Discussion:
Question for Padraig- Full Metal Jacket's final coda
(too old to reply)
MP
2008-04-22 14:05:34 UTC
Permalink
"Full Metal Jacket" ends with Joker's narration superimposed over the
Marine group's Mickey Mouse Chant.

Joker's narration:

"We have NAILED our names in the pages of history, enough for today.
We HUMP down to the perfume river to set in for the night. My thoughts
drift back to ERECT NIPPLE WET DREAMS about Mary Jane ROTTENCROTCH and
the great homecoming FUCK FANTASY. I am so happy that I am alive and
in one piece. In short, I am in a world of shit, yes. But I am alive.
And I am not afraid."

Marine group (chorus omitted):

"We play fair and we work hard and we're in harmony."
"Forever let us hold our banner high"
"boys and girls from far and near you're welcome as can be"
"Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?"
"Who is marching coast to coast and far across the sea?"
"Come along and sing our song and join our family."
"Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?"

The interesting thing about Joker's narration is the emphasis on sex
and shit. Full Metal Jacket has repeated sex and shit motiffs, and
here in the coda, Kubrick brings these cycles to a nice close.

Joker, an intelligent and cynical young man, has sacrificed his
identity and individuality. Having killed his Shadow, the last
remnants of his infantile and femine self, he's transformed from a
reporter to a "cold hard grunt". He's shifted from an outside
observer, to an internal member of the hive mind. He is a member of
the Micky Mouse Club. A slave to ideology. A mere pawn on a chessboard
run by unseen masters.

But then why is he "happy to be alive?" and why is he "not afraid?"
How brainwashed is Joker? Is he aware that he has metaphorically
commited suicide, or is his comment ironic? Is he still joking? Is he
in fact dead and painfully afraid?

Also, what do his "fuck fantasies" mean? There's obviously an
evolution taking place. Joker has evolved from Child to Adolescent to
Impotent (gun jamming) Adult. Has he now reached Maturity? Is his
"fucking" symbollic of his transformation into rapist and
conquistador?

The "Micky Mouse" song has been mocked by many critics of the film.
They read it superficially, saying that "war makes boys out of men" or
that the soldiers are like "infants playing with guns".

I've always thought the chant was far more powerful. It's dark,
mysterious and devilishly ironic, with it's "micky mouse" metaphors
clearly alluding to "The Shining's" notion of conquest and bloody
history. Micky mouse is also a pretty recognisable symbol of
Americana.

So to me, the song is about American Imperialism rolling across the
world. These men hold their banner up high, urging everyone to join
their family as they bring "peace" and "freedom" to all. They pretend
to play fair and live in harmony, marching from coast to coast, all
the while blissfully unaware of who exactly runs their club and why
exactly they're fighting. Like Dr Bill in Eyes Wide Shut, they're
deluded.

With it's urban warfare and lack of jungles, the film seems far more
modern than any other Vietnam film. It alludes to Afghanistan and both
gulf wars, it's urban streets and rubble strewn landscape making war
seem more like a capitalist game (Joker: "it's just business") than a
natural fight for survival.

One more question. Animal mother's line, "you think we fight for
freedom? If I'm going to get my balls blown off for a word, my word is
poontang", do you think it's symbollic? That this psycho marine fights
not for ideology but for pussy. That he's been conditioned to think of
war and sex as one. To rape is to own? Has his gun displaced his
penis? If so, is this what military indoctrination is trying to
achieve with these young men?
Bill Reid
2008-04-23 01:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Why are you asking "Podrigged"/"Hurried BraidLie"/"Evilry Hummerjob"
a question about Jungian themes in "Full Metal Jacket"? I posted a lengthy
Jungian overview of all of Kubrick's films a little over a year ago, and
he/she
fell all over himself/herself pronouncing Jung as a fraudulent humbug.

I hope the "Lancanian" themes he gave you answered your "questions";
in any event, I'll respond to a few myself, but the full "Jungian" analysis
of "Full Metal Jacket" remains to be written...
Post by MP
"Full Metal Jacket" ends with Joker's narration superimposed over the
Marine group's Mickey Mouse Chant.
"We play fair and we work hard and we're in harmony."
"Forever let us hold our banner high"
"boys and girls from far and near you're welcome as can be"
"Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?"
"Who is marching coast to coast and far across the sea?"
"Come along and sing our song and join our family."
"Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?"
Ever heard the "Marine Hymm"? Compare and contrast...no
great psychoanalysis is needed here...
Post by MP
Having killed his Shadow, the last
remnants of his infantile and femine self, he's transformed from a
reporter to a "cold hard grunt".
OH NO, NOT THE "SHADOW" STUFF AGAIN!!! AHAHHAHARGHAHH!!!!
Post by MP
He's shifted from an outside
observer, to an internal member of the hive mind. He is a member of
the Micky Mouse Club. A slave to ideology. A mere pawn on a chessboard
run by unseen masters.
I'm not sure about all of this, but at least it's not "Jungian"...
Post by MP
But then why is he "happy to be alive?" and why is he "not afraid?"
How brainwashed is Joker? Is he aware that he has metaphorically
commited suicide, or is his comment ironic? Is he still joking? Is he
in fact dead and painfully afraid?
I don't know. Would you be happy to be alive in that situation?
Would John Wayne?
Post by MP
The "Micky Mouse" song has been mocked by many critics of the film.
I had started to laugh at the unintentional humor of the middlebrow
pretentiousness of Kubrick's movies in "The Shining", by "Full Metal
Jacket", and that scene in particular, I was getting full-blown douche
chills, and not even getting an entertained chuckle out of the
nonsense...
Post by MP
They read it superficially, saying that "war makes boys out of men" or
that the soldiers are like "infants playing with guns".
Those mad fools...
Post by MP
I've always thought the chant was far more powerful. It's dark,
mysterious and devilishly ironic, with it's "micky mouse" metaphors
clearly alluding to "The Shining's" notion of conquest and bloody
history. Micky mouse is also a pretty recognisable symbol of
Americana.
It was another Holocaust reference. Walt Disney was a known
anti-Semite (in fact, I worked with a guy once who was a cartoonist
for Disney who had been a Nazi soldier in the "Battle of the Bulge,
he gave me a few cells of Disney cartoons, so Disney must have
LOVED Nazis).
Post by MP
So to me, the song is about American Imperialism rolling across the
world. These men hold their banner up high, urging everyone to join
their family as they bring "peace" and "freedom" to all. They pretend
to play fair and live in harmony, marching from coast to coast, all
the while blissfully unaware of who exactly runs their club and why
exactly they're fighting. Like Dr Bill in Eyes Wide Shut, they're
deluded.
You're reading more into this than was there or could possibly
be seen there or even what Kubrick hisself said was there...you
actually were on firmer ground with the Jung stuff than the political
stuff...
Post by MP
With it's urban warfare and lack of jungles, the film seems far more
modern than any other Vietnam film. It alludes to Afghanistan and both
gulf wars, it's urban streets and rubble strewn landscape making war
seem more like a capitalist game (Joker: "it's just business") than a
natural fight for survival.
OK, NOW I know why you asked our resident fascist about this
film...yes, it was one long anti-American screed, we know that because
of the pompous officer that said he only wanted his soldiers "to
obey my commands as they would the words of God"...now I'm bored
to death by the whole movie all over again, thanks for bringing this up...

---
William Ernest "Dr. Loves Strange" Reid
MP
2008-04-23 11:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Why are you asking "Podrigged"/"Hurried BraidLie"/"Evilry Hummerjob"
a question about Jungian themes in "Full Metal Jacket"?
Because I think he's written the most interesting stuff on FMJ so far.
Between his writings and the section in "Inside a film artist's maze"
there really isn't anything serious about FMJ out there. It's usually
treated as a lesser Kubrick film, while I think it's one of his best.
It's his most rewatchable and rewarding, second only to 2001 and Barry
Lyndon.

BTW I edited my post's title because I wasn't sure if Padraig still
posted here. Some people say he is Harry Bailey, but I wasn't sure.
I'm new to the groups and have only been reading back issue posts for
the past few months.
Post by Bill Reid
I posted a lengthy > Jungian overview of all of Kubrick's films a little over a year ago, and > he/she > fell all over >himself/herself pronouncing Jung as a fraudulent humbug.
Can you link me to that post?
Post by Bill Reid
I hope the "Lancanian" themes he gave you answered your "questions";
in any event, I'll respond to a few myself, but the full "Jungian" analysis
of "Full Metal Jacket" remains to be written...
You should write your views down. I sense there's some past bad blood
between you AMK guys, but I'm sure some people would like to read it.
Post by Bill Reid
Ever heard the "Marine Hymm"?  Compare and contrast...no
great psychoanalysis is needed here...
But The Marine Hymn ("From the halls of Montezuma To the shores of
Tripoli...") is completely different. I've checked the lyrics to the
original Mickey Mouse song and I see that Kubrick tweaked those as
well.
Post by Bill Reid
OH NO, NOT THE "SHADOW" STUFF AGAIN!!!  AHAHHAHARGHAHH!!!!
Didn't Kubrick specifically say he wanted to make a film about the
Shadow? I've read several interviews where he plainly says this.
Post by Bill Reid
I don't know.  Would you be happy to be alive in that situation?
No i'd be scared. Maybe it's an allusion to Pyle. Pyle literally died
in a world of shit (bathroom) while Joker recognises that he is in a
world of shit but is happy to have not destroyed himself.
Post by Bill Reid
I had started to laugh at the unintentional humor of the middlebrow
pretentiousness of Kubrick's movies in "The Shining", by "Full Metal
Jacket", and that scene in particular, I was getting full-blown douche
chills, and not even getting an entertained chuckle out of the
nonsense...
I find the Micky Mouse song haunting and nightmarish. The line "who's
the leader of the club that's made for you and me?" seems to resonate
perfectly with Eyes Wide Shut, as Bill gradually realises how little
social status he has. The leaders and club members of the world remain
faceless and hidden to him.
Post by Bill Reid
It was another Holocaust reference.  Walt Disney was a known
anti-Semite (in fact, I worked with a guy once who was a cartoonist
for Disney who had been a Nazi soldier in the "Battle of the Bulge,
he gave me a few cells of Disney cartoons, so Disney must have
LOVED Nazis).
Sarcasm?
Post by Bill Reid
You're reading more into this than was there or could possibly
be seen there or even what Kubrick hisself said was there...you
actually were on firmer ground with the Jung stuff than the political
stuff...
I think FMJ says alot about America. The references to Cowboys and
Indians certainly alludes to conquest and colonization. Kubrick's war
is one fought for "business". It's fueled by propoganda and
exploitation (whores). Nothing's changed. It's a very political and
perceptive film in my eyes.
Post by Bill Reid
OK, NOW I know why you asked our resident fascist about this
film...yes, it was one long anti-American screed,
I saw the film at the Barbican 2 months ago with a lot of young first
time viewers and most agreed that the film seemed very timely. The
bombed out ruins do conjure up images of urban fighting in Iraq. BTW,
why is Padraig fascist? Judging from his past posts, he seems to be
anti patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism etc.
Bill Reid
2008-04-25 02:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Do you know how hard it is to respond to you when you post
from Google(TM) Groups the way you do it (whatever that is);
my newsreader can't automatically attribute quotes so I have
to do it manually. There IS a way to post from Google(TM) Groups
that doesn't have this problem, because other people seem to
be able to do it, so it'd be a big help if you could figure out how
to do that...
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
Why are you asking "Podrigged"/"Hurried BraidLie"/"Evilry Hummerjob"
a question about Jungian themes in "Full Metal Jacket"?
Because I think he's written the most interesting stuff on FMJ so far.
Sounds like all his other stuff, which is pretty much all the same...
Post by MP
Between his writings and the section in "Inside a film artist's maze"
there really isn't anything serious about FMJ out there. It's usually
treated as a lesser Kubrick film, while I think it's one of his best.
It's his most rewatchable and rewarding, second only to 2001 and Barry
Lyndon.
That would actually be third, and I'm not a fan of the film overall, and
only find it more "rewatchable" than "Eyes Wide Shut", and that ain't
sayin' nothin'...
Post by MP
BTW I edited my post's title because I wasn't sure if Padraig still
posted here. Some people say he is Harry Bailey, but I wasn't sure.
I'm new to the groups and have only been reading back issue posts for
the past few months.
"He" posts under several names, some of them female.
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
I posted a lengthy
Jungian overview of all of Kubrick's films a little over a year ago, and
he/she > fell all over >himself/herself pronouncing Jung as a fraudulent
humbug.
Can you link me to that post?
It was a series of posts, and I kind of was slamming them out
without much thought towards the end of the series, but they were
titled "Kubrick And His Symbols: A Jungian Analysis (Parts 1-4):

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/msg/a3cd68547280faf4
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/msg/361f61e1d4ba72fb
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/msg/43af3d0f3e1bcded
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/msg/1bd3be720ddc23d5
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
I hope the "Lancanian" themes he gave you answered your "questions";
in any event, I'll respond to a few myself, but the full "Jungian" analysis
of "Full Metal Jacket" remains to be written...
You should write your views down. I sense there's some past bad blood
between you AMK guys, but I'm sure some people would like to read it.
I was attacked by visious hoodlums right here in this very room!
Some of the most brutal tolchocks came your wild Irish "Rose"...

I think some of the many missing pieces could be filled in by
searching for older posts by other posters, since the topic was
hashed over to some degree before Usenet became "eternal
September"...in any event, as I said when I wrote the above
series, I'm NOT really a hard-core "Jungian", but do occasionally
like to explore certain themes of thought in relation to Kubrick
movies. The problem now is, the current crop of posters here
take their OWN "opinions" WAY too seriously to behave in a
thoughtful and respectful manner towards these types of
"discussions"...
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
Ever heard the "Marine Hymm"? Compare and contrast...no
great psychoanalysis is needed here...
But The Marine Hymn ("From the halls of Montezuma To the shores of
Tripoli...") is completely different.
"Who is marching coast to coast and far across the sea?"

"Our flag's unfurl'd to every breeze"

"Forever let us hold our banner high"

"We are proud to claim the title
Of United States Marines."

"Come along and sing our song and join our family."

"Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve"

"We play fair and we work hard and we're in harmony."
Post by MP
I've checked the lyrics to the
original Mickey Mouse song and I see that Kubrick tweaked those as
well.
That's how he got around the copyright violation...
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
OH NO, NOT THE "SHADOW" STUFF AGAIN!!! AHAHHAHARGHAHH!!!!
Didn't Kubrick specifically say he wanted to make a film about the
Shadow? I've read several interviews where he plainly says this.
Well, I covered this in my Jung series...to be perfectly accurate, I
believe it was a couple of his COLLABORATORS who said he said
that, and I don't disbelieve them...but they may have selected those
specific ideas from the many that Kubrick proposed.

My Jung series does have fairly complete "footnotes" of Kubrick
and Kubrick collaborator references to Jung and some other philosophical
and psychological influences...
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
I don't know. Would you be happy to be alive in that situation?
No i'd be scared. Maybe it's an allusion to Pyle. Pyle literally died
in a world of shit (bathroom) while Joker recognises that he is in a
world of shit but is happy to have not destroyed himself.
Maybe YOU'D be scared because you STILL wouldn't have
your "head and ass" wired together...did "Joker" finally manage
the "integration of dominant and 'shadow' traits" required to
keep him from being a "dead Marine"? Think about it...
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
I had started to laugh at the unintentional humor of the middlebrow
pretentiousness of Kubrick's movies in "The Shining", by "Full Metal
Jacket", and that scene in particular, I was getting full-blown douche
chills, and not even getting an entertained chuckle out of the
nonsense...
I find the Micky Mouse song haunting and nightmarish.
Reminded me of the douchey ending of "The Deer Hunter"...Kubrick
was showing a lot of boring derivativeness by that time, and I did NOT
appreciate it...
Post by MP
The line "who's
the leader of the club that's made for you and me?" seems to resonate
perfectly with Eyes Wide Shut, as Bill gradually realises how little
social status he has. The leaders and club members of the world remain
faceless and hidden to him.
Well, that's an idea. But as a human being, aren't we all "hard-wired"
to accept authority, in much the same way that many mammals instinctively
align themselves socially according to "dominance"?
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
It was another Holocaust reference. Walt Disney was a known
anti-Semite (in fact, I worked with a guy once who was a cartoonist
for Disney who had been a Nazi soldier in the "Battle of the Bulge,
he gave me a few cells of Disney cartoons, so Disney must have
LOVED Nazis).
Sarcasm?
Another IDEA. I also posited the IDEA that Kubrick was
denigrating Jung with his explicit reference in "Full Metal Jacket",
perhaps in light of the controversy surrounding Jung being an
anti-Semite...just stirring the pot for the people who believe
that Kubrick films are filled with oblique Holocaust references...
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
You're reading more into this than was there or could possibly
be seen there or even what Kubrick hisself said was there...you
actually were on firmer ground with the Jung stuff than the political
stuff...
I think FMJ says alot about America.
Kubrick said it was just the reality of war..in slow motion, with
the blood spurting pshisssssh!!!
Post by MP
The references to Cowboys and
Indians certainly alludes to conquest and colonization. Kubrick's war
is one fought for "business". It's fueled by propoganda and
exploitation (whores). Nothing's changed. It's a very political and
perceptive film in my eyes.
Then there is it is...for YOU. Others may "see" it differently...
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
OK, NOW I know why you asked our resident fascist about this
film...yes, it was one long anti-American screed,
I saw the film at the Barbican 2 months ago with a lot of young first
time viewers and most agreed that the film seemed very timely. The
bombed out ruins do conjure up images of urban fighting in Iraq. BTW,
why is Padraig fascist? Judging from his past posts, he seems to be
anti patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism etc.
He tries to project his political beliefs on others forcefully. THAT'S
a fascist.

---
William Ernest "Libertine" Reid
Bill Reid
2008-04-25 03:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
I posted a lengthy
Jungian overview of all of Kubrick's films a little over a year ago, and
he/she > fell all over >himself/herself pronouncing Jung as a fraudulent
humbug.
Can you link me to that post?
It was a series of posts, and I kind of was slamming them out
without much thought towards the end of the series, but they were
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/msg/a3cd68547280faf4
(part 1)
Post by Bill Reid
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/msg/361f61e1d4ba72fb
(part 2)

The second two were actually to the miserable vandals who
spray-painted their hate on my shining thesis, so here are the
correct links:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/msg/c227960d795901d0

(part 3)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/msg/ae2424eb147de066

(part 4)

---
William Ernest "I Corrected Them" Reid
ichorwhip
2008-04-25 02:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Beware MP, Billy's only on his best behavior for the time being I
fear, in fact, I've never seen him this "tolerant" of someone before!
Are you sure you're not him? It's like somehow all of his moronic
ACTING OUT, constant insults, bitterness, disingenuousness, hypocrisy,
deceit and calling every single person on this forum "idiot" et al for
years has finally registered in his brain as the wrong thing to do
when you actually have to be responsible for it. Acting like a jerk
means being treated like a jerk; that was his consequence. Has
Reidiot® reformed then? I guess I won't find out directly since he's
sworn off of me! LOL! "How sweet it is!"

"I was cured all right."
i
"piop"
JW Moore
2008-04-25 06:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
Why are you asking "Podrigged"/"Hurried BraidLie"/"Evilry Hummerjob"
a question about Jungian themes in "Full Metal Jacket"?
Because I think he's written the most interesting stuff on FMJ so far.
Between his writings and the section in "Inside a film artist's maze"
there really isn't anything serious about FMJ out there. It's usually
treated as a lesser Kubrick film, while I think it's one of his best.
It's his most rewatchable and rewarding, second only to 2001 and Barry
Lyndon.
Padraig was indeed among amk's most insightful and cogent posters. I
use the past tense because he became increasingly unhinged by
post-9/11 angst which culminated in an incredible, ugly personal
attack against Stanley Kubrick's daughter, Katharina, who could not
have been more gracious. . 'nuff said.

On FMJ, I find it enjoyable, but not among Kubrick's best. It's almost
a cliche by now, but when Pyle and Sgt. Ermey get blown away, the film
loses its two most interesting characters. Matthew Modine just isn't a
good enough actor to carry the film after the caesura. But good call
on BL -- highly underrated within the Kubrick Kanon.
Post by MP
BTW I edited my post's title because I wasn't sure if Padraig still
posted here. Some people say he is Harry Bailey, but I wasn't sure.
I'm new to the groups and have only been reading back issue posts for
the past few months.
I wouldn't waste my time. Opinions are opinions, take 'em or leave
'em.
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
I posted a lengthy > Jungian overview of all of Kubrick's films a little over a year ago, and > he/she > fell all over >himself/herself pronouncing Jung as a fraudulent humbug.
Can you link me to that post?
Post by Bill Reid
I hope the "Lancanian" themes he gave you answered your "questions";
in any event, I'll respond to a few myself, but the full "Jungian" analysis
of "Full Metal Jacket" remains to be written...
You should write your views down. I sense there's some past bad blood
between you AMK guys, but I'm sure some people would like to read it.
You have *no idea* how much blood has been spilt over the Jungian
Thing. In fact, I made my personal debut in this group over this very
subject, to decidedly hostile reviews I might add...
I just went to groups.google.com and entered "Kubrick Jung FMJ" in the
Search field -- no fewer than 212 hits. Go ahead and copy-paste the
link:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Kubrick+Jung+FMJ&qt_s=Search+Groups
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
Ever heard the "Marine Hymm"? Compare and contrast...no
great psychoanalysis is needed here...
But The Marine Hymn ("From the halls of Montezuma To the shores of
Tripoli...") is completely different. I've checked the lyrics to the
original Mickey Mouse song and I see that Kubrick tweaked those as
well.
Post by Bill Reid
OH NO, NOT THE "SHADOW" STUFF AGAIN!!! AHAHHAHARGHAHH!!!!
Didn't Kubrick specifically say he wanted to make a film about the
Shadow? I've read several interviews where he plainly says this.
I can't believe I've forgotten to mention The Kubrick Site!

There is an invaluable resource called The Kubrick Site which was (and
I assume still is) lovingly attended by Rod Munday, who once upon a
time would welcome each new poster to amk and direct him to The
Kubrick Site. I don't know whatever became of Rod, or Geoff Alexander,
or Me for that matter....

So stop reading this...

... and start reading this:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/

~~Jack
Kelpzoidzl
2008-04-25 19:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by JW Moore
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
Why are you asking "Podrigged"/"Hurried BraidLie"/"Evilry Hummerjob"
a question about Jungian themes in "Full Metal Jacket"?
Because I think he's written the most interesting stuff on FMJ so far.
Between his writings and the section in "Inside a film artist's maze"
there really isn't anything serious about FMJ out there. It's usually
treated as a lesser Kubrick film, while I think it's one of his best.
It's his most rewatchable and rewarding, second only to 2001 and Barry
Lyndon.
Padraig was indeed among amk's most insightful and cogent posters. I
use the past tense because he became increasingly unhinged by
post-9/11 angst which culminated in an incredible, ugly personal
attack against Stanley Kubrick's daughter, Katharina, who could not
have been more gracious. . 'nuff said.
On FMJ, I find it enjoyable, but not among Kubrick's best. It's almost
a cliche by now, but when Pyle and Sgt. Ermey get blown away, the film
loses its two most interesting characters. Matthew Modine just isn't a
good enough actor to carry the film after the caesura. But good call
on BL -- highly underrated within the Kubrick Kanon.
Post by MP
BTW I edited my post's title because I wasn't sure if Padraig still
posted here. Some people say he is Harry Bailey, but I wasn't sure.
I'm new to the groups and have only been reading back issue posts for
the past few months.
I wouldn't waste my time. Opinions are opinions, take 'em or leave
'em.
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
I posted a lengthy > Jungian overview of all of Kubrick's films a little
over a year ago, and > he/she > fell all over >himself/herself
pronouncing Jung as a fraudulent humbug.
Can you link me to that post?
Post by Bill Reid
I hope the "Lancanian" themes he gave you answered your "questions";
in any event, I'll respond to a few myself, but the full "Jungian" analysis
of "Full Metal Jacket" remains to be written...
You should write your views down. I sense there's some past bad blood
between you AMK guys, but I'm sure some people would like to read it.
You have *no idea* how much blood has been spilt over the Jungian
Thing. In fact, I made my personal debut in this group over this very
subject, to decidedly hostile reviews I might add...
I just went to groups.google.com and entered "Kubrick Jung FMJ" in the
Search field -- no fewer than 212 hits. Go ahead and copy-paste the
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Kubrick+Jung+FMJ&qt_s=Search+Groups
Post by MP
Post by Bill Reid
Ever heard the "Marine Hymm"? Compare and contrast...no
great psychoanalysis is needed here...
But The Marine Hymn ("From the halls of Montezuma To the shores of
Tripoli...") is completely different. I've checked the lyrics to the
original Mickey Mouse song and I see that Kubrick tweaked those as
well.
Post by Bill Reid
OH NO, NOT THE "SHADOW" STUFF AGAIN!!! AHAHHAHARGHAHH!!!!
Didn't Kubrick specifically say he wanted to make a film about the
Shadow? I've read several interviews where he plainly says this.
I can't believe I've forgotten to mention The Kubrick Site!
There is an invaluable resource called The Kubrick Site which was (and
I assume still is) lovingly attended by Rod Munday, who once upon a
time would welcome each new poster to amk and direct him to The
Kubrick Site. I don't know whatever became of Rod, or Geoff Alexander,
or Me for that matter....
So stop reading this...
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/
~~Jack
One need not just attack Kubrick or the Kubricks, or be a right winger or be
a frenetic and wordy poster, or be a Kubrick, to be attacked or
misunderstood on AMK.

This calls for the biggest Kubrick cliche of all:

There is no fighting allowed in here, this is the war room.

Do people learn much from there favorite films or other media? Apparently
not.

dc
Harry Bailey
2008-04-27 22:41:03 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 25, 7:27 am, JW Moore <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
<Delusional nonsense and hysterical retrospective confabulation
snipped>

Jack, I'm not sure that it is particularly helpful, constructive, or
appropriate to be disingenuously, pathetically, and cynically trying
to re-open old wounds here, trying to perversely invert actual history
(you remind me here - unfortunately - of that psycho war criminal
Rumsfeld still 'believing' in WMDs in Iraq: "Because we haven't found
any yet itself proves that they exist, and it's for those who don't
believe to prove they don't!"). Numerous right-wing posters here - in
the early '00s - ranted and raved about matters they were entirely
ignorant of - from Kubrick's films to US foreign and domestic policies
- while resentfully smearing those who actually knew what they were
talking about (and whose predictions and insights have all
subsequently materialised).

The fact of the matter is that many posters here bought, lock stock
and barrel, into the neo-con psychosis post-911, slandering [still
continuing, as evident from your ravings here] anyone who challenged
the status quo: America is not going to 'recover' from the results of
this, from it's current predicament during your, or any of your
generation's lifetime, Jack (as the current geopolitical and economic
state of things all too depreasingly testifies [your house been
foreclosed on yet? Still have a job?]), but let's just BLAME the
whistleblowers instead! [And defend all those who wallowed in
contemptible indifference].

[BTW, The Kubrick Site has now been dormant for over two years -
though Rod has a blog ['Synthetic Knowledge'] - which is partly why a
recent site like The Kubrick Corner (which MP refers to and which has
many of the articles from The Kubrick Site) has attracted attention.
Tragically, the decline of The Kubrick Site matches the decline of
this newsgroup, while AMK founder Geoff Alexander is just yet another
tragic casualty of the current economic (and cultural) Depression.]
Post by JW Moore
I wouldn't waste my time. Opinions are opinions, take 'em or leave
'em.
Such statements, in their implicit solipsism and atomistic
individualism, are indicative of why this newsgroup degenerated. The
reductivist, ego-centric idea that everything is an opinion, mere
interpretation, or belief and that all beliefs are on equal footing
now appears to be ubiquitous through all of American (and most
Western) culture, that manifests itself not just in self-servingly
nihilistic remarks like yours above, but also in sentence structures
that have the form “I think”, “I feel”, “I believe”, “It is Kubrick’
opinion that…” In short, everything has to be expressed with a minimal
subjective distance or skepticism, implicitly suggesting that any
claim is already simply a matter of opinion that can then be summarily
dismissed (the issue of whether some beliefs are legitimate or true or
superior to others or some interpretations better than others as a
function of both the evidence they proffer and the extent of what
they're able to explain never even being entertained, true opinions
being unimaginable).

One suspects that were a discussion about, for instance, Copernicus to
emerge, our media outlets (and newsgroups) would feel compelled to
insure that both the geocentric and the heliocentric hypothesis were
given equal time and that it was emphasized that both positions were
“theories” and that it was therefore up to 'personal judgment' to
decide which one is true. As if to imply that there was even a
legitimate controversy here. As is so often the case, we live in a
topsy turvy, upside down world, in which the accusations spouted by
rightwing critics are in fact the very things that they themselves are
guilty of, projected onto the group or individual they wish to slime.
This should come as no surprise, given that, due to the predominance
of the imaginary in interpersonal relations, our thoughts about others
tend to be analogical, we have a tendency to attribute our own motives
to other people when attempting to understand why they act as they do.
One need only invert the statements of reactionaries leveled against
their opponents to get a fairly good idea of what they’re up to in
their dark, back room meetings and the privacy of their own homes.

Indeed, posters like Mr Moore (there are numerous others, needless to
say) are ideologically no different to US commentators such as Savage,
Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, and O’Reilly, who,far from fitting
any criteria of being Socratic, predominantly side with those that
occupy the power positions in society, portraying them as the victims,
as against those who are without power, ie. they side with the very
people and the very structures that Kubrick's work, as a filmmaker,
questioned, satirised, parodied, deconstructed . For example, Savage
rails against immigrants, homosexuals, and feminists, often defending
big business as being the victim of a witch hunt in situations like
Enron. Environmental scientists are portrayed as a powerful interest
with something to gain financially from their research, while industry
is portrayed as a meek victim unable to defend itself against these
deceitful scientists. O’Reilly continuously stokes outrage about
businesses that say “happy holiday”, portraying Christianity– the
predominant religion in the states –as being a victim, treating the
minority religious positions as the victimizers. In short, these sorts
of shows invert the relationship between the oppressed and the
oppressors, the powerful and the powerless, portraying the oppressors
as the oppressed and the powerful as the powerless. It is this that
makes them sophists in the Platonic sense of the word. The trick of
rightwing talk radio is to create the belief that the victimizers and
exploiters are themselves the victims [Bush: "He [Saddam] tried to
kill my DA!"] and thereby stoke self-righteous outrage at purported
injustices. Of course, this is all a way of insuring that real
injustices are not righted.

Finally, on the issue of whether the AMK newsgroup was to be, was to
remain - back in 2003 - a serious forum as originally planned (and as
specified in the AMK FAQ) or to simply become a sychophantic celeb-
risible den, an infantile Katharina fan club, then-AMK-poster Mark
Fisher elequently and incisively delineated the cultural stakes at
that time:

"I've been off this ng for a while now; and on my return, I am
naturally dismayed about what it has been reduced to.

Whether you agree with Padraig's politics or not, the quality, wit
and
intelligence of his posts is undeniable. Just take a look through the
AMK archives if you have any doubt about that. His breadth of
knowledge - about Kubrick particularly, but more broadly, film and
culture in general - is incredibly impressive, but worn lightly: his
posts are never turgid, and never fail to make things interesting.
Yes, there is often a certain degree of invective and hyperbole in
some of them - but that all adds to the fun.


Padraig is one of the few remaining representatives of the golden
days
of AMK - which days, it seems, are now sadly in the past. I think
the
current fracas is in fact symptomatic of the general decline in the
ng. Again, take a look at the AMK archives, or at the Kubrick Site,
for an indication of the quality of discussion and debate that used
to
happen here. I don't want to speak for Padraig - God knows he can
speak for himself! - but it is inevitable that frustration over
trivia
will overboil when that is the predominant diet the group is offering
up. This, coupled with the unreasoning sycophancy directed towards
Katharina by many groveling posters ('your highness, we are so
grateful for your presence amongst us unworthies' ), will inevitably
produce anger/ disaffection/ sadness in those who value the forum for
intellectual discussion that this group once was.


In part, the Katharina argument reflects a - dare I say it -
_theoretical_ division about the very nature of Stanley Kubrick.
There
are those who see Kubrick as essentially a biographical individual
who made films. This view of Kubrick fits right into the dominant
ontology at the moment, with its supposedly pre-theoretical liberal
assumptions about the primacy of the 'person' - an ontology
sickeningly popularised with the current depressing cult of the
celebrity and associated trivia. Then there are those who see the
name
'Kubrick' as designating, not a biographical individual, but a
consistent set of stylistic traits, preoccupations and techniques. In
a very fundamental way, this Kubrick is up there on screen - and
nowhere else. Those who hold this latter view think that, if Kubrick
the biographical individual is of interest, it is because of those
traits, preoccupations and techniques - not vice versa. Naturally,
those who hold this latter - post-Foucauldian - view of the author/
auteur will be less impressed by references to the biographical.


What all this is leading up to saying is that - spit on me if you
wish
- if you want insight into this second Kubrick, the onscreen Kubrick,
the supposed reason why we all here, Padraig is, in my view, a much
better resource than Katharina. Please take this in the spirit it is
intended: not as an attack on Katharina, but as a celebration of
Padraig, this group's greatest single resource. Yes, Katharina's
clarification of certain biographical details are useful ---- but can
anyone, hand on heart, say that they compare to Padraig's insights
into Kubrick's _films_? This is not intended in any way as a slight
of
Katharina - she is not, nor has she represented herself as, a
cultural
commentator or film critic. But we are here primarily for cultural
commentary and film criticism - aren't we? It is precisely because
that question is no longer a rhetorical one that this storm has blown
up, with the ng threatening to devolve into silly prattle about
celebrities. And what I am suggesting to you ungrateful lot is that,
yes, you are lucky to have Katharina on this ng - but you are even
more privileged to have Padraig Henry."
Bill Reid
2008-04-28 00:37:39 UTC
Permalink
What a freak of nature!!!

But, first things first...thanks to "Icky-Whipped" for reminding me that
you called me a "crook" for no reason. So as I did for him for his
actionable
libel against me (and will do again for this same incident where he accused
me of "malfeasance"), I will give you the opportunity to retract as the
falsehood
it is that I am a "crook". Again, if you choose not to do so, you will
lose that element of a possible defense for defamation. I will also at this
time allow you to post your real name and address where you may be
served with a lawsuit, as my "Section 230" requirement before I can
subpeona the information from your ISP/other organization that knows
your true identity (since I am informed and believe you post under numerous
"sceen names", some female, to evade having to take personal
responsibility for your posts).

If you and "Icky" are wondering why I'm bringing this up, it's because
as I was preparing a case against some other people who have libeled
me, I came across a very recent case, which was the LARGEST Internet
libel award ($11.3 million!!!) to a plaintiff in history...and the defendant
specifically was found liable for using the word "crooks" to defame the
completely lawful business practices of the plaintiff:

Date: 10/6/2006

Case Style: Susan Scheff and Parents Universal Experts, Inc. v. Carey Bock

Case Number: Unknown

Judge: Unknown

Court: Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida

Plaintiff's Attorney:

David H. Pollack, Miami, Florida

Defendant's Attorney:

Jan D. Atlas of Adorno & Yoss, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Description: Susan Scheff and Parents Universal Experts, Inc. sued Carey
Bock on a defamation theory for the posting of defamatory statements about
them on an Internet bulletin board viewed by parents of trouble teens. Brock
sought the help of Scheff and Parents Universal for help in finding an
educational consultant who could get her sons out of a school affiliated
with the Utah-based World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and
Schools.
Bock accused Scheff and her company of being "crooks," "con artists" and
"frauds" who "exploited families" and placed them in "risky" and "possibly
abusive" programs. Bock posted the statements after Scheff refused to help
her contact a minor who claimed that he had been sexually abused in a World
Wide affiliate school for a documentary about the schools.

Outcome: Plaintiffs' verdict for $11.3 million.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None

---end of Internet libel case description

Here is the FIRST post of several where you called me a "crook":

From: Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Artists Who Promote Themselves By Knocking Kubrick
Date: Sunday, October 14, 2007
Hell, I even did a little of it myself, when I was producing
marketing videos. If I thought I could get a freebie out of
somebody just by dropping the name of the company I was
working for and a few other carefully-selected facts, I'd go
for it, put the budget I saved somewhere else...
AMK's first self-confessed crook! Congrats!

When the cops arrive, remember NEVER to say, "Don't tase me bro!"

---end of archived libelous post

For your best interest, I do advise you to admit that the post
was a lie and to correct your lie IMMEDIATELY. I will follow up
on this issue with "Icky-Whipped" in a later post...

Now as to the rest of this, MY GOD YOU ARE COMPLETELY
INSANE!!! I don't even know where to start!!!
<Delusional nonsense and hysterical retrospective confabulation
snipped>
The fact of the matter is that many posters here bought, lock stock
and barrel, into the neo-con psychosis post-911, slandering [still
continuing, as evident from your ravings here] anyone who challenged
SLANDERING??!?!!! What the hell is the matter with you?!??!
You're the asswipe who called somebody a "crook" repeatedly
for NO REASON!!!
Post by JW Moore
I wouldn't waste my time. Opinions are opinions, take 'em or leave
'em.
Such statements, in their implicit solipsism and atomistic
individualism, are indicative of why this newsgroup degenerated. The
reductivist, ego-centric idea that everything is an opinion, mere
interpretation, or belief and that all beliefs are on equal footing
now appears to be ubiquitous through all of American (and most
Western) culture, that manifests itself not just in self-servingly
nihilistic remarks like yours above, but also in sentence structures
that have the form “I think”, “I feel”, “I believe”, “It is Kubrick’
opinion that…”
Of course, you've argued just the opposite when it suited you...and
what's your defense for the LIE that I am a "crook"? Gee, I wonder if
it will be, "it was just my OPINION", except using about ten billion
words that lead nowhere except as further evidence of your own
self-annointed fascist "right" to attack anybody over anything YOU
want.

Don't like something somebody posted? JUST CALL THEM
A "CROOK", THAT'LL "SETTLE" IT!!!
Indeed, posters like Mr Moore (there are numerous others, needless to
say) are ideologically no different to US commentators such as Savage,
Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, and O’Reilly,
Gee, why not just completely and idiotically "Godwinize" this,
and just say HE'S WORSE THAN HITLER!!!
who,far from fitting
any criteria of being Socratic,
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! What an idiotic hypocritical jerk!!!
It is this that
makes them sophists in the Platonic sense of the word.
So, what's the "Socratic" truth of calling somebody a "crook"
because they did their job of managing a video production budget?
Of course, this is all a way of insuring that real
injustices are not righted.
Since you are so friggin' worried about "injustices", I will
assume that you will promptly retract your LIE that I am a
"crook"...but I'm not holding my breath...

But here is where he goes completely off the charts nutzo; he
Whether you agree with Padraig's politics or not, the quality, wit
and
intelligence of his posts is undeniable.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Just your unbiased "opinion",
of course..."Socratically", it's "UNDENIABLE"!!! I wonder if "Sybil" ever
praised some of her other personalities so highly...
Just take a look through the
AMK archives if you have any doubt about that.
OK, I looked..."he" was jerky double-talking moronic fascist
just like "you" and "Elvira Humby" and a few others...UNDENIABLY!!!
His breadth of
knowledge - about Kubrick particularly, but more broadly, film and
culture in general - is incredibly impressive, but worn lightly: his
posts are never turgid,
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! It's stuff like this that makes
me think you're just a garden-variety troll, and not the true mad-"man"
you seek to portray...if you're NOT for real, you ARE occasionally
funny...
and never fail to make things interesting.
Yes, there is often a certain degree of invective and hyperbole in
some of them - but that all adds to the fun.
Oh, what fun...calling somebody who was just doing their
lawful, legal job a "crook"...is that how Socrates had "fun", too?
I don't want to speak for Padraig - God knows he can
speak for himself!
Or any one of a dozen or more "people"!!!

But here it is, the looney cherry on top of the crazy sundae,
as he jumps right past a "Napoleonic complex" to a "messianic
And what I am suggesting to you ungrateful lot is that,
yes, you are lucky to have Katharina on this ng - but you are even
more privileged to have Padraig Henry."
"The poor you will always have with ye, but I am with you but
a short while" -- Jesus H. Christ

---
William Ernest "I'M Not Going Anywhere" Reid
ichorwhip
2008-04-28 03:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
What a freak of nature!!!
Mirror, mirror eh? And what an iron-rich intro considering the
frantic, bespittled jabbering that this so-called what's-his-name has
to deliver here. More threats that will lead to nothing, all because
this deranged maniac for the ages believes his being called a "crook"
seriously damages his empty and faceless character and/or his ability
to make money off of his variously targeted and provoked victims.
Can't wait to see the proof of that! As if whomever Reidiot® _really_
is will never have to come clean at all! The Phantom Suer! As if the
millions he seeks, that don't rightfully belong to him, and in so
being wrongfully sought after flirts dangerously with fraud, will be
handed over with no questions asked... Who could ever doubt him?
Post by Bill Reid
If you and "Icky" are wondering why I'm bringing this up, it's because
as I was preparing a case against some other people who have libeled
me, I came across a very recent case, which was the LARGEST Internet
libel award ($11.3 million!!!) to a plaintiff in history...and the defendant
specifically was found liable for using the word "crooks" to defame the
Date: 10/6/2006
Case Style: Susan Scheff and Parents Universal Experts, Inc. v. Carey Bock
Case Number: Unknown
Judge: Unknown
Court: Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida
David H. Pollack, Miami, Florida
Jan D. Atlas of Adorno & Yoss, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Description: Susan Scheff and Parents Universal Experts, Inc. sued Carey
Bock on a defamation theory for the posting of defamatory statements about
them on an Internet bulletin board viewed by parents of trouble teens. Brock
sought the help of Scheff and Parents Universal for help in finding an
educational consultant who could get her sons out of a school affiliated
with the Utah-based World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and
Schools.
Bock accused Scheff and her company of being "crooks," "con artists" and
"frauds" who "exploited families" and placed them in "risky" and "possibly
abusive" programs. Bock posted the statements after Scheff refused to help
her contact a minor who claimed that he had been sexually abused in a World
Wide affiliate school for a documentary about the schools.
Outcome: Plaintiffs' verdict for $11.3 million.
Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown
Defendant's Experts: Unknown
Comments: None
---end of Internet libel case description
So you run a program that tries to help troubled teens? UNKNOWN....
Oh, I apologize like a million times over anyways!
Too bad you weren't called "con-artist" and "fraud" (especially) too.
Mostly too bad that you yourself said things on the record about
yourself and your activities that can easily be seen as shady business
practices at the very least, but since you enjoy legal impugnity and
are above reproach and can put judges in your pocket like loose change
we will all have to bear your undying wrath! "Aieee! I am stricken
with a mortal blow!"
Post by Bill Reid
For your best interest, I do advise you to admit that the post
was a lie and to correct your lie IMMEDIATELY. I will follow up
on this issue with "Icky-Whipped" in a later post...
"Do what he say! Do what he say!"

Oh.... I thought you weren't speaking to me anymore. Somehow I knew
that wouldn't last. So is making these reidiculous®, threatening
demands, and then not acting on them at all, how you pleasure
yourself? Does it fulfill jollytime? Do you know how serious it is to
falsely accuse someone of a crime expressly in order to accrue
financial gain? All your smokescreens are vaporously pungent farts of
inaction. You are nothing, and ever will remain as such. Oh, and
your naive, wikipediesque pronouncements of legalese are more of the
many reasons to doubt and ignore you entirely. The giant giveaway, to
aid you in making future empty threats, is to never hold yourself
above the laws you try to "take advantage of." Try to remember that!
Post by Bill Reid
Now as to the rest of this, MY GOD YOU ARE COMPLETELY
INSANE!!! I don't even know where to start!!!
Usually this sort of pronouncement can only begin a rebuttal against
yourself and your ruinous falsehoods... We call it projecting.
Post by Bill Reid
SLANDERING??!?!!! What the hell is the matter with you?!??!
You're the asswipe who called somebody a "crook" repeatedly
for NO REASON!!!
This is where you inject yourself into a conversation that had
absolutely nothing to do with you. (Just like me almost! Guilty as
charged either way!) Where is the legal strength of calling someone
an "asswipe" whom you are accusing of libel anyways? I swear! You
couldn't sue your way out of a pile of used toilet paper...
Post by Bill Reid
Don't like something somebody posted? JUST CALL THEM
A "CROOK", THAT'LL "SETTLE" IT!!!
How about "retard" or "asswipe" or "douche" or "child molester" or
"poophead"? Oops! my apologies! You never called anyone a
"poophead."
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Indeed, posters like Mr Moore (there are numerous others, needless to
say) are ideologically no different to US commentators such as Savage,
Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, and O’Reilly,
Gee, why not just completely and idiotically "Godwinize" this,
and just say HE'S WORSE THAN HITLER!!!
Sue him Jack! Before he sues you!
Post by Bill Reid
Since you are so friggin' worried about "injustices", I will
assume that you will promptly retract your LIE that I am a
"crook"...but I'm not holding my breath...
BWetter apologwize just like me Harwee! HE MEANS BWUSINESS!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Post by Bill Reid
But here is where he goes completely off the charts nutzo; he
I don't think Mark Fisher is/was one of Padraig's socks or alter-egos
or whatever. You can have that idiotic burden of proof, and Harry can
just laugh and laugh totally untouched by you...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Just take a look through the
AMK archives if you have any doubt about that.
OK, I looked..."he" was jerky double-talking moronic fascist
just like "you" and "Elvira Humby" and a few others...UNDENIABLY!!!
He's actually more of a commie than a fascist, but don't trouble
yourself with any kind of intellectual honesty here as that will no
doubt hinder your lawsuit.... proceed!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
I don't want to speak for Padraig - God knows he can
speak for himself!
Or any one of a dozen or more "people"!!!
I've only ever seen Padraig in two different guises, both of them
awfully transparent. What's more important is you giving your real
name and address to Padraig so he can sue you.
Post by Bill Reid
William Ernest "I'M Not Going Anywhere" Reid
Hey Reidiot®, do you think you could start numbering your posts here
like you did for your fake stock trading group? It would be easier to
see just how many worthless posts you've made at a simple glance and
so forth. Thanks in advance! Oh and I apologize in advance for the
mega-ream I'll no doubt "make" you babble in defense of your phony
lawsuit. Afterall, I'm not here just to upset you or anything!

"If it moves. Kiss it!"
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2008-04-28 23:26:06 UTC
Permalink
ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:029d18cc-9d48-4618-8dfc-***@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

<typical idiotic non-sequiturs snipped>

Thanks for replying, it simplifies my legal requirement to ask you
to retract your libel. Amazingly enough, your libel was much more
egregious than I remembered; I had only remembered something
about "malfeasance", but as is typical for excitable "Quote Monkey(TM)"
you are, once "Harry Bailey" opened the door with the word "crook",
you had to rush in like a demented rhesus with "budget-theiving",
"misappropriator", "master of graft", and on and on and on...and then
just keep piling it on in this post I'm replying to, saying I had "shady
business practices"...

This makes the case against you much stronger, as I think I have
mentioned judges tend to "throw the book at" libel defendants who
willfully and defiantly libel people numerous times. As always, I
suggest you seek legal counsel if you have any questions about
what constitutes actionable libel (I have tried, apparently in vain
to educate you, so perhaps an objective third-party might impress
the simple points on you where I have failed).

One point I do want to make (probably again in vain) is that I am
making a formal request for a RETRACTION, not an "apology", but
an admission that the words you wrote were totally false. This request
on my part is a REQUIRED element of a complaint for libel; if I file
a complaint against you that does not allege this request was made,
the judge can dismiss the complaint immediately for failure to state
a sufficient "cause of action".

I will also consider that you have offically refused my request for
your true name and address per "Section 230" for the purposes of
gaining the necessary subpoenas to compell your ISP/other organization
to provide this information to me.

Here are the two posts (of several) containing your libelous statements;
again, my complaint must include your SPECIFIC failure to UNEQUIVOCALLY
retract these SPECIFIC false and defamatory statements:

From: ichorwhip <***@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Artists Who Promote Themselves By Knocking Kubrick
Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2007
<typical AMK stupidity elided>

Why waste your time with this budget-thieving maniac and master of
graft Harry? That's right Little Red Reidiot®, take note! In your
own "perfectly" and tiresomely established tradition, I accept no
answer that you have given on that point or others, you trenchant
misappropriator! It was genuinely funny watching you wriggling and
waggling around and going on and on about how you "dint really steal!"
paragraph after paragraph and touching on quaint "personal" notes
along the way as if anyone wants to know, as if anyone could be stupid
enough to suppose you normal, but let's just call it a non sequitur
and be even more like you.

<more "Quote Monkey(TM)" idiocy snipped>

---end of archived post excerpts


From: ichorwhip <***@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "2001" on Blu-ray - first impressions
Date: Sunday, November 04, 2007 4:52 PM
<technical discussion of film-video transfer processes deleted>
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
OH MY GOD! Someone who actually *knows* what he is talking about.
Hey Bud, this is Usenet.... We don't cotton to your kind 'round here.
Yeah, where's "Icky 'Dog The Bounty Hunter' Whipped" to call
him the "n-word" or wish death on him when you need him?
So Monsieur Malfeast is here to spite some more at last.
Misappropriated any funds that were not yours lately? Do you like to
steal? Does it make you feel good? And this whole calling me a
redneck racist thing is such pot calling the kettle black material
within your constant conceit of superiority.

<more stupidity snipped>

---end of archived post excerpts

Note that in the second post you referred back to your FIRST
despicable racist libel against me, when you became enraged
when I called you on your numerous uses of the "n-word" in this
group...defamation that you FAILED to UNEQUIVOCALLY retract
when requested.

---
William Ernest "Perry Freemason" Reid
ichorwhip
2008-04-30 21:17:10 UTC
Permalink
<typical reidiotic non-sequiturs snipped AND HOW!>
Thanks for replying, it simplifies my legal requirement to ask you
to retract your libel.
Thanks for replying, you just won me five more bucks idiot!
BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

Ooooooops! Now I'm gonna get in trouble for gamblin' too! Dang me to
heck!

Are you sure your attorney isn't your pet sewer rat or a discarded Mr.
Potatohead(TM) or a magic cricket or something like that? He sure
isn't giving you any good advice at all on how to sue someone and
still "comport yourself publicwise" etcetera. As always you remain
your worst enema and have totally ignored my advice, therefore you are
as toothless as you are ruthless.

And with this I bid you a doodoo!

"This is shit... and this is shinola...."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2008-05-02 13:53:08 UTC
Permalink
ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:45df104b-a29f-45e3-9203-***@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

<typical scampering "Quote Monkey(TM)"-shines elided>

OK:

- "Section 230" subpoena requirement CHECK
- Defamation complaint request for retraction CHECK

Oh, BTW, as far as your unquotable Google(TM) Groups posts
are concerned, this is ostensibly how you should reply according
to somebody who apparently knows:

"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers."

I know that as the "Rebel Without A Brain" you are, you won't/can't
follow these simple instructions (in much the same way you can't write
a simple declarative statement of the truth, as I now have archived
as "evidence"), but that's apparently how you do it...

<pre-emptive deletion/ignore of idiotic "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT
TO DO, I'M AN ANONYMOUS POVERTY-STRICKEN POSTER, I SAY
THE "N-WORD", MOCK THE "HIDEOUS NOSE" OF JEWISH WOMEN,
WISH DEATH ON PEOPLE, ENCOURAGE COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS,
LIBEL PEOPLE, AND I WILL CERTAINLY NEVER POST ANYTHING
THAT CAN BE REPLIED TO BY PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD ACTUAL
USENET ACCOUNTS, AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, SUE ME!!!
HAH!!!" reply>

---
William Ernest "Monkey Si, Y Monkey Doo-Doo" Reid
ichorwhip
2008-05-02 23:14:49 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 8:53 am, "Reidiot®" <***@happyhealthy.net> wrote:

Nothing again... sigh!

You've been summarily dismissed, and yet you want to continue with
this harassment that defames my character at every turn (ironically
having to do now with a fantasy suit that has yet come to bear and can
never as it's reidiculous® and reidiotic® and no sane judge would hear
it.) At the very least Google should have contacted me by now and they
haven't. I'm certain that you're confused over Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act in any event. At the very least if you
understood "what you're getting into", then you wouldn't be harassing
me still. I told you I'd stack my sins up against yours
anytime...anytime at all fella! You are the belligerent, negative do-
badder here with a chronic inability to get along with anyone except
yourself, and that can be proven ad nauseum as you've polluted Usenet
with your vile presence for many years. Also this double-bluff you're
running is unnecessary as I am unlikely to officially complain against
you because deep down I pity you. I really do. If anyone can make a
case here it's me, so why not quietly "place that rifle on the deck at
your feet and step back away from it."

So go ahead and snip that idiot... I'm done with ya!

"I'm not horsin' around, sir, that's how it decodes."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2008-05-03 01:05:28 UTC
Permalink
What'd I tell you? I tell the retard EXACTLY how to post a
"proper" message (at least, according to "somebody"), and
the moron STILL can't do it!!!

This is like the Internet version of the "Draw A Man" intelligence
test; if so challenged, "Icky-Whipped" would draw half an arm,
one leg, and no head (self-portrait?).

Here it is again, for our little "Quote Monkey(TM)" to fail
to comprehend for the second time (let's set a record for
stupidity, then see if we can beat that record!):

"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers."

Speaking of monkeys, they had this thing on PBS about how
chimpanzees are actully dumber than dogs, because they can't
understand "pointing", which is the rudimentary instinctive learning
skill of human babies. As usual, I hit the nail right on the head
calling "Icky-Whipped" a "Quote Monkey(TM)", because no matter
how many times you "point something out" to him, like what a
phenomenal vulgar idiot he is, he just never "gets it"...

ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6e887c39-2047-4d85-bca3-***@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

"YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, I'M AN ANONYMOUS
POVERTY-STRICKEN POSTER, I SAY THE "N-WORD", MOCK
THE "HIDEOUS NOSE" OF JEWISH WOMEN, WISH DEATH ON
PEOPLE, ENCOURAGE COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS, LIBEL PEOPLE,
AND I WILL CERTAINLY NEVER POST ANYTHING THAT CAN BE
REPLIED TO BY PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD ACTUAL USENET
ACCOUNTS, AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, SUE ME!!! HAH!!!"

---
William Ernest "Words Of Whizz-dom" Reid
ichorwhip
2008-05-03 01:46:48 UTC
Permalink
What'd I tell you?  I tell the retard EXACTLY how to post a
"proper" message (at least, according to "somebody"), and
the moron STILL can't do it!!!
Resorting to the same sobbing over how I won't post in a way that
suits you won't help cover up for the fact that you're still just
harassing me. You're just pissed off because you can't make me
disappear for I bring out the worst in you with a chuckle and a hammy
buck and wing.

I shant follow instructions from you, so file a complaint dippitydawg!

Anyway I can see that your mania is on a super high sweep tonight.
What will he do next????

"I feel very low in myself. I can't see much in the future, and I feel
that any second something terrible is going to happen to me."
i
"piop"
Harry Bailey
2008-05-04 22:18:07 UTC
Permalink
From the archives, some 5 years ago, by ex-AMKer David Kirkpatrick, on
the subject of stalking, er, trolling:
-----

Perhaps we can expand the lexicon to distinguish between:


Trolls: nihilistic shit-disturbers who attempt to set off flame wars
for
the sake of creating disruptions and discord. Are they pyromaniacs
because they are voyeurs? Or because they are exhibitionists? There
is
pathological trolling, then there is "social trolling" (e.g. the
occasional sarcastic cheap shot intended enliven a discussion by
getting
under someone's skin for the amusement of everyone annoyed by that
someone.


Troils: true believers (the opposite of nihilistic?) who get roiled
up
about various issues and who therefore tend to prolong or escalate
any
flame war because they feel deeply about one side of an issue or
another. Tend to be political ideologues. In their mildest
incarnation, troils merge into the normal range of people who argue
passionately,which can be a good thing. At their worst, they tend to
transform debates into holy wars. And the holier the war, the less
regard is paid to the secularism of Geneva convention.


Trowls: system-builders who attempt to impose their own theory on
every
issue; their major sin is to create a mountain out of a molehill.
Trowls are likely to stay on-topic but create the risk of making the
topic itself seem tedious or distorted. Trowls can resemble troils
in
the ferocity with which they defend themselves, but unlike troils,
they
are not part of movement or religion, they are their own cult.


Trulls: the opposite of trowls, they are professional skeptics,
always
arguing in favor of the null hypothesis, of the improvability of any
thesis, of the ineffability of all esthetic criteria. Trulls are
more
likely to resemble trolls than troils because there is nihilistic and
anti-systematic quality to solopsism. They are true non-believers.
But
unlike trolls, they are more likely to hurl incomprehensible Zen
koans
than familiar slogans of provocation.


Trills: cheerleaders who have nothing new to say but will join any
pile-on, whether by chirping favorably in favor of their heroes or
drilling their enemies for blood. They aren't trolls because they
don't
initiate things, they aren't trowls because they don't have ideas of
their own, they aren't trulls because they lack the superior
detachment,
and they differ from troils by being more like policemen than
politicians or followers rather than activists.


Trules: self-appointed arbiters of any argument and dousers of any
flame
wars and/or correctors of any grammatical, spelling, factual or
logical
error. They work-to-rule, as it were. A trule can dip into any
newsgroup regardless of the topic because it is the form of the
discussion that most interests the trule, not its content. In their
mild form, trules can have a civilizing effect. At their extreme,
however, they give inspiration to the cry "kill the umpire!"


For a really good flame war, you need a rainbow coalition of trolls,
troils, trowls, trulls, trills and trules. The trail they leave can
be
quite a trial.
--------------
Kelpzoidzl
2008-05-04 22:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
From the archives, some 5 years ago, by ex-AMKer David Kirkpatrick, on
For a really good flame war, you need a rainbow coalition of trolls,
troils, trowls, trulls, trills and trules. The trail they leave can
be
quite a trial.
--------------
Reminds me of World of Warcraft, there you find Trolls, Undead, Humans,
Draenei (goatlike aliens), Night Elfs, Blood Elfs, Orcs, Gnomes, Dwarves,
and Tauren cows.

dc
ichorwhip
2008-05-04 23:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
From the archives, some 5 years ago, by ex-AMKer David Kirkpatrick, on
A blast from the past. David was a great poster of Decalogical
proportions, and never one given to respond much to trolling et al, so
this was a rare entry from him.
Post by Harry Bailey
Trolls: nihilistic shit-disturbers who attempt to set off flame wars
for
the sake of creating disruptions and discord.  Are they pyromaniacs
because they are voyeurs?  Or because they are exhibitionists?  There
is
pathological trolling, then there is "social trolling" (e.g. the
occasional sarcastic cheap shot intended enliven a discussion by
getting
under someone's skin for the amusement of everyone annoyed by that
someone.
In one of the replies, K nominated me for class-A "social trolling",
which hurt my feelings a great deal as my skin is as thin as tissue
paper! ;-) In earnest, I resent being called anything less than an
armored troglodyte! For me the whole thing can be boiled down to just
enough gravy to cover up a chicken-fried steak: It's of "Star Wars"
simplicity really and consisting of right versus wrong or good versus
evil. I fancy myself a Jedi, albeit a rather rogue one with the Han
Solo vibe going on fo sho. All those who oppose me or who I oppose
are therefore Sith and can fight or sue me forthwith......

"You talk the talk, do you walk the walk?"
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2008-05-05 13:53:40 UTC
Permalink
ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6a2df679-3e6a-43c1-8c53-***@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

"YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, I'M AN ANONYMOUS
POVERTY-STRICKEN POSTER, I SAY THE "N-WORD", MOCK
THE "HIDEOUS NOSE" OF JEWISH WOMEN, WISH DEATH ON
PEOPLE, ENCOURAGE COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS, LIBEL PEOPLE,
AND I WILL CERTAINLY NEVER POST ANYTHING THAT CAN BE
REPLIED TO BY PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD ACTUAL USENET
ACCOUNTS, AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, SUE ME!!! HAH!!!"

---
William Ernest "There's An Ick-O In Here" Reid
ichorwhip
2008-05-06 22:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Still at it eh Reidiot®? This latest blitherblasting of your's was
quite derivative. I'm calling it reidiocre...

JW Moore
2008-04-28 07:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
<Delusional nonsense and hysterical retrospective confabulation
snipped>
Jack, I'm not sure that it is particularly helpful, constructive, or
appropriate to be disingenuously, pathetically, and cynically trying
to re-open old wounds here, trying to perversely invert actual history
(you remind me here - unfortunately - of that psycho war criminal
Rumsfeld still 'believing' in WMDs in Iraq: "Because we haven't found
any yet itself proves that they exist, and it's for those who don't
believe to prove they don't!"). Numerous right-wing posters here - in
the early '00s - ranted and raved about matters they were entirely
ignorant of - from Kubrick's films to US foreign and domestic policies
- while resentfully smearing those who actually knew what they were
talking about (and whose predictions and insights have all
subsequently materialised).
The fact of the matter is that many posters here bought, lock stock
and barrel, into the neo-con psychosis post-911, slandering [still
continuing, as evident from your ravings here] anyone who challenged
the status quo: America is not going to 'recover' from the results of
this, from it's current predicament during your, or any of your
generation's lifetime, Jack (as the current geopolitical and economic
state of things all too depreasingly testifies [your house been
foreclosed on yet? Still have a job?]), but let's just BLAME the
whistleblowers instead! [And defend all those who wallowed in
contemptible indifference].
[BTW, The Kubrick Site has now been dormant for over two years -
though Rod has a blog ['Synthetic Knowledge'] - which is partly why a
recent site like The Kubrick Corner (which MP refers to and which has
many of the articles from The Kubrick Site) has attracted attention.
Tragically, the decline of The Kubrick Site matches the decline of
this newsgroup, while AMK founder Geoff Alexander is just yet another
tragic casualty of the current economic (and cultural) Depression.]
Post by JW Moore
I wouldn't waste my time. Opinions are opinions, take 'em or leave
'em.
Such statements, in their implicit solipsism and atomistic
individualism, are indicative of why this newsgroup degenerated. The
reductivist, ego-centric idea that everything is an opinion, mere
interpretation, or belief and that all beliefs are on equal footing
now appears to be ubiquitous through all of American (and most
Western) culture, that manifests itself not just in self-servingly
nihilistic remarks like yours above, but also in sentence structures
that have the form “I think”, “I feel”, “I believe”, “It is Kubrick’
opinion that…” In short, everything has to be expressed with a minimal
subjective distance or skepticism, implicitly suggesting that any
claim is already simply a matter of opinion that can then be summarily
dismissed (the issue of whether some beliefs are legitimate or true or
superior to others or some interpretations better than others as a
function of both the evidence they proffer and the extent of what
they're able to explain never even being entertained, true opinions
being unimaginable).
One suspects that were a discussion about, for instance, Copernicus to
emerge, our media outlets (and newsgroups) would feel compelled to
insure that both the geocentric and the heliocentric hypothesis were
given equal time and that it was emphasized that both positions were
“theories” and that it was therefore up to 'personal judgment' to
decide which one is true. As if to imply that there was even a
legitimate controversy here. As is so often the case, we live in a
topsy turvy, upside down world, in which the accusations spouted by
rightwing critics are in fact the very things that they themselves are
guilty of, projected onto the group or individual they wish to slime.
This should come as no surprise, given that, due to the predominance
of the imaginary in interpersonal relations, our thoughts about others
tend to be analogical, we have a tendency to attribute our own motives
to other people when attempting to understand why they act as they do.
One need only invert the statements of reactionaries leveled against
their opponents to get a fairly good idea of what they’re up to in
their dark, back room meetings and the privacy of their own homes.
Indeed, posters like Mr Moore (there are numerous others, needless to
say) are ideologically no different to US commentators such as Savage,
Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, and O’Reilly, who,far from fitting
any criteria of being Socratic, predominantly side with those that
occupy the power positions in society, portraying them as the victims,
as against those who are without power, ie. they side with the very
people and the very structures that Kubrick's work, as a filmmaker,
questioned, satirised, parodied, deconstructed . For example, Savage
rails against immigrants, homosexuals, and feminists, often defending
big business as being the victim of a witch hunt in situations like
Enron. Environmental scientists are portrayed as a powerful interest
with something to gain financially from their research, while industry
is portrayed as a meek victim unable to defend itself against these
deceitful scientists. O’Reilly continuously stokes outrage about
businesses that say “happy holiday”, portraying Christianity– the
predominant religion in the states –as being a victim, treating the
minority religious positions as the victimizers. In short, these sorts
of shows invert the relationship between the oppressed and the
oppressors, the powerful and the powerless, portraying the oppressors
as the oppressed and the powerful as the powerless. It is this that
makes them sophists in the Platonic sense of the word. The trick of
rightwing talk radio is to create the belief that the victimizers and
exploiters are themselves the victims [Bush: "He [Saddam] tried to
kill my DA!"] and thereby stoke self-righteous outrage at purported
injustices. Of course, this is all a way of insuring that real
injustices are not righted.
Finally, on the issue of whether the AMK newsgroup was to be, was to
remain - back in 2003 - a serious forum as originally planned (and as
specified in the AMK FAQ) or to simply become a sychophantic celeb-
risible den, an infantile Katharina fan club, then-AMK-poster Mark
Fisher elequently and incisively delineated the cultural stakes at
"I've been off this ng for a while now; and on my return, I am
naturally dismayed about what it has been reduced to.
Whether you agree with Padraig's politics or not, the quality, wit
and
intelligence of his posts is undeniable. Just take a look through the
AMK archives if you have any doubt about that. His breadth of
knowledge - about Kubrick particularly, but more broadly, film and
culture in general - is incredibly impressive, but worn lightly: his
posts are never turgid, and never fail to make things interesting.
Yes, there is often a certain degree of invective and hyperbole in
some of them - but that all adds to the fun.
Padraig is one of the few remaining representatives of the golden
days
of AMK - which days, it seems, are now sadly in the past. I think
the
current fracas is in fact symptomatic of the general decline in the
ng. Again, take a look at the AMK archives, or at the Kubrick Site,
for an indication of the quality of discussion and debate that used
to
happen here. I don't want to speak for Padraig - God knows he can
speak for himself! - but it is inevitable that frustration over
trivia
will overboil when that is the predominant diet the group is offering
up. This, coupled with the unreasoning sycophancy directed towards
Katharina by many groveling posters ('your highness, we are so
grateful for your presence amongst us unworthies' ), will inevitably
produce anger/ disaffection/ sadness in those who value the forum for
intellectual discussion that this group once was.
In part, the Katharina argument reflects a - dare I say it -
_theoretical_ division about the very nature of Stanley Kubrick.
There
are those who see Kubrick as essentially a biographical individual
who made films. This view of Kubrick fits right into the dominant
ontology at the moment, with its supposedly pre-theoretical liberal
assumptions about the primacy of the 'person' - an ontology
sickeningly popularised with the current depressing cult of the
celebrity and associated trivia. Then there are those who see the
name
'Kubrick' as designating, not a biographical individual, but a
consistent set of stylistic traits, preoccupations and techniques. In
a very fundamental way, this Kubrick is up there on screen - and
nowhere else. Those who hold this latter view think that, if Kubrick
the biographical individual is of interest, it is because of those
traits, preoccupations and techniques - not vice versa. Naturally,
those who hold this latter - post-Foucauldian - view of the author/
auteur will be less impressed by references to the biographical.
What all this is leading up to saying is that - spit on me if you
wish
- if you want insight into this second Kubrick, the onscreen Kubrick,
the supposed reason why we all here, Padraig is, in my view, a much
better resource than Katharina. Please take this in the spirit it is
intended: not as an attack on Katharina, but as a celebration of
Padraig, this group's greatest single resource. Yes, Katharina's
clarification of certain biographical details are useful ---- but can
anyone, hand on heart, say that they compare to Padraig's insights
into Kubrick's _films_? This is not intended in any way as a slight
of
Katharina - she is not, nor has she represented herself as, a
cultural
commentator or film critic. But we are here primarily for cultural
commentary and film criticism - aren't we? It is precisely because
that question is no longer a rhetorical one that this storm has blown
up, with the ng threatening to devolve into silly prattle about
celebrities. And what I am suggesting to you ungrateful lot is that,
yes, you are lucky to have Katharina on this ng - but you are even
more privileged to have Padraig Henry."
Get help, Padraig. It's not funny anymore.

~~Jack
Harry Bailey
2008-04-28 08:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JW Moore
Post by Harry Bailey
more privileged to have Padraig Henry."
Get help, Padraig. It's not funny anymore.
Stop troll-a-lolling hereabouts, Jack. Your first post on this thread
was a response to the forum's resident troll-baiter, and now all you
can think of is further straw-clutching ad hominems. And like him,
you're portraying yourself as a basket-case of self-loathing
ignorance.

Now was there something of substance you wanted to contribute to this
newsgroup, or are we to write you off as yet another disgruntled boor?
Loading...