he is highly suspected
of creating his own "playmates" after he's been ignored for a while,
you are showing some talent right now.... so you must not be him.
Well, somebody here lives in a childish fantasy world, and just makes
up "facts" out of thin air..."Pops" looks like the newest breed of spammer,
the kind that actually "talks back" as a marketing strategy...he's the
"Blu Cava" of the Kubrick group (interestingly, we have now gained a new
spammer nymed "Boaz" in the stock group, who DOESN'T talk back, but
endlessly entreats us to purchase "Cramer" knick-knacks)...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I disagree with your view that Alex is innately evil, however. I
think if that is the case, the entire movie collapses upon itself. The
crux of the movie is that Alex can be manipulated.
Well right there we're going to have a problem as to what the "crux" of
the movie is, but that can wait...
Until a solitary intelligent human being shows up and completely bewilders
you yet again?
Post by ichorwhip
He feels "right" only when doing
wrong. Look at the joy he feels from saying all the nasty and abusive
things he gives as responses to the psychiatrist's cards post-Ludovico
deprogramming; "I was quite enjoying that."
As usual, you missed an entire plot point as it whizzed by, but
in this case you may be forgiven because Kubrick's film almost
by necessity could not dramatize it. In the book, Alex describes
having strange dreams when he was in the coma after his fall, as
if the doctors were draining something out of his head and replacing
it with something else, something like a chemical that instilled him
with even MORE violent tendencies than he had before. This is
only alluded to briefly in the movie without further detail.

In either case, the exact nature of "deprogramming" is never
made explicit, but in the NOVEL, at the end of the 20th chapter,
he has a ridiculously violent fantasy about cutting the face of
"the entire world". The movie actually supplanted this with a
much more benign fantasy about playful consensual sex in
front of applauding people. Was this change perhaps Kubrick's
nod to the missing 21st chapter in which Alex appears to lose
his violent tendencies "from within"?
Post by ichorwhip
His upbringing and family environment are
incongruent to what his true nature is. He has some modicum of manners
and protocol for the public, but underneath lies a viper.
"BORN TO KILL AND A HIPPY PEACE SIGN, WHAT'S
THAT, SOME KIND OF JOKE!!??!!?!!??!!!"

"It's about the duality of man, sir".

Whoops, I mean "Gomer Pyle" was homocidal-suicidal nutcase by
chromosonal destiny, yup, that's the ticket...

"WHAT'S THAT 21ST CHAPTER, PRIVATE BURGESS,
SOME KIND OF JOKE!???!!!???!!??!!"
Post by ichorwhip
Well we fundamentally disagree. Even in the 21st chapter of the novel,
which Kubrick either ignored or was ignorant of when his ACO was made,
and which I overlooked early on in this thread much to Reidiot's glee
So YOUR core quality is that you're an irredeemable idiot? In this
case, I must agree, stupidity is a "core" trait that can never be changed,
only compensated for in some way, either a "good" way or an "evil"
way...your choice is clear...
Post by ichorwhip
although I seem to be more familiar with it since he couldn't even get
the basic plot of it right in his attempts to thwart me, there are
signs of Alex's continuing bad disposition.
"attempts to thwart me". MOMMY, THE EVIL-DOERS ARE
ATTEMPTING TO THWART ME!!!
Post by ichorwhip
For instance in the part
where Alex and droogs are sitting in the Duke of New York and Alex has
put his money on the table not noticing that a newspaper clip was
included in the pile: "'Give me that,' I snarled and grabbed it skorry.
I couldn't explain how it had got there, brothers, but it was a
photograph I had scissored out of the old gazetta and it was of a baby.
It was of a baby gurgling goo goo goo with all like moloko dribbling
from its rot and looking up and like smecking at everybody, and it was
all nagoy and its flesh was like in all folds with being a very fat
baby. There was then like a bit of haw haw haw struggling to get hold
of this bit of paper from me, so I had to snarl again at them and I
grabbed the photo and tore it up into tiny teeny pieces and let it fall
like a bit of snow on to the floor." Snarly, mean and threatening,
Alex obliterates the photo.
Yes, a direct reference to the first night of violence in the novel,
a scene not included in the movie, where the gang attacks a man
outside the library. They mock the books he has checked out,
specifically "The Miracle of the Snowflake", which they call
"The Mackeral of the Cornflake", before they rip it to shreds
which flutter to the ground, like, well, like "snowflakes".

More evidence that the 21st chapter was ALWAYS intended
as the completion of Burgess's tale. And though you are too
idiotic to get this, or have just idiotically painted yourself into
this childish corner or declaring that Alex is "innately evil", Burgess
is clearly painting a picture of a conflicted Alex in the 21st chapter,
an Alex that is surreptitiously treasuring photos of babies while
publically, in front of his childish violent friends, putting on a
"false front" of juvenile nihilism by ripping up the photo, in the
same way he ripped up the library-goer's books in the 1st
chapter.

The difference here is that Alex is attacking HIMSELF, the
future Alex, the husband and father that by the end of the chapter
he vows ("Amen") to become, despite it being a "vonny grazhny
world".
Post by ichorwhip
It seems Alex is rather ambivalent about
any change he is contemplating.
Yayyyyyy!!!! Good for you!!! You've got mail!!!! Yayyyyyy!!!!
Post by ichorwhip
It could be argued weakly that Alex's
possession of a photo of a baby is a sign of his evil heart softening,
but I disagree.
Boooo!!!! You don't have mail!!!! Booooo!!!!!
Post by ichorwhip
Even the most evil dictator would want to have a
successor.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

What a complete and total back-pedalling idiotic quote monkey! All
this follow-on completely unsupported speculative idiocy just because
you were such an idiot that you forgot the 21st chapter in your
first idiotic post!
Post by ichorwhip
And notice how Alex tells us that he couldn't explain how
it had got there? To me it's a signal that his paternal instincts have
involuntarily begun to kick in.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Criminy, what an...well, it's
just sad at this point, best not to say more...but I can't resist, it's
like in intellectual car-wreck, like an idiot throwing his Yugo
into reverse, stomping on the gas, and backing into a tree at
speed...
Post by ichorwhip
To add some
ambiguity, Alex describes the baby as "gurgling goo goo goo," which is
gross in one sense and potentially cute in another.
Oooooh, "ambiguity", the biggest word that the average contributor
to this group can use almost correctly, so they use it frequently whenever
the gears in their brain are grinding ("existentialism" will forever defeat
them, sadly).

"There was a certain 'flow' to the 'ambiguity', don't you think?"
Post by ichorwhip
Somewhere down the line, he falls back into what brings him real
pleasure. Now that's an opinion.
Well yes it is. Not a well-founded or well-thought-out or well-expressed
one, but an "opinion" it is. Yayyyyy, you correctly used a three-syllable
word in context, yayyyyyyy!!!!
Post by ichorwhip
I don't think it's at all normal to go around
robbing, raping and tolchocking people at will.
And I don't think it's "normal" to wish death on people, and stalk
and harass them across the Internet, because of their opinion of a
David Lean movie. In fact, it isn't "normal", because VERY FEW
PEOPLE BEHAVE THAT WAY (two-syllable word, "normal",
look it up).

So what's YOUR "core quality"? Are you also an innately irredeemable
"evil-doer"? What gets into you all?
Post by ichorwhip
Alex
doesn't quite know what's coming over him in the 21st chapter, but it
will pass.
Write your own damn bo...oh, wait, sorry, I forgot...
Post by ichorwhip
And as for Kubrick's interpretation, which is tantamount to
this newsgroup, I think it's reasonable to say that Alex's last fantasy
vision of the public fuck with a throng of applauding onlookers, who
appear dressed in height of Victorian fashion, ironically portents that
Alex will be back to doing wrong with all speed.
"As the music came to its climax, I could viddy myself very clear,
running and running on like very light and mysterious feet, carving the
whole face of the creeching world with my cut throat britva. I was
cured all right."
Thank you for providing the exact quotes and references from the
book and the movie that prove you wrong, as I explained these scenes
and their differences to you earlier. In some ways, you actually have
a purpose in life. As a Quote Monkey(TM), you can fetch quotes
just as some other prehensiles can be trained to assist disabled persons
by bringing them the remote control...

---
William Ernest "The Whole Damn World Is Wrong, Not Me" Reid
ichorwhip
2006-06-05 03:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Reidiot's foetor to me through Pops:

<trimmed off the crusts>
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I also must admit that your
arguments are intelligently wrought and worth consideration.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Ha! At least Pops appears to recognize that you're just an
inflammatory Vendetta-boy with not much to add but bitter foul
ordure...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Well if you are another face of Reidiot, which he is highly suspected
of creating his own "playmates" after he's been ignored for a while,
you are showing some talent right now.... so you must not be him.
Well, somebody here lives in a childish fantasy world, and just makes
up "facts" out of thin air...
Never said it was a fact, only a suspicion. You've been accused of
that practice before and not just on this newsgroup.
Post by Bill Reid
"Pops" looks like the newest breed of spammer,
the kind that actually "talks back" as a marketing strategy...
What was he selling? The only thing he did was post a few links to a
blog. I guess he is Sexton himself as he all but says it in his latest
response. I may not agree with him, but he's a hell of more decent
Usenet person than you are. Neither "idiot" nor "douche"...
Post by Bill Reid
he's the
"Blu Cava" of the Kubrick group (interestingly, we have now gained a new
spammer nymed "Boaz" in the stock group, who DOESN'T talk back, but
endlessly entreats us to purchase "Cramer" knick-knacks)...
Oh? Maybe you should buy from him... zzzzzzz
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I disagree with your view that Alex is innately evil, however. I
think if that is the case, the entire movie collapses upon itself. The
crux of the movie is that Alex can be manipulated.
Well right there we're going to have a problem as to what the "crux" of
the movie is, but that can wait...
Until a solitary intelligent human being shows up and completely bewilders
you yet again?
Still waiting for that moment to come along Reidiot... You are no
starchild!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
He feels "right" only when doing
wrong. Look at the joy he feels from saying all the nasty and abusive
things he gives as responses to the psychiatrist's cards post-Ludovico
deprogramming; "I was quite enjoying that."
As usual, you missed an entire plot point as it whizzed by, but
in this case you may be forgiven because Kubrick's film almost
by necessity could not dramatize it.
Oh thank you sir, thank you.... pffffffft!
Post by Bill Reid
In the book, Alex describes
having strange dreams when he was in the coma after his fall, as
if the doctors were draining something out of his head and replacing
it with something else, something like a chemical that instilled him
with even MORE violent tendencies than he had before. This is
only alluded to briefly in the movie without further detail.
I know what your talking about, but for once I think it is YOU that are
Reiding too much into it. From the movie: "Well, when I was all like
ashamed up and half awake and unconscious like, I kept having this
dream like all these doctors were playing around with me gulliver. You
know... like the inside of me brain. I seemed to have this dream over
and over again. D'you think it means anything?" YES! We have turned
you into a Battle-bot! Goest now and slaughter hither and yon in the
name of Satan! LOL!
Post by Bill Reid
In either case, the exact nature of "deprogramming" is never
made explicit, but in the NOVEL, at the end of the 20th chapter,
he has a ridiculously violent fantasy about cutting the face of
"the entire world". The movie actually supplanted this with a
much more benign fantasy about playful consensual sex in
front of applauding people.
Oh yes, very playful! Just like that time when Wally and the Beav
caught Dad giving Mom a dirty sanchez....
Post by Bill Reid
Was this change perhaps Kubrick's
nod to the missing 21st chapter in which Alex appears to lose
his violent tendencies "from within"?
I don't think so. Public fucking is generally considered poor form...

<snip a bunch of the usual crap, maybe a point in there, but I'm tarred
of polishing turds...>
Post by Bill Reid
More evidence that the 21st chapter was ALWAYS intended
as the completion of Burgess's tale.
Idiot, I never disputed that Burgess intended to have that chapter in
the book. It's his own fault for buckling under pressure and dropping
the chapter to get it published. He obviously didn't feel very firm
about it. His publisher said take it out, and he did. You are grasping
at straws with shitty fingers as usual...
Post by Bill Reid
William Ernest "The Whole Damn World Is Wrong, Not Me" Reid
That says it all doesn't it folks?

"Patients who've sustained the kind of injuries you have often have
dreams of this sort. It's all part of the recovery process."
i
"piop"
Yelps
2006-06-05 04:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
<trimmed off the crusts>
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I also must admit that your
arguments are intelligently wrought and worth consideration.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Ha! At least Pops appears to recognize that you're just an
inflammatory Vendetta-boy with not much to add but bitter foul
ordure...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Well if you are another face of Reidiot, which he is highly suspected
of creating his own "playmates" after he's been ignored for a while,
you are showing some talent right now.... so you must not be him.
Well, somebody here lives in a childish fantasy world, and just makes
up "facts" out of thin air...
Never said it was a fact, only a suspicion. You've been accused of
that practice before and not just on this newsgroup.
Post by Bill Reid
"Pops" looks like the newest breed of spammer,
the kind that actually "talks back" as a marketing strategy...
What was he selling? The only thing he did was post a few links to a
blog. I guess he is Sexton himself as he all but says it in his latest
response. I may not agree with him, but he's a hell of more decent
Usenet person than you are. Neither "idiot" nor "douche"...
Post by Bill Reid
he's the
"Blu Cava" of the Kubrick group (interestingly, we have now gained a new
spammer nymed "Boaz" in the stock group, who DOESN'T talk back, but
endlessly entreats us to purchase "Cramer" knick-knacks)...
Oh? Maybe you should buy from him... zzzzzzz
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Pops Freshenmeyer
I disagree with your view that Alex is innately evil, however. I
think if that is the case, the entire movie collapses upon itself. The
crux of the movie is that Alex can be manipulated.
Well right there we're going to have a problem as to what the "crux" of
the movie is, but that can wait...
Until a solitary intelligent human being shows up and completely bewilders
you yet again?
Still waiting for that moment to come along Reidiot... You are no
starchild!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
He feels "right" only when doing
wrong. Look at the joy he feels from saying all the nasty and abusive
things he gives as responses to the psychiatrist's cards post-Ludovico
deprogramming; "I was quite enjoying that."
As usual, you missed an entire plot point as it whizzed by, but
in this case you may be forgiven because Kubrick's film almost
by necessity could not dramatize it.
Oh thank you sir, thank you.... pffffffft!
Post by Bill Reid
In the book, Alex describes
having strange dreams when he was in the coma after his fall, as
if the doctors were draining something out of his head and replacing
it with something else, something like a chemical that instilled him
with even MORE violent tendencies than he had before. This is
only alluded to briefly in the movie without further detail.
I know what your talking about, but for once I think it is YOU that are
Reiding too much into it. From the movie: "Well, when I was all like
ashamed up and half awake and unconscious like, I kept having this
dream like all these doctors were playing around with me gulliver. You
know... like the inside of me brain. I seemed to have this dream over
and over again. D'you think it means anything?" YES! We have turned
you into a Battle-bot! Goest now and slaughter hither and yon in the
name of Satan! LOL!
Post by Bill Reid
In either case, the exact nature of "deprogramming" is never
made explicit, but in the NOVEL, at the end of the 20th chapter,
he has a ridiculously violent fantasy about cutting the face of
"the entire world". The movie actually supplanted this with a
much more benign fantasy about playful consensual sex in
front of applauding people.
Oh yes, very playful! Just like that time when Wally and the Beav
caught Dad giving Mom a dirty sanchez....
Post by Bill Reid
Was this change perhaps Kubrick's
nod to the missing 21st chapter in which Alex appears to lose
his violent tendencies "from within"?
I don't think so. Public fucking is generally considered poor form...
<snip a bunch of the usual crap, maybe a point in there, but I'm tarred
of polishing turds...>
Post by Bill Reid
More evidence that the 21st chapter was ALWAYS intended
as the completion of Burgess's tale.
Idiot, I never disputed that Burgess intended to have that chapter in
the book. It's his own fault for buckling under pressure and dropping
the chapter to get it published. He obviously didn't feel very firm
about it. His publisher said take it out, and he did. You are grasping
at straws with shitty fingers as usual...
Post by Bill Reid
William Ernest "The Whole Damn World Is Wrong, Not Me" Reid
That says it all doesn't it folks?
"Patients who've sustained the kind of injuries you have often have
dreams of this sort. It's all part of the recovery process."
i
"piop"
\\
\


This is all so relevant to anything.I think i'll go take a bath.


dc
Bill Reid
2006-06-06 01:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yelps
This is all so relevant to anything.I think i'll go take a bath.
What would Buffy do?!??!!

---
William Ernest "Always On-Topic" Reid
Bill Reid
2006-06-06 01:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Ha! At least Pops appears to recognize that you're just an
inflammatory Vendetta-boy with not much to add but bitter foul
ordure...
Yayyyyy!!! You've got mail!!! Yayyyyyyy!!! You've got a
spammer friend!!! Yayyyyyy!!!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Well if you are another face of Reidiot, which he is highly suspected
of creating his own "playmates" after he's been ignored for a while,
you are showing some talent right now.... so you must not be him.
Well, somebody here lives in a childish fantasy world, and just makes
up "facts" out of thin air...
Never said it was a fact, only a suspicion. You've been accused of
that practice before and not just on this newsgroup.
OMG, what a relevatory admission of stalking!!!

Hey Mr. Takes-Six-Months-To-Read-A-200-Page-Book and
Sir Can't-Respond-To-A-15K-Post-Because-It's-Too-Long,
just how many hundreds of posts did you read to ferret out this
nonsensical non-fact?

Well, at least as long as you're alive and not incarcerated without
Usenet access, I'll never be "ignored"...

And this is why I have no problem referring to you as a LIAR,
with a capital "L" (and I-A-R), as well as a truly abnormal obsessive
stalker. Every time you swear you "don't have time to waste" and
you won't be indulging in your stalking behavior anymore, it turns
out you've spent literally dozens of hours cataloging my every
utterance (and gathering a little "evidence" on the side about the
Jewish heritage of certain young actresses so you can hilariously
denigrate them because of their "hideous nose").

This happens far too frequently to pass off as you just not being
a "man" of your word, or a mere prevaricator, but coupled with
all your other falsehoods (such as "suspecting" someone of something
without even a shred of evidence), provides my requisite proof beyond
a reasonable doubt that you are a LIAR (YOUR "core quality",
or just one of many?).

What's really funny about this is that you are almost certainly
aware of how the lying whacked-out idiot in the other group who
came up with this and several other surprising "facts" (yes, he
stated them as "facts", not "suspicions") not-so-mysteriously
"disappeared" from Usenet after I strongly advised him to
do so. And you're also almost certainly aware that many
other mental cases such as yourself have also "disappeared"
from that group, and the circumstances that caused
their departure.

But just like them, you're so stupid and impulsive that you
just can't figure out when you've "crossed the line" and gotten
yourself into serious, life-altering trouble. I've advised you
before to get the hell off Usenet since you obviously can't
handle it emotionally or intellectually, just as I advised the
"disappeared one", but the hallmark of a TRUE idiotic lunatic
is that they cannot take simple well-meant advice from an
intelligent normal person until it's "too late".

So it would be a waste of electrons to remind you again
that you're just too idiotic to play even in this playground of
idiotic rejects. So just go ahead and stalk and lie and obsess,
and wind up eventually where you were always going.

What gets into you all? You've got not too bad of a bra...oh,
whoops, sorry, I forgot...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
"Pops" looks like the newest breed of spammer,
the kind that actually "talks back" as a marketing strategy...
What was he selling? The only thing he did was post a few links to a
blog.
Here's a little clue for you: a "blog" is what they used to call
a "website".
Post by ichorwhip
I guess he is Sexton himself as he all but says it in his latest
response.
I am deeply in shock...do you mean that there are people on
this planet who put together a website, then show up on newsgroups
under a phony name and say, "Hey everybody I just found a new great
site at http://www.idiotsonly.com!!!" That would be completely
DISINGENUOUS, for cryin' out loud!!!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
he's the
"Blu Cava" of the Kubrick group (interestingly, we have now gained a new
spammer nymed "Boaz" in the stock group, who DOESN'T talk back, but
endlessly entreats us to purchase "Cramer" knick-knacks)...
Oh? Maybe you should buy from him... zzzzzzz
Or maybe you should, since he has the same name and posts from
the same provider as your "creative" serial copyright infringer buddy
"Bore-Azzzzzzzzzzzzz"...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
In the book, Alex describes
having strange dreams when he was in the coma after his fall, as
if the doctors were draining something out of his head and replacing
it with something else, something like a chemical that instilled him
with even MORE violent tendencies than he had before. This is
only alluded to briefly in the movie without further detail.
I know what your talking about, but for once I think it is YOU that are
Reiding too much into it. From the movie: "Well, when I was all like
ashamed up and half awake and unconscious like, I kept having this
dream like all these doctors were playing around with me gulliver. You
know... like the inside of me brain. I seemed to have this dream over
and over again. D'you think it means anything?" YES! We have turned
you into a Battle-bot! Goest now and slaughter hither and yon in the
name of Satan! LOL!
I slow the plot point down for you, and it STILL whizzes right
past you...maybe if I ran the movie in reverse you might be able
to catch up...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
In either case, the exact nature of "deprogramming" is never
made explicit, but in the NOVEL, at the end of the 20th chapter,
he has a ridiculously violent fantasy about cutting the face of
"the entire world". The movie actually supplanted this with a
much more benign fantasy about playful consensual sex in
front of applauding people.
Oh yes, very playful! Just like that time when Wally and the Beav
caught Dad giving Mom a dirty sanchez....
You idiot!!! June gave Ward a "blumpkin" in that episode...you can't
get anything right...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Was this change perhaps Kubrick's
nod to the missing 21st chapter in which Alex appears to lose
his violent tendencies "from within"?
I don't think so. Public fucking is generally considered poor form...
Look, a lot of people I know have made the outdoors TRULY
great, and none of them have gone on to whelp psychopathic progeny
like so much Saddam-spawn as you so idiotically speculate about
Alex's commitment to marriage and fatherhood in the 21st chapter.

That scene really stood out from all the other fantasy scenes in
the movie, which mostly consisted of Alex driving to the crux
of Jesus and Alex as a vampire who just slew Buffy.

Maybe that was his future fantasy wife he was fooling around
with there, just sayin'...
Post by ichorwhip
<snip a bunch of the usual crap, maybe a point in there, but I'm tarred
of polishing turds...>
So it's back to tireless stalking again? I can picture you now,
squatted bowlegged in a chair with your baggy diapers, slooooooowly
reading all my recent posts, mouthing each word with your chimp lips...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
More evidence that the 21st chapter was ALWAYS intended
as the completion of Burgess's tale.
Idiot, I never disputed that Burgess intended to have that chapter in
the book. It's his own fault for buckling under pressure and dropping
the chapter to get it published. He obviously didn't feel very firm
about it. His publisher said take it out, and he did.
He didn't "take it out", you idiot, they just didn't publish it IN
AMERICA ONLY. Can't you keep even the simplest of facts
straight?

---
William Ernest "Voted Most Popular Poster By Stalkers" Reid
ichorwhip
2006-06-07 01:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Reidiot wrought: <nothing worth repeating>

Your ranting and raving begs the question: Have you ever had shock
therapy? It works for some people...

"Cut the shit, sonny, and get out of here before you get yourself in
some very serious trouble."
i
"piop"
Loading...