Architecture - No Country For Old Men

Author

No Country For Old Men

Don

2008-03-20, 9:25 am

Seen it?

Pierre Levesque

2008-03-20, 1:26 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:frtq7u02boo@news4.newsguy.com...
> Seen it?

Yep

Pierre Levesque

2008-03-20, 1:26 pm

"Pierre Levesque" <pierrelevesqueNOSPAM@connarch.com> wrote in message
news:rzuEj.4321$jw2.1998@trndny04...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:frtq7u02boo@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Yep

Friendo...

Don

2008-03-20, 1:26 pm

"Pierre Levesque" <pierrelevesqueNOSPAM@connarch.com> wrote in message
news:rAuEj.12656$2Y4.1690@trndny01...
>
> "Pierre Levesque" <pierrelevesqueNOSPAM@connarch.com> wrote in message
> news:rzuEj.4321$jw2.1998@trndny04...
>
> Friendo...

???
Is it worthy?

Edgar

2008-03-20, 8:26 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:frtq7u02boo@news4.newsguy.com...
> Seen it?
>

Yep. I assume the next question is "Liked it?" Yep.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

RicodJour

2008-03-20, 8:26 pm

On Mar 20, 1:07 pm, "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Yep. I assume the next question is "Liked it?" Yep.

It had its moments, but I thought the whole thing with the albino
dwarf actually being the guy's brother was a little far fetched.

R

thisbeit

2008-03-21, 1:25 pm

"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:849f6c7c-c4b4-4ceb-9aee-7988877b0bab@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 20, 1:07 pm, "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It had its moments, but I thought the whole thing with the albino
> dwarf actually being the guy's brother was a little far fetched.
>
> R

LOL...Aincha s'pposed add a winkie after that?

thisbeit

2008-03-21, 1:25 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:frua6503sb@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Pierre Levesque" <pierrelevesqueNOSPAM@connarch.com> wrote in message
> news:rAuEj.12656$2Y4.1690@trndny01...
>
> ???
> Is it worthy?
>

No doot aboot it, one of the best in quite sometime. If you like the Coen
Bros films it's ebven better than that.

I'd say it's worth flipping a coin over it...

Don

2008-03-21, 1:25 pm

"thisbeit" <NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fs0gqo$i8p$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:frua6503sb@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> No doot aboot it, one of the best in quite sometime. If you like the Coen
> Bros films it's ebven better than that.
>
> I'd say it's worth flipping a coin over it...

Just came back from walmart with a 42" samsung and bolted it up and threw
the DVD for that flik in to check out the first couple minutes and play
around with the setting.
The evil dood was coming up behind a deputy on the phone and was, I guess
going to off him with the handcuffs and I hit the stop button.
I look for extreme escapism in flix sometimes.
It'll take me a spell to get used to this new hi-tek stuff........
Coen stuff is different, saw that one a couple months ago with Billy Bob in
it and a couple others in the past.

Don

2008-03-21, 5:25 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:fs0sat016f9@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "thisbeit" <NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fs0gqo$i8p$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> Just came back from walmart with a 42" samsung and bolted it up and threw
> the DVD for that flik in to check out the first couple minutes and play
> around with the setting.
> The evil dood was coming up behind a deputy on the phone and was, I guess
> going to off him with the handcuffs and I hit the stop button.
> I look for extreme escapism in flix sometimes.
> It'll take me a spell to get used to this new hi-tek stuff........
> Coen stuff is different, saw that one a couple months ago with Billy Bob
> in it and a couple others in the past.

Er, make that a 42" Sanyo.
Looked at so many specs lately I'm cross eyed.

Kris Krieger

2008-03-21, 9:25 pm

RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in news:849f6c7c-c4b4-4ceb-9aee-
7988877b0bab@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 20, 1:07 pm, "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It had its moments, but I thought the whole thing with the albino
> dwarf actually being the guy's brother was a little far fetched.
>
> R
>

I didn't see it yet, so I guess I'd better stop readin this thread ;)

Don

2008-03-22, 9:25 am

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13u8re9ac6mv6b8@corp.supernews.com...
> RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
> news:849f6c7c-c4b4-4ceb-9aee-
> 7988877b0bab@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> I didn't see it yet, so I guess I'd better stop readin this thread ;)

It was stupid, the ending was really stupid and it wasn't nearly as
*violent* as I was hoping.
I was disappointed, but thats not unusual for flix of late.
I can't recommend it, but I'm glad I got it out of my system.
Frankly, I prefer flix in the 40's that have substance to them.

thisbeit

2008-03-22, 9:25 am

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:fs2sd202fbs@news5.newsguy.com...
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13u8re9ac6mv6b8@corp.supernews.com...
>
> It was stupid, the ending was really stupid and it wasn't nearly as
> *violent* as I was hoping.
> I was disappointed, but thats not unusual for flix of late.
> I can't recommend it, but I'm glad I got it out of my system.
> Frankly, I prefer flix in the 40's that have substance to them.

Give it anotrher shot. The good ones sometimes take a while sink in. Not a
note of soundtrack, complex character development and some pretty
interesting dialogue are what makes this adapted screenplay worthy.

Kris Krieger

2008-03-22, 1:25 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:fs2sd202fbs@news5.newsguy.com:

>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13u8re9ac6mv6b8@corp.supernews.com...
>
> It was stupid, the ending was really stupid and it wasn't nearly as
> *violent* as I was hoping.

Oh, too bad - that's one thing, advertisements don't really tell you
much.

> I was disappointed, but thats not unusual for flix of late.

I liked "The Road to Perdition". A few others. Not too many - most
"science fistion" is blatently UN-sceintific, more like bad fantasy; msot
"drama" is IMO more like melodrama. I mostly am bored out of my skull by
"romantic comedies", and just can't stand straight "romance. I like
movies that present what's known of history.

If a movie is bad or shallow, it at least has to have a lot of
explosions. Recent ones stink becaus eit's all computer-generated, and I
can pick that stuff out (and pick it apart) waaaay too easily because of
being acquainted with 3D techniques. ANy movie that does use a lot of
3D, has to be very well-done, otherwise I can't be bothered wasting my
time watching it - there is a lot of just plain crappy 3D work out there.
Which is odd, becasue the number of instructional courses of study in 3D
has exploded, and th esalarie have gone up, but the majority of the work-
quality has IMO actually declined...

> I can't recommend it, but I'm glad I got it out of my system.
> Frankly, I prefer flix in the 40's that have substance to them.

Thre have been some "modern" good ones (not that I can think of many off
the top of my head, but i never did have a good memory fo rthat sort of
thing), and a lot fo older movies that were crappy, but they made some fo
good ones pre-Code.

Ever see "Rain" with IIRC Joan Crawford (made in the early 30's IIRC)?

I also have a quirky attraction, when in the right mood, to things (esp.
SciFi/Horror) that are so utterly and dismally *awful* and/or *weird*,
that they're entertaining ;)

Don

2008-03-22, 5:26 pm

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13uaamggh95hp16@corp.supernews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:fs2sd202fbs@news5.newsguy.com:
>
>
> Oh, too bad - that's one thing, advertisements don't really tell you
> much.
>
>
> I liked "The Road to Perdition". A few others. Not too many - most
> "science fistion" is blatently UN-sceintific, more like bad fantasy; msot
> "drama" is IMO more like melodrama. I mostly am bored out of my skull by
> "romantic comedies", and just can't stand straight "romance. I like
> movies that present what's known of history.
>
> If a movie is bad or shallow, it at least has to have a lot of
> explosions. Recent ones stink becaus eit's all computer-generated, and I
> can pick that stuff out (and pick it apart) waaaay too easily because of
> being acquainted with 3D techniques. ANy movie that does use a lot of
> 3D, has to be very well-done, otherwise I can't be bothered wasting my
> time watching it - there is a lot of just plain crappy 3D work out there.
> Which is odd, becasue the number of instructional courses of study in 3D
> has exploded, and th esalarie have gone up, but the majority of the work-
> quality has IMO actually declined...
>
>
>
> Thre have been some "modern" good ones (not that I can think of many off
> the top of my head, but i never did have a good memory fo rthat sort of
> thing), and a lot fo older movies that were crappy, but they made some fo
> good ones pre-Code.
>
> Ever see "Rain" with IIRC Joan Crawford (made in the early 30's IIRC)?
>
> I also have a quirky attraction, when in the right mood, to things (esp.
> SciFi/Horror) that are so utterly and dismally *awful* and/or *weird*,
> that they're entertaining ;)

I take back what I said about NCFOM, see it and make your own opinion, hope
I didn't color it for you.
I lived most of my life not liking JOan Crawford but in the past year saw
her in a couple 30's flix and I've changed my mind.
Try this on for size, not that it has anything to do with the movies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHzIG_iZRWY

Don

2008-03-22, 5:26 pm

"thisbeit" <NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fs33q0$4ot$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:fs2sd202fbs@news5.newsguy.com...
>
> Give it anotrher shot. The good ones sometimes take a while sink in. Not
> a note of soundtrack, complex character development and some pretty
> interesting dialogue are what makes this adapted screenplay worthy.

I may do just that.
My wife and I were wondering about the part where it *seemed* the mexicans
killed Lewellyn <sp> at the motel and how was it possible for Chegura to be
in that motel room when the sheriff was at the door but then gone when he
entered and searched. So I fired up the disc again, after I changed the
wires from the discplayer to the toob, and we noticed the clarity of the
picture was better. The netflix doesn't have to go back til Mon so I may
give the whole thing another shot. At the end I had more questions than
answers.
**My take, and it doesn't really work is, that the mexicans didn't kill
Lewellyn and the girl but Chegura did and while in the process of doing so
the mexicans showed up and tried to kill Chegura and quickly realized they
bit off more than they could chew, so they fled for their lives. Chegura
paid the kid for the shirt with a C note that he peeled off a sheave of them
and up to that point the only Cnotes visible had been in the suitcase, so
Chegura had the money. But all of that could be wrong.

Kris Krieger

2008-03-22, 5:26 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:fs3hdj02oq3@news5.newsguy.com:

>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13uaamggh95hp16@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I take back what I said about NCFOM, see it and make your own opinion,
> hope I didn't color it for you.

Well, 've been very up-and-down about it. I see alot of claims taht it's
great, but the adverts don't do much for me. It looks like "some guy finds
money that belongs to some psycho-killer, who then gets POed and kills a
lot fo people while going after the dood who found the money".

The main reason I was thinking of seeing it is that I like a fair number of
films that Tommy Lee Jones has done.

> I lived most of my life not liking JOan Crawford but in the past year
> saw her in a couple 30's flix and I've changed my mind.

I'm not a fan ro anything, but that particular fil struck me as having an
interesting combination of quirkiness, interesting useage of B&W, and a
twist of vicious irony ;) ((Plus, she sort-of reminded me, in that film,
of my Great Aunt, not in looks as much as mannerisms and, er, ah, "colorful
character" - my Great Aunt was a real pip, also, from the few photos I'd
seen, absolutely drop-dead gorgeous - so the film jsut struck a personal
chord the first time I saw it ;) ))

> Try this on for size, not that it has anything to do with the movies:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHzIG_iZRWY

I had a hard time understanding the words. Not unusual, tho'. This is
more my style:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvHscM1WayI

In general, tho', it'd prob. be easier/shorter to list what I don't like at
least occasionally ;)

((You know what, I ought to go up there and smack you upside the head for
revealing You Tube to me. The damn thing is addictive. Now I need to
install a *timer* on my computer =:-o ))

Don

2008-03-23, 3:25 am

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13uat8cjkbavba5@corp.supernews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:fs3hdj02oq3@news5.newsguy.com:
>
>
> Well, 've been very up-and-down about it. I see alot of claims taht it's
> great, but the adverts don't do much for me. It looks like "some guy
> finds
> money that belongs to some psycho-killer, who then gets POed and kills a
> lot fo people while going after the dood who found the money".
>
> The main reason I was thinking of seeing it is that I like a fair number
> of
> films that Tommy Lee Jones has done.
>
>
>
> I'm not a fan ro anything, but that particular fil struck me as having an
> interesting combination of quirkiness, interesting useage of B&W, and a
> twist of vicious irony ;) ((Plus, she sort-of reminded me, in that film,
> of my Great Aunt, not in looks as much as mannerisms and, er, ah,
> "colorful
> character" - my Great Aunt was a real pip, also, from the few photos I'd
> seen, absolutely drop-dead gorgeous - so the film jsut struck a personal
> chord the first time I saw it ;) ))
>
>
> I had a hard time understanding the words. Not unusual, tho'. This is
> more my style:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvHscM1WayI
>
> In general, tho', it'd prob. be easier/shorter to list what I don't like
> at
> least occasionally ;)
>
> ((You know what, I ought to go up there and smack you upside the head for
> revealing You Tube to me. The damn thing is addictive. Now I need to
> install a *timer* on my computer =:-o ))

LOL, your welcome.
I'd do youtube more often but this damn satellite has speed bumps and if we
exceed so many mb's of download in a certain amount of time (I think 4 hrs)
they cut us off for 3 days, immediately.
They did this once before and my wife raised holy hell with my son and I.
Now, my son is gone (moved back to FL last year) so all the blame would go
on me.
So I tread softly. sigh
BTW is that Shadowfax considered a jazz group?
The guitar player can wail.

Kris Krieger

2008-03-23, 5:25 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:fs4feb0l1g@news5.newsguy.com:

>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13uat8cjkbavba5@corp.supernews.com...
>
> LOL, your welcome.
> I'd do youtube more often but this damn satellite has speed bumps and
> if we exceed so many mb's of download in a certain amount of time (I
> think 4 hrs) they cut us off for 3 days, immediately.

Oh, it's prob a good thing, otherwise you'd need a bunch of timers! ;)

> They did this once before and my wife raised holy hell with my son and
> I. Now, my son is gone (moved back to FL last year) so all the blame
> would go on me.
> So I tread softly. sigh

Heh, prob. a benefit, in terms of avoiding Buttus Maximus...

> BTW is that Shadowfax considered a jazz group?
> The guitar player can wail.

To be honest, I dunno what they're called. I think record stores usually
have them under either "World", "New Age" - or sometimes just "contemporary
instrumental". Or on Amazon.com, search Shadowfax -horse -"Lord of the
Rings".

Here is one of their most "delicate" (for lack of a better word) pieces,
tho' the quality is completely awful - infinitely better n CD or even MP3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Lv0bufUPc

I like the structures that their music builds in my mind - lots of nested
glass-bubble type things and burnished metallic cantilevered shapes

Edgar

2008-03-24, 1:26 pm

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13uat8cjkbavba5@corp.supernews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:fs3hdj02oq3@news5.newsguy.com:
>
>
> Well, 've been very up-and-down about it. I see alot of claims taht it's
> great, but the adverts don't do much for me. It looks like "some guy
> finds
> money that belongs to some psycho-killer, who then gets POed and kills a
> lot fo people while going after the dood who found the money".
>
> The main reason I was thinking of seeing it is that I like a fair number
> of
> films that Tommy Lee Jones has done.
>
>
>
> I'm not a fan ro anything, but that particular fil struck me as having an
> interesting combination of quirkiness, interesting useage of B&W, and a
> twist of vicious irony ;) ((Plus, she sort-of reminded me, in that film,
> of my Great Aunt, not in looks as much as mannerisms and, er, ah,
> "colorful
> character" - my Great Aunt was a real pip, also, from the few photos I'd
> seen, absolutely drop-dead gorgeous - so the film jsut struck a personal
> chord the first time I saw it ;) ))
>
>
> I had a hard time understanding the words. Not unusual, tho'. This is
> more my style:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvHscM1WayI
>
> In general, tho', it'd prob. be easier/shorter to list what I don't like
> at
> least occasionally ;)
>
> ((You know what, I ought to go up there and smack you upside the head for
> revealing You Tube to me. The damn thing is addictive. Now I need to
> install a *timer* on my computer =:-o ))
>

The main underlying theme, which the title hints at, is not necessarily lots
of violence, but more-so, the ease with which it is done. One old man just
by the look of the evil guy, is terrified, and the evil guy can see it in
him. At the flip of a coin, he decides the guy's fate. Some people don't
last long enough to really make their place in the plot. It has its
disappointments, but in and of itself, I get that it is part of the feeling
they wanted to convey with the movie, a bit of disappointment in humanity.
I hated the ending, but when thinking back, it fits with much of the rest of
it in it's own way. I think I'll have to see it again on DVD. I saw it
first in the theater. It does at least get interesting conversation going.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Don

2008-03-24, 1:26 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47e7cc09$0$26064$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13uat8cjkbavba5@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> The main underlying theme, which the title hints at, is not necessarily
> lots of violence, but more-so, the ease with which it is done. One old
> man just by the look of the evil guy, is terrified, and the evil guy can
> see it in him. At the flip of a coin, he decides the guy's fate. Some
> people don't last long enough to really make their place in the plot. It
> has its disappointments, but in and of itself, I get that it is part of
> the feeling they wanted to convey with the movie, a bit of disappointment
> in humanity. I hated the ending, but when thinking back, it fits with much
> of the rest of it in it's own way. I think I'll have to see it again on
> DVD. I saw it first in the theater. It does at least get interesting
> conversation going.

I'll presume that from what the sheriff said the device Chagura used to blow
open the locks was also used to penetrate steer skulls for slaughter.
They never showed him actually blowing the lock up close so you could see
the striker hitting it.
I would expect the back pressure to be tremendous, of solid steel under high
pressure hitting steel would make his arm jump backwards.
One little point, close to the end when the sheriff went to the closed door
of the motel room where Lewellyn was killed, he saw the deadbolt lock was
blown and the door handle was unharmed.
Then he pushed the door open without turning the door handle.
I didn't notice that the first time around, only after I saw that part
again.
He would have had to turn the door handle to open the door whether the
deadbolt lock was blown or not.

Ken S. Tucker

2008-03-24, 5:26 pm

On Mar 24, 9:38 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47e7cc09$0$26064$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'll presume that from what the sheriff said the device Chagura used to blow
> open the locks was also used to penetrate steer skulls for slaughter.
> They never showed him actually blowing the lock up close so you could see
> the striker hitting it.
> I would expect the back pressure to be tremendous, of solid steel under high
> pressure hitting steel would make his arm jump backwards.
> One little point, close to the end when the sheriff went to the closed door
> of the motel room where Lewellyn was killed, he saw the deadbolt lock was
> blown and the door handle was unharmed.
> Then he pushed the door open without turning the door handle.
> I didn't notice that the first time around, only after I saw that part
> again.
> He would have had to turn the door handle to open the door whether the
> deadbolt lock was blown or not.

We watched "Easy Rider" yesterday, I fell asleep
when they bumped off Jack. I enjoyed the movie cuz
wife and I travelled the same route those fella's did,
we love US SW scenery. Wife didn't like ending.

The movie reminded me of our Don, a free anarchist
tripping down the hwy, on a thumper, in good sun.

I watched another movie called "Voyage to the Bottom
of the Sea (1961)". It was about global warming, and
using nuclear power to fix the problem, I fell asleep
bout 1/2 way threw, but I'm told it had a good ending.
Speakin' of ends, a sexy girl wiggles her bum-bum.
Ken

Edgar

2008-03-24, 5:26 pm

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1701d53c-e088-4a21-8150-c00c3f9bcf96@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 24, 9:38 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> We watched "Easy Rider" yesterday, I fell asleep
> when they bumped off Jack. I enjoyed the movie cuz
> wife and I travelled the same route those fella's did,
> we love US SW scenery. Wife didn't like ending.
>
> The movie reminded me of our Don, a free anarchist
> tripping down the hwy, on a thumper, in good sun.
>
> I watched another movie called "Voyage to the Bottom
> of the Sea (1961)". It was about global warming, and
> using nuclear power to fix the problem, I fell asleep
> bout 1/2 way threw, but I'm told it had a good ending.
> Speakin' of ends, a sexy girl wiggles her bum-bum.
> Ken
>
>

Yeah, "Easy Rider" is an all time favorite. They aren't ever at one extreme
or another (businessmen or hippies) just doing their own thing.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Don

2008-03-24, 5:26 pm

"Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
> We watched "Easy Rider" yesterday, I fell asleep
> when they bumped off Jack. I enjoyed the movie cuz
> wife and I travelled the same route those fella's did,
> we love US SW scenery. Wife didn't like ending.
>
> The movie reminded me of our Don, a free anarchist
> tripping down the hwy, on a thumper, in good sun.

Circa spring 1973, I was 18.
My dad and I went to a marina in North Fort Myers to get some stainless
steel magnafluxed for an I/O drive for an Evinrude V6 my he was rebuilding.
While waiting I milled about outside looking around the old boats, motors
and other riff raff and what did I discover in the fray, but a bunch of
Harley parts in boxes, crates and grocery bags. My dad determined most of it
was 1959 vintage and bought the lot from the owner on the spot for $500.
Through the summer him and I tore it down and rebuilt it back up - it was a
full fledged chopper with a springer fork and hardtail rear, a panhead.
Someone had started building it then ran out of coin or something. We
cherry'd it out man, we did it right. I was riding it to the inspection
station to get the sticker and laid it down right outside Harlem Heights at
about 50 mph, my dad was following on his 69 Harley and almost cried. The
engine had siezed and it required some CSI to find out what happened. A
previous owner had apparently been scraping some gaskets off something and
dropped a double edged razor blade into the external oil tank, which pumped
from the bottom and the blade was partially covering the hole which starved
engine of oil causing it to sieze. We fixed it back up and by late fall we
did a roadrun to Ft Lauderdale over the Alligator Alley at 90mph the whole
way. Man, it beat me to death, the vibrations. Took and hour to get feeling
back in my hands and restore my hearing. Thats the extent of my easy rider
daze. Couple months later I bought a Honda and almost got killed on it
several times. Now, I haven't been on a bike in at least 15-20 years or so.
I'd like to get a small street/off road bike in the 250-400cc range.

> I watched another movie called "Voyage to the Bottom
> of the Sea (1961)". It was about global warming, and
> using nuclear power to fix the problem, I fell asleep
> bout 1/2 way threw, but I'm told it had a good ending.
> Speakin' of ends, a sexy girl wiggles her bum-bum.
> Ken

Ahhh yeah, the I dream of jeanie gurl, mrrrowwww.....Bahbra.......

Ken S. Tucker

2008-03-25, 3:25 am

On Mar 24, 12:41 pm, "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:1701d53c-e088-4a21-8150-c00c3f9bcf96@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, "Easy Rider" is an all time favorite. They aren't ever at one extreme
> or another (businessmen or hippies) just doing their own thing.

I bummed out when Jack got bumped off.
For some effin reason that portrays the south
in a bad light, as does the ending. Is that a
political statement about the 1969 bible belt?
Ken

Don

2008-03-25, 9:25 am

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2736d11c-6982-46ab-a2fb-1db5c9123764@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 24, 12:41 pm, "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I bummed out when Jack got bumped off.
> For some effin reason that portrays the south
> in a bad light, as does the ending. Is that a
> political statement about the 1969 bible belt?
> Ken

NO, that shit happens everywhere all the time.
Notice if you will the assholes off'd 2 passive, trashed hippies and not 2
isolationists bristling with weaponry.

Edgar

2008-03-25, 1:26 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:fsaur002opo@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:2736d11c-6982-46ab-a2fb-1db5c9123764@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> NO, that shit happens everywhere all the time.
> Notice if you will the assholes off'd 2 passive, trashed hippies and not 2
> isolationists bristling with weaponry.

Oh god here we go again.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ken S. Tucker

2008-03-25, 1:26 pm

On Mar 25, 7:13 am, "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fsaur002opo@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh god here we go again.
> Edgar

LOL! We like Dennis Hopper especially in Flashback,
that's an excellent Hippie comedy, definitely able to
stay awake for that one!
Ken

Don

2008-03-25, 1:26 pm

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:cd1bd420-a10b-4449-9d28-d22c08f7bc82@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 7:13 am, "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> LOL! We like Dennis Hopper especially in Flashback,
> that's an excellent Hippie comedy, definitely able to
> stay awake for that one!
> Ken

That same year Hopper was in True Grit, with the duke, and he still had his
long hair but they made him pin it up.
I think his name was Quincy and in one scene you can see his hair in the
back.
Hoppers been doing it since the 50's.
Billy Clanton in OK Corral with Burt and Kirk, 50's.

Don

2008-03-25, 1:26 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47e90a89$0$26067$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:fsaur002opo@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> Oh god here we go again.

???
You don't think that anything to do with it, the fact that they were
hippies?
I think it was the very reason.
Notice they didn't gun some hells angels.

Kris Krieger

2008-03-25, 1:26 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
news:47e90a89$0$26067$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:fsaur002opo@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> Oh god here we go again.
>

I think Don's point was one of power-inequality - that the hippies were
helpless ("trashed", i.e. high) and had no means of self-defense, and
that only disgusting cowards go after those whom they believe to be
defenseless and weaker than themselves. OTOH, isolationists do tend to
study combnat techniques, so, if they were aremd with that knowledge and
with weapons as well, the killers would not have targetted them, knowing
that they would be more than capable of fighting back - and the last
thing any coward wants to do is face off with someone capable of fighting
back.

So I don't understand the reason behind the comment "here we go again",
especially given that part of the context of the thread is the topic-
film's expression of the ease/?nonchalance? with which violence is so
often committed.

2008-03-25, 5:26 pm

Kris Krieger wrote ninety unnecessarily untrimmed quoted lines in order
to emit the following thoughts of extreme philosophic importance in the
business of Don worship:

>I think Don's point was one of power-inequality - that the hippies were helpless ("trashed", i.e. high) and had no means of self-defense, and
>that only disgusting cowards go after those whom they believe to be defenseless and weaker than themselves. OTOH, isolationists do tend to
>study combnat techniques, so, if they were aremd with that knowledge and with weapons as well, the killers would not have targetted them, knowing
>that they would be more than capable of fighting back - and the last thing any coward wants to do is face off with someone capable of fighting
>back.
>
>So I don't understand the reason behind the comment "here we go again", especially given that part of the context of the thread is the topic-
>film's expression of the ease/?nonchalance? with which violence is so often committed.
>

Don

2008-03-25, 5:26 pm

Fuck you slut.

"++" <friend@spambot.com> wrote in message
news:89WdnfZH5smVzXTanZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@rcn.net...
>
>
> Kris Krieger wrote ninety unnecessarily untrimmed quoted lines in order
> to emit the following thoughts of extreme philosophic importance in the
> business of Don worship:
>
>
>

Don

2008-03-25, 5:26 pm

Edgar

2008-03-25, 5:26 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:fsbcuk0be6@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47e90a89$0$26067$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> ???
> You don't think that anything to do with it, the fact that they were
> hippies?
> I think it was the very reason.
> Notice they didn't gun some hells angels.
>

"What you represent to them is freedom...it's real hard to be free when your
bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course don't ever tell anybody your
not free 'cause they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to
you that they are..."

They killed freedom, and the only freedom left is death. Liberty and
justice and a .22 for all. You sum it up perfectly from the redneck point
of view Don, thanks.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Edgar

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13uigm87dl2h5f0@corp.supernews.com...
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:47e90a89$0$26067$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
>
>
> I think Don's point was one of power-inequality - that the hippies were
> helpless ("trashed", i.e. high) and had no means of self-defense, and
> that only disgusting cowards go after those whom they believe to be
> defenseless and weaker than themselves. OTOH, isolationists do tend to
> study combnat techniques, so, if they were aremd with that knowledge and
> with weapons as well, the killers would not have targetted them, knowing
> that they would be more than capable of fighting back - and the last
> thing any coward wants to do is face off with someone capable of fighting
> back.
>
> So I don't understand the reason behind the comment "here we go again",
> especially given that part of the context of the thread is the topic-
> film's expression of the ease/?nonchalance? with which violence is so
> often committed.
>

The point was not the guns it was the violence. They could have easily
murdered a long haired concealed weapon carrying Hells Angel from the
comfort of their own truck. That was my point. The only thing the guys in
the truck saw were the long hair, and what it represented to them. They had
no time to debate the merits of isolationism or whether the guys were
packin. It was extreme effort on Don's part to compare the "hippies" to
"isolationists".

Basically the weapon was the long hair and the middle finger, and the truck
driving rednecks weren't having it. A Hells Angels packing son of a XXXXX
would have skipped the middle finger and showed off his piece, but what the
hell would that have to do with the rest of the story? No use bringing in
propaganda that had nothing to do with the film. Oh of course except to
further Don's own pursuits of injecting everything with an anti-government
slant.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Edgar

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:fsbpog0q1i@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13uigm87dl2h5f0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> That was exactly my point. Anyone living during that period is well aware
> of the passive nature of the hippies, and thats exactly why those rednecks
> targeted those 2.
> Peace man. :-)
>

The whole point of the movie wasn't that they were "passive hippies" it was
that they were free. Passifism had nothing to do with it. They shot them
because they were too free for middle America. They would have shot anyone
with the same attitude, and in fact the same ilk killed a lawyer. Just some
dude in a suit who had no connection to hippies or this "pacifism" but did
have a connection to the freedom.

>
>
> Maybe he's never seen the flik or doesn't recall the end....dunno.
>

Don't be stupid, I just said it was one of my favorites.

Fine ok, if they were pistol packing Hells Angels, then none of the story
would have happened. Your absolutely right. Thanks for making that clear
to me Don.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Kris Krieger

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
news:47e971b5$0$28862$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13uigm87dl2h5f0@corp.supernews.com...

[ ... ]
[color=darkred]
>
>
> The point was not the guns it was the violence.

Right, violence is not only gun-related and defense is not only via a
gun...

> They could have
> easily murdered a long haired concealed weapon carrying Hells Angel
> from the comfort of their own truck. That was my point. The only
> thing the guys in the truck saw were the long hair, and what it
> represented to them. They had no time to debate the merits of
> isolationism or whether the guys were packin. It was extreme effort
> on Don's part to compare the "hippies" to "isolationists".

He wasn't doing that, tho' - which actually isn't necvessarily relevant,
since the point is that the ending was about people who were just doing
their own thing, not harming anybody, and not running around armed to the
teeth, versus violent nitwits whose ignorant and obsessive hatred lay at
the root of an act of cowardice and violence.

The bit about "armed isolatinists" was, as I saw it, not a comparison
with the hippies, but the complete opposite: an example of people who
would have been armed and ready opponents, i.e. dangerous, and therefore
people whom the cowards would not have been so eager to take on.

IOW, violent people will often behave violently only, or mainly, towards
those who are the least likely to have a defense against such violence.
It's irrelevant whether that defense is a coupel of large attack dogs, or
a gun, or a flame thrower, or being in a group with 10 friends - the
salient point is the cowardace of thug who bypasses such challenges, adn
instead goes and puts a severe spiral fracture in each arm of a littel
kid, or does a drive-by shooting of people who are just minding their own
business.

>
> Basically the weapon was the long hair and the middle finger, and the
> truck driving rednecks weren't having it. A Hells Angels packing son
> of a XXXXX would have skipped the middle finger and showed off his
> piece, but what the hell would that have to do with the rest of the
> story?

I didn't see it that way, and that wasn't the point *I* was making. I
saw it as showing the cowardace of the people committing the violence,
who *were* armed BTW, against people who were basically in a position of
defenselessness. As I see it, what amounts to a drive-by shooting is as
much an act of cowardace (and lack of manhood) as is the beating-up of a
young child.

> No use bringing in propaganda that had nothing to do with the
> film. Oh of course except to further Don's own pursuits of injecting
> everything with an anti-government slant.

That just isn't what *I* saw. Maybe it's what you want to be there, but
I personally didn't see it. ANd in any event, it's not relevant to the
points that the film communicates.

Kris Krieger

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
news:47e97371$0$26030$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:fsbpog0q1i@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> The whole point of the movie wasn't that they were "passive hippies"
> it was that they were free. Passifism had nothing to do with it.

Do you mean "pacifism" or "passivity"? A better word would have been
"pacifist"; OTOH, Hippies were pretty passive, at least when they were
toking - pot is very different from alcohol in that it renders one pretty
much incapable of violence (if one is only using pot - not sure what
happens when mixed with meth or PCP or whatever...)

> They shot them because they were too free for middle America. They
> would have shot anyone with the same attitude, and in fact the same
> ilk killed a lawyer. Just some dude in a suit who had no connection
> to hippies or this "pacifism" but did have a connection to the
> freedom.

Or just going along minding one's own business...?

ALso, why do you say "middle America"? Most of "midle Americans" are not
prone to such wanton violence. WHy not speficy "narrow-minded" people,
or "reactionaries", or "prejudiced people", or heck, "nitwits"?

Sauing "middle America" is sort-of like saying "everyoen who isn't either
rich, or poor"... That's a heck of a lot of people, many of whom are
non-violent.

Edgar

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13uj27kee5c2616@corp.supernews.com...
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:47e97371$0$26030$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
>
>
> Do you mean "pacifism" or "passivity"? A better word would have been
> "pacifist"; OTOH, Hippies were pretty passive, at least when they were
> toking - pot is very different from alcohol in that it renders one pretty
> much incapable of violence (if one is only using pot - not sure what
> happens when mixed with meth or PCP or whatever...)
>

Yeah, pacifism was the word I wanted. Yes I know what hippies were, I know
how pot works, but we're discussing a movie and it's implications, and it's
interpretations. I submit that the directors didn't intend to say "hippies
are pacifist, therefore they got shot by violent people". Instead they
said, "These guys were free and thus they scared people who didn't know true
freedom, and therefore were shot by those people because of their fear, and
the fact that they were really lying to themselves about their own freedom".
Do you agree or disagree? I'm not talking about real life here.

>
>
> Or just going along minding one's own business...?
>
> ALso, why do you say "middle America"? Most of "midle Americans" are not
> prone to such wanton violence. WHy not speficy "narrow-minded" people,
> or "reactionaries", or "prejudiced people", or heck, "nitwits"?
>
> Sauing "middle America" is sort-of like saying "everyoen who isn't either
> rich, or poor"... That's a heck of a lot of people, many of whom are
> non-violent.

We're talking about somebody's interpretation of the 60s in Middle America,
But you do not want me to say Middle America. Ok, then let me say violent
idiots. But then again you have the whole lynching mentality of the past,
and remember we are talking about the past here. Even in the movie Middle
America isn't pigeon holed though. There is an old farmer who takes a
liking to their "machines" and in the end I think "Captain America" really
believes this is the only truly free person left on Earth, doing things the
right way, working hard, on their own little plot of land, and doing their
own thing. Sorry Don but it doesn't mention if the farmer had any guns or
not, so I can't comment on that.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Edgar

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13uj1nhatbsatc5@corp.supernews.com...
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:47e971b5$0$28862$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> Right, violence is not only gun-related and defense is not only via a
> gun...
>
>
> He wasn't doing that, tho' - which actually isn't necvessarily relevant,
> since the point is that the ending was about people who were just doing
> their own thing, not harming anybody, and not running around armed to the
> teeth, versus violent nitwits whose ignorant and obsessive hatred lay at
> the root of an act of cowardice and violence.
>

Well if YOU were the one writing that, then yes, I would have interpreted it
that way, but it was Don writing it, and I have to take what he writes in
the context of the rest of his posts in this NG. I expected, for Don, that
isolationists armed to the teeth was a good thing to him, considering his
other posts, and thus see that he thinks the hippes are too stupid to carry
a gun and protect themselves.

> The bit about "armed isolatinists" was, as I saw it, not a comparison
> with the hippies, but the complete opposite: an example of people who
> would have been armed and ready opponents, i.e. dangerous, and therefore
> people whom the cowards would not have been so eager to take on.
>
> IOW, violent people will often behave violently only, or mainly, towards
> those who are the least likely to have a defense against such violence.
> It's irrelevant whether that defense is a coupel of large attack dogs, or
> a gun, or a flame thrower, or being in a group with 10 friends - the
> salient point is the cowardace of thug who bypasses such challenges, adn
> instead goes and puts a severe spiral fracture in each arm of a littel
> kid, or does a drive-by shooting of people who are just minding their own
> business.
>

Ok, i'll take it as you say then. I don't see how it relates to the movie
though, that is my issue. Yes its obvious cowards go for easy prey, that is
what makes them cowards, but what is it that made them go after THIS prey in
particular. Was it the ease with which they could off the two "hippies" or
was it the fear in their hearts about true freedom? That is my point.

>
> I didn't see it that way, and that wasn't the point *I* was making. I
> saw it as showing the cowardace of the people committing the violence,
> who *were* armed BTW, against people who were basically in a position of
> defenselessness. As I see it, what amounts to a drive-by shooting is as
> much an act of cowardace (and lack of manhood) as is the beating-up of a
> young child.

Well then ok, we interpret the movie differently. Do you think if these
guys saw a small child on the side of the road, which was also easy prey,
within the context of the movie, they would have shot at it and killed it
because it was easy? Do you think that the group of thugs who murdered the
lawyer might have done the same to a farmers hand that decided to spend the
night camping out under the stars (without the log hair and with a horse
instead of a chopper) who went unarmed. To me that doesn't fit the context
of the movie, but of course your entitled to your own opinion.

>
>
>
> That just isn't what *I* saw. Maybe it's what you want to be there, but
> I personally didn't see it. ANd in any event, it's not relevant to the
> points that the film communicates.

The way *I* saw (not what I WANT to be there, but what comes from the
majority of Don's threads) it was Don was disparaging hippies for being
passive and "out of it" while praising isolationists armed to the teeth
(which had nothing to do with anything IMO). Maybe what you saw is what YOU
wanted to see, because I don't see any of that there. Maybe you WANTED to
soften Don's words for him. That's what I saw, and I took it in the context
of the majority of his posts in this NG. Starting the same old shit again,
which is why I said "Oh no not again".

Still I'd rather not interpret what Don said and see if he can explain what
he meant in his own words at this point. Again if it was you that wrote it
I might have seen it differently, but it still doesn't fit the context of
the movie in my opinion.

OTOH, going back to No Country For Old Men, it may have fit with that one a
little better. But even there the main Villain of the movie had no qualms
about killing either an unarmed old store clerk at the flip of a coin
(luckily he got the right side of the coin), or another serial murderer in
his hotel. He had no qualms about killing anything living, without knowing
who was a pacifist, or who was armed to the teeth, he went after everyone.
I just don't see it the point, except, again within the context of his
previous posts, more of the same.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Kris Krieger

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
news:47e9823c$0$26006$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13uj27kee5c2616@corp.supernews.com...
[edited/snipped][color=darkred]
>
> Yeah, pacifism was the word I wanted. Yes I know what hippies were, I
> know how pot works, but we're discussing a movie and it's
> implications, and it's interpretations. I submit that the directors
> didn't intend to say "hippies are pacifist, therefore they got shot by
> violent people". Instead they said, "These guys were free and thus
> they scared people who didn't know true freedom, and therefore were
> shot by those people because of their fear, and the fact that they
> were really lying to themselves about their own freedom". Do you agree
> or disagree? I'm not talking about real life here.

OK, it's just that I see the non-violence aspect as part of what the
"good guys" (so to speak) were pertty much about, although that's is
admittedly going from memory. IOW, they might have gotten rowdy ehre an
dthere, but they weren't about harming poeple. ALl in all, they were
just "doing their thing". SO, yes, it's freedom, but that (IMO at least)
includes other things.

It's hard to separate it completely from real life, because the
characters and situations were drawn from real life - and any work of art
is not only itself, but also, at least art which is also commentary is a
part of, an extension of?, the context/culture/times (not sure which word
is best) that existed during its creation.

SO, I'm not jsut trying to split hairs for the sake of being annoying,
jus putting my ownsnippets "out there" so to speak.

>
>
>
> We're talking about somebody's interpretation of the 60s in Middle
> America, But you do not want me to say Middle America.

It's not at all a matter of "me not wanting you to say" this or that.
I'm exploring some of this as I write, and seking some, what, refeinement
of the ideas?, definition? - perhaps better to say "accuraciy" or
"rational exploration"...?

Whatever. I just am trying to say that, even at that time, "Middle
America" meant "the establishment"/"the herd mentality" *but* not
necessarily violence - not that it didn't have its violent sectors of
course, and also not to say that the imposition of certain cultural
standards couldn't be expereinced (by those imposed-upon) as a form of
violence. But the pressure was more like being slowly smothered by
ultra-refined bleached white flour - crushed underfoot by boredom, so to
speak.

At the same time, one of the lessons, IMO, is that the complacent
unthinking herd/establishment type of mindset can too easily descend into
mindless, and even casual, violence.

SO no, it's not me "wanting your to say" this or that. I'm trying to
establish a more three-dimensional picture, primarily for myself but also
for the sake of clarification. Because rebellion, too, has its dangerous
extremes.

> Ok, then let
> me say violent idiots. But then again you have the whole lynching
> mentality of the past, and remember we are talking about the past
> here.

Well (going off on a bit of a tangent here) and that past is,
pathetically (and dangerously, and disgustingly enough) not so much
"past" as most people like to think, because the only thing stopping
people from starting back in with that sort of horror is their fear of
getting caught by "the liberal gummint"...IOW< it's closer to the surface
than is often thought...

Maybe more accurate to say "Complacent America"...?

> Even in the movie Middle America isn't pigeon holed though.
> There is an old farmer who takes a liking to their "machines" and in
> the end I think "Captain America" really believes this is the only
> truly free person left on Earth, doing things the right way, working
> hard, on their own little plot of land, and doing their own thing.
> Sorry Don but it doesn't mention if the farmer had any guns or not, so
> I can't comment on that.
>

You were going along OK until you interjected that last bit.

First off, one of the dangers of farming - and this is from relatives who
actually owned and operated real honest-to-goodness farms (rice and
soybeans, in Arkansas) - is poisonous snakes. So, sorry, Edgar, but it's
rather common for a farmer to have some sort of firearm with him, if only
because of the danger of snakes.

Maybe (but I'm just guessing) a farmer in the West might also be in
danger from Cougers or Coyotes, or even Wolves. WHen I lived in SOuth
Carolina in the early 80's, I worked with one fellow who had a small farm
as a second income, and he had to occasionally shoot feral dogs
(abandoned pets - they were just trying to survive, but he couldnt afford
to just let them kill his cows). HE was down-to-eartg, non-violent, even
tempered - but hey, he had to protect his cows as amatter of economic
survival.

That is just plain reality. So, sorry to pop your balloon, but it might
very well be that the ol' farmer had a rifle nearby. Also, depending
upon just how close to the land he was, and based upon what I've seen
here and there, he probably wasn't above popping a squirrel, racoon, or
other critter to put into the stew pot. This info comes in part form
someone who spent a couple summers as a kid helping pick the cotton - I'm
not making that up. My own grandfather never resorted to store-bought
meat, and as a kid, I had venison, woodchuck, and who knows what else,
when we visited his place. It's an urban, 8not* rural, idea that guns
are *always* evil or are *only ever* used for criminal reasons. In many
areas, they remain part of one's survival toolkit.

And yeah, that also can be part of freedom - living off the land, rather
than depending upon food to be trucked in to you.

Don

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

Don

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47e987f3$0$18851$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13uj1nhatbsatc5@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Well if YOU were the one writing that, then yes, I would have interpreted
> it that way, but it was Don writing it, and I have to take what he writes
> in the context of the rest of his posts in this NG. I expected, for Don,
> that isolationists armed to the teeth was a good thing to him, considering
> his other posts, and thus see that he thinks the hippes are too stupid to
> carry a gun and protect themselves.

Edgar, did you miss the posts where I say I've had hair halfway to my XXX
for 35 years, where I've done every kind of drug known to mankind, where I
play rock music on multiple instruments, where I own $100k worth of audio
equipment, where I said I used to ride a Harley chopper, where I said I
haven't fired a gun in over 4 years, where I've said everyone should be
free, where I've said no one has the right to harm anyone else, etc., etc.?

In all of that how do you get to the idea that I am a redneck?

And right there is where you are wrong.
Instead of blaming me for fantasys in your head, examine yourself.
I was very clear in what I wrote, it is YOU that twisted it.

an example of people who[color=darkred]

Well, duh.
Have you ever known someone to attack heavily armed people?
[color=darkred]
>
> Ok, i'll take it as you say then. I don't see how it relates to the movie
> though, that is my issue. Yes its obvious cowards go for easy prey, that
> is what makes them cowards, but what is it that made them go after THIS
> prey in particular. Was it the ease with which they could off the two
> "hippies" or was it the fear in their hearts about true freedom? That is
> my point.

Its because they are backwards REDNECKS!
You know, the thing you call me!

What in the fuck is your problem man?

>
>
> Well then ok, we interpret the movie differently. Do you think if these
> guys saw a small child on the side of the road, which was also easy prey,
> within the context of the movie, they would have shot at it and killed it
> because it was easy? Do you think that the group of thugs who murdered
> the lawyer might have done the same to a farmers hand that decided to
> spend the night camping out under the stars (without the log hair and with
> a horse instead of a chopper) who went unarmed. To me that doesn't fit
> the context of the movie, but of course your entitled to your own opinion.
>
>
> The way *I* saw (not what I WANT to be there, but what comes from the
> majority of Don's threads) it was Don was disparaging hippies

?????
Sorry, I'm confused.

for being
> passive and "out of it" while praising isolationists

Again, ?????

armed to the teeth
> (which had nothing to do with anything IMO). Maybe what you saw is what
> YOU wanted to see, because I don't see any of that there. Maybe you
> WANTED to soften Don's words for him. That's what I saw, and I took it in
> the context of the majority of his posts in this NG. Starting the same
> old shit again, which is why I said "Oh no not again".
>
> Still I'd rather not interpret what Don said and see if he can explain
> what he meant in his own words at this point. Again if it was you that
> wrote it I might have seen it differently, but it still doesn't fit the
> context of the movie in my opinion.
>
> OTOH, going back to No Country For Old Men, it may have fit with that one
> a little better. But even there the main Villain of the movie had no
> qualms about killing either an unarmed old store clerk at the flip of a
> coin (luckily he got the right side of the coin), or another serial
> murderer in his hotel. He had no qualms about killing anything living,
> without knowing who was a pacifist, or who was armed to the teeth, he went
> after everyone. I just don't see it the point, except, again within the
> context of his previous posts, more of the same.

Ken brought up the Easy Rider thing, not me, and I don't remember why he did
it.

Don

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47e97371$0$26030$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:fsbpog0q1i@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> The whole point of the movie wasn't that they were "passive hippies" it
> was that they were free. Passifism had nothing to do with it. They shot
> them because they were too free for middle America. They would have shot
> anyone with the same attitude, and in fact the same ilk killed a lawyer.
> Just some dude in a suit who had no connection to hippies or this
> "pacifism" but did have a connection to the freedom.
>
>
> Don't be stupid, I just said it was one of my favorites.
>
> Fine ok, if they were pistol packing Hells Angels, then none of the story
> would have happened. Your absolutely right. Thanks for making that clear
> to me Don.

So you make a bunch of stuff up, assign it to me, then blame me for it.
Whatever dood.

Don

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

Don

2008-03-25, 8:25 pm

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47e9823c$0$26006$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13uj27kee5c2616@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Yeah, pacifism was the word I wanted. Yes I know what hippies were, I
> know how pot works, but we're discussing a movie and it's implications,
> and it's interpretations. I submit that the directors didn't intend to
> say "hippies are pacifist, therefore they got shot by violent people".
> Instead they said, "These guys were free and thus they scared people who
> didn't know true freedom, and therefore were shot by those people because
> of their fear, and the fact that they were really lying to themselves
> about their own freedom". Do you agree or disagree? I'm not talking about
> real life here.
>
>
>
> We're talking about somebody's interpretation of the 60s in Middle
> America, But you do not want me to say Middle America. Ok, then let me
> say violent idiots. But then again you have the whole lynching mentality
> of the past, and remember we are talking about the past here. Even in the
> movie Middle America isn't pigeon holed though. There is an old farmer
> who takes a liking to their "machines" and in the end I think "Captain
> America" really believes this is the only truly free person left on Earth,
> doing things the right way, working hard, on their own little plot of
> land, and doing their own thing. Sorry Don but it doesn't mention if the
> farmer had any guns or not, so I can't comment on that.

I don't care about his guns, I care about his tractor.
I've had a hankering for some time now to get me an old tractor to fix up,
so I'm looking around.
There's an old boy over there in Gnaw Bone ( http://tinyurl.com/2ogzy2 ) (
http://tinyurl.com/2octm6 ) that has a 1938 Minneapolis Moline orchard
tractor in fair to partly cloudy condition and I'm thinking about dropping
in and ask him if he wants me to stop it from rusting all over his front
yard. Its all dependent on whether it has a 3 point hitch and a PTO.......

Don

2008-03-26, 3:25 am

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13uj6lor0rguc8d@corp.supernews.com...
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:47e9823c$0$26006$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
>
> [edited/snipped]
>
> OK, it's just that I see the non-violence aspect as part of what the
> "good guys" (so to speak) were pertty much about, although that's is
> admittedly going from memory. IOW, they might have gotten rowdy ehre an
> dthere, but they weren't about harming poeple. ALl in all, they were
> just "doing their thing". SO, yes, it's freedom, but that (IMO at least)
> includes other things.
>
> It's hard to separate it completely from real life, because the
> characters and situations were drawn from real life - and any work of art
> is not only itself, but also, at least art which is also commentary is a
> part of, an extension of?, the context/culture/times (not sure which word
> is best) that existed during its creation.
>
> SO, I'm not jsut trying to split hairs for the sake of being annoying,
> jus putting my ownsnippets "out there" so to speak.
>
>
> It's not at all a matter of "me not wanting you to say" this or that.
> I'm exploring some of this as I write, and seking some, what, refeinement
> of the ideas?, definition? - perhaps better to say "accuraciy" or
> "rational exploration"...?
>
> Whatever. I just am trying to say that, even at that time, "Middle
> America" meant "the establishment"/"the herd mentality" *but* not
> necessarily violence - not that it didn't have its violent sectors of
> course, and also not to say that the imposition of certain cultural
> standards couldn't be expereinced (by those imposed-upon) as a form of
> violence. But the pressure was more like being slowly smothered by
> ultra-refined bleached white flour - crushed underfoot by boredom, so to
> speak.
>
> At the same time, one of the lessons, IMO, is that the complacent
> unthinking herd/establishment type of mindset can too easily descend into
> mindless, and even casual, violence.
>
>
> SO no, it's not me "wanting your to say" this or that. I'm trying to
> establish a more three-dimensional picture, primarily for myself but also
> for the sake of clarification. Because rebellion, too, has its dangerous
> extremes.
>
>
>
> Well (going off on a bit of a tangent here) and that past is,
> pathetically (and dangerously, and disgustingly enough) not so much
> "past" as most people like to think, because the only thing stopping
> people from starting back in with that sort of horror is their fear of
> getting caught by "the liberal gummint"...IOW< it's closer to the surface
> than is often thought...
>
> Maybe more accurate to say "Complacent America"...?
>
>
> You were going along OK until you interjected that last bit.
>
> First off, one of the dangers of farming - and this is from relatives who
> actually owned and operated real honest-to-goodness farms (rice and
> soybeans, in Arkansas) - is poisonous snakes. So, sorry, Edgar, but it's
> rather common for a farmer to have some sort of firearm with him, if only
> because of the danger of snakes.
>
> Maybe (but I'm just guessing) a farmer in the West might also be in
> danger from Cougers or Coyotes, or even Wolves. WHen I lived in SOuth
> Carolina in the early 80's, I worked with one fellow who had a small farm
> as a second income, and he had to occasionally shoot feral dogs
> (abandoned pets - they were just trying to survive, but he couldnt afford
> to just let them kill his cows). HE was down-to-eartg, non-violent, even
> tempered - but hey, he had to protect his cows as amatter of economic
> survival.
>
> That is just plain reality. So, sorry to pop your balloon, but it might
> very well be that the ol' farmer had a rifle nearby. Also, depending
> upon just how close to the land he was, and based upon what I've seen
> here and there, he probably wasn't above popping a squirrel, racoon, or
> other critter to put into the stew pot. This info comes in part form
> someone who spent a couple summers as a kid helping pick the cotton - I'm
> not making that up. My own grandfather never resorted to store-bought
> meat, and as a kid, I had venison, woodchuck, and who knows what else,
> when we visited his place. It's an urban, 8not* rural, idea that guns
> are *always* evil or are *only ever* used for criminal reasons. In many
> areas, they remain part of one's survival toolkit.

Last winter when I was working on my garage I saw a guy coming down the road
with camoflage on and an orange hat and a rifle slung over his shoulder so I
walked out to the end of the drive to chat with him. He was my neighbor to
the north whom I hadn't met and he was going to an old treestand in the
woods across from our house to shoot a deer. His rifle was an old
muzzleloader, 58 caliber, and he spoke of these things matter of factly. I
had to stifle a chuckle cause such a thing is unheard of where I'm from. The
only time you see guns around here is when they are about to be used, for a
purpose, and use them they do. Can you imagine, where you are right now,
dressing up in camoflage and walking down the street in broad daylight with
a loaded gun? I've seen people walking along the road with bows, crossbows,
rifles, pistols, who knows what all and nobody pays it any nevermind. The
sheriff himself stood right there on my front porch and told me I can shoot
guns on my own land. I haven't done it though cause it will terrify our
cats. But I'd like to, just because.

> And yeah, that also can be part of freedom - living off the land, rather
> than depending upon food to be trucked in to you.

Just today my wife and I were talking about how many people would instantly
become vegetarians if they had to catch/kill/clean and prepare animals for
their food.
I could catch and eat a fish I guess but I think I'd have to get pretty
hungry before I killed a warm blooded animal. I'm funny that way.

Ken S. Tucker

2008-03-26, 3:25 am

On Mar 25, 1:06 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> Fuck you slut.

Galina has better recipes than Don.
Ken

2008-03-26, 3:25 am

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

>On Mar 25, 1:06 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
Now, did I have to have a reminder of why I have Donboy on killfile?
It's similar to someone leaving a present in the loo instead of flushing.

>Galina has better recipes than Don.
>
>

Actually, made a whole lotta not so classic black beans and rice today
in the slow cooker. Added the secret ingredients, no big wup really,
some blackstrap molasses, some chopped toasted onions, some bacos to
keep it veggie and little square bits of carrot. After the beans, cook,
ladle them out with a strainer, put in big bowl, add molasses and cook,
surprise, bulgar instead of rice in the remaining liquid, adding water
if there isn't enough. Feeds about 20. Lasts in the fridge a long time.

>Ken
>
>

Watching the new boo come up

>
>
>

Ken S. Tucker

2008-03-26, 3:25 am

On Mar 25, 4:50 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47e987f3$0$18851$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edgar, did you miss the posts where I say I've had hair halfway to my XXX
> for 35 years, where I've done every kind of drug known to mankind, where I
> play rock music on multiple instruments, where I own $100k worth of audio
> equipment, where I said I used to ride a Harley chopper, where I said I
> haven't fired a gun in over 4 years, where I've said everyone should be
> free, where I've said no one has the right to harm anyone else, etc., etc.?
>
> In all of that how do you get to the idea that I am a redneck?
>
>
> And right there is where you are wrong.
> Instead of blaming me for fantasys in your head, examine yourself.
> I was very clear in what I wrote, it is YOU that twisted it.
>
> an example of people who
>
>
> Well, duh.
> Have you ever known someone to attack heavily armed people?
>
>
>
>
>
> Its because they are backwards REDNECKS!
> You know, the thing you call me!
>
> What in the fuck is your problem man?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ?????
> Sorry, I'm confused.
>
> for being
>
>
> Again, ?????
>
> armed to the teeth
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ken brought up the Easy Rider thing, not me, and I don't remember why he did
> it.

I don't know man, I was trippin', blame the LDS.
As a college brat, I'd go to pot-parties and I'd enjoy
how when people got stoned, how the conversation
meandered. I was the giggler because I didn't have
a clue what people were talking about, and for some
reason people thought I was intelligent.
When asked a question, I'd meander to Alpha
Centaurus being 4.5 Ly's away and everybody
thought I was "deep"..."wow, that's deep man".

Since I haven't seen, "No Country For Old Men",
I mentioned "Easy Rider", to sound "deep man".

Personally, I'm enjoying the conversation, glad
I mentioned it.
Ken

Ken S. Tucker

2008-03-26, 3:25 am

On Mar 25, 7:54 pm, ++ <fri...@spambot.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
>
> Now, did I have to have a reminder of why I have Donboy on killfile?
> It's similar to someone leaving a present in the loo instead of flushing.

That's right, Don mentioned his "drain-field" has
problems, maybe he hasn't pooped in the last week.

>
> Actually, made a whole lotta not so classic black beans and rice today
> in the slow cooker. Added the secret ingredients, no big wup really,
> some blackstrap molasses, some chopped toasted onions, some bacos to
> keep it veggie and little square bits of carrot. After the beans, cook,
> ladle them out with a strainer, put in big bowl, add molasses and cook,
> surprise, bulgar instead of rice in the remaining liquid, adding water
> if there isn't enough. Feeds about 20. Lasts in the fridge a long time.

Yummy, today we had boiled steak with rice pudding
that had raisins in it. We usually boil our meat, to get
rid of the fat after trimming.

>
> Watching the new boo come up

I didn't know you could see that over the internet,
I'm putting my pants back on !
Ken

Kris Krieger

2008-03-26, 3:25 am

"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in
news:47e987f3$0$18851$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13uj1nhatbsatc5@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Well if YOU were the one writing that, then yes, I would have
> interpreted it that way, but it was Don writing it, and I have to take
> what he writes in the context of the rest of his posts in this NG. I
> expected, for Don, that isolationists armed to the teeth was a good
> thing to him, considering his other posts, and thus see that he thinks
> the hippes are too stupid to carry a gun and protect themselves.

IO guess that's my AAsperger's kicking in - I tend to lose a lto fo the
luggage, and skip to the front of the trrain so to speak - DOn said x,
but then, I said X+1, which is no longer x, but rather, Y; then you said
y+1, which is no longer y, but rather z - IOW, the point is, X was a
launching point and, really, I'm far less interested in whether DOn meant
thsi or that, than I am interested in talking about the film(s) and what
*they* were trying to communicate. Film, and the techniques it uses (as
opposed to the techniques used by other forms of storytelling) is
interesting; arguing over what DOn may or may not have meant is boring.
I see otehr poeple's statements/ideas mire as "launch points". Even if
he menat somethign totally differnt from what *either* of us thought, I'd
prefer to, well, launch, look at the things in the film.

Make sense?

>
>
> Ok, i'll take it as you say then. I don't see how it relates to the
> movie though, that is my issue. Yes its obvious cowards go for easy
> prey, that is what makes them cowards, but what is it that made them
> go after THIS prey in particular. Was it the ease with which they
> could off the two "hippies" or was it the fear in their hearts about
> true freedom? That is my point.

I don't think the "cowardice" aspect is the central issue, just that I
see it as part of the, what, ?gestalt? of the people who did the killing.

I think that hating something, or even feel threatened by something, is
not sufficient unto itself as a reason for the killing - there is a
mosaic of involved factors, I think. SO as you say, they hated the
freedom represented by the two guys, but what pushed their hatred into
murder? After all, one can hate, without killing. In fact, one can
hate, and yet believe that outright murder is wrong.

SO that's what I'm trying to get at. What pushed them over that
particular edge?

>
>
> Well then ok, we interpret the movie differently.

I just have that added idea, mostly. IF they weren't cowards, they might
have been less inclined to jus tup and shoot two peole who were minding
their own business...

> Do you think if
> these guys saw a small child on the side of the road, which was also
> easy prey, within the context of the movie, they would have shot at it
> and killed it because it was easy? Do you think that the group of
> thugs who murdered the lawyer might have done the same to a farmers
> hand that decided to spend the night camping out under the stars
> (without the log hair and with a horse instead of a chopper) who went
> unarmed. To me that doesn't fit the context of the movie, but of
> course your entitled to your own opinion.

Answer to all is "no", but I think it can be illuminating to ask what it
is that makes one person kill, and another person just, oh, holler
insults or something like that.

>
>
> The way *I* saw (not what I WANT to be there, but what comes from the
> majority of Don's threads) it was Don was disparaging hippies for
> being passive and "out of it" while praising isolationists armed to
> the teeth (which had nothing to do with anything IMO). Maybe what you
> saw is what YOU wanted to see, because I don't see any of that there.

OK, well, suffice it (hopefully) to say that I myself am not equating
hippies and isolationists, and the film certainly was not, the latter
being the important point.

> Maybe you WANTED to soften Don's words for him.

<L> I can't really do that sort of thing, either online or in real life,
mainly because I seldom have a dependable understanding of what people
*do* mean/intend/imply/etc. =:-o

OTOH, if I see a particular point, I'm generally inclined to mention it.
ALso, I figure that if I say what I think someone means, they'll either
confirm, or explain what they did mean. ;)

> That's what I saw,
> and I took it in the context of the majority of his posts in this NG.
> Starting the same old shit again, which is why I said "Oh no not
> again".

OK, well, let's just say that right now, I'm talking to you about a film,
and trying to get at some of the points that the film was trying to get
across, and leave it at that ;)

>
> Still I'd rather not interpret what Don said and see if he can explain
> what he meant in his own words at this point. Again if it was you
> that wrote it I might have seen it differently, but it still doesn't
> fit the context of the movie in my opinion.
>
> OTOH, going back to No Country For Old Men,

Yes...

> it may have fit with that
> one a little better. But even there the main Villain of the movie had
> no qualms about killing either an unarmed old store clerk at the flip
> of a coin (luckily he got the right side of the coin), or another
> serial murderer in his hotel. He had no qualms about killing anything
> living, without knowing who was a pacifist, or who was armed to the
> teeth, he went after everyone.

That does sound to me like a totally different motivation, although the
manner of th eviolence, i.e. the randomness of it and casualness with
which it seems to have been committed, seem to be hsared. ((I'm jsut
guessing re: NCFOM, becasue I've not seen it, just going by what's been
described.))

In a way, putting the two side by side almost seems to be asort of
"regressive series", by which I mean, illustrations of how
complacency+hatred can lead to violence, and then, if that is allowed to
continue, it leads to violence that simply has no explanation aside from
deep sociopathy/psychopathology. Just an impression; I'd obviously have
to see the film.

Kris Krieger

2008-03-26, 3:25 am

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:fscchd01gcc@news2.newsguy.com:

[snipped]
>
> Last winter when I was working on my garage I saw a guy coming down
> the road with camoflage on and an orange hat and a rifle slung over
> his shoulder so I walked out to the end of the drive to chat with him.
> He was my neighbor to the north whom I hadn't met and he was going to
> an old treestand in the woods across from our house to shoot a deer.
> His rifle was an old muzzleloader, 58 caliber, and he spoke of these
> things matter of factly. I had to stifle a chuckle cause such a thing
> is unheard of where I'm from. The only time you see guns around here
> is when they are about to be used, for a purpose, and use them they
> do. Can you imagine, where you are right now, dressing up in camoflage
> and walking down the street in broad daylight with a loaded gun?

Well, it *is* Texas <g!> Seriously, tho', no, not in the 'burbs. OTOH,
that fellow prob was going to actually eat what he hunted, as opposed to
people who get all sorts of high-power rifles with super scopes an
dinfrared sensors, just to *kill* something (or worst of all, people who
pay to have some beast tied up, and then they just saunter up and kill
it).

> I've
> seen people walking along the road with bows, crossbows, rifles,
> pistols, who knows what all and nobody pays it any nevermind. The
> sheriff himself stood right there on my front porch and told me I can
> shoot guns on my own land. I haven't done it though cause it will
> terrify our cats. But I'd like to, just because.

In the 'burbs, it's asafety problem, because most houses would be
pierced if ya threw a nail file at them and th epointy end hit. SO
shooting off guns would be a huge hazard. OTOH, if someone has 20 or 100
acres, it's far less of a hazard.

>
>
> Just today my wife and I were talking about how many people would
> instantly become vegetarians if they had to catch/kill/clean and
> prepare animals for their food.
> I could catch and eat a fish I guess but I think I'd have to get
> pretty hungry before I killed a warm blooded animal. I'm funny that
> way.

Having never been in the situation, I don't know how I'd react. I
suspect, tho', that my belly would win out. Even on a prime vegetarian
diet, I can't absorb enough B-complex vitamins, so a subsistance one just
wouldn't cut it. And I've eaten game before. Also read about how to
hang and dress game. I don't necessarily relish the thought, and can't
see doing it for sport, but in a survival situation, well, you do what
you have to do, and people in such situations usually end up deeply
surprising themselves.

Kris Krieger

2008-03-26, 3:25 am

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:fsc6nl017kc@news2.newsguy.com:

[snip]
Kris Said:
Edgar Said:[color=darkred]
>
> Edgar, did you miss the posts where I say I've had hair halfway to my
> XXX for 35 years, where I've done every kind of drug known to mankind,
> where I play rock music on multiple instruments, where I own $100k
> worth of audio equipment, where I said I used to ride a Harley
> chopper, where I said I haven't fired a gun in over 4 years, where
> I've said everyone should be free, where I've said no one has the
> right to harm anyone else, etc., etc.?
>
> In all of that how do you get to the idea that I am a redneck?
>
>

Then Kris Said:
>
> And right there is where you are wrong.
> Instead of blaming me for fantasys in your head, examine yourself.
> I was very clear in what I wrote, it is YOU that twisted it.

You're getting your quotes confused.

>
>
>
> an example of people who
>
> Well, duh.
> Have you ever known someone to attack heavily armed people?

That also was one of my statements. IWO, I was agreeing with what I saw
as being your point. You're getting all those carrots mixed up ;)

[snip]
>
> Ken brought up the Easy Rider thing, not me, and I don't remember why
> he did it.

I think cuzza they also rode bikes, plus, teh thing about bikes being
seen as a free lifestyle, the open road and all of that, which a lot of
other people find tthreatening. But i'm only guessing.

Kris Krieger

2008-03-26, 3:25 am

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:fsc64q0174k@news2.newsguy.com:

>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13uj1nhatbsatc5@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Sigh
> You nailed the point exactly Kris.

All these points are giving me prickles ;)

> I used to ends of the spectrum to show a contrast, to draw a point,
> but again the point was ignored and a fantasy arose in its place.
> In spite of everything to the contrary, everything, to some I am still
> considered a violent redneck.
> What do you make of that sort of thing?
> Be careful in your wording or you'll be looked upon as a Don
> worshipper.

Oh yeah, that.

What do I make of it. Hmm. Well, it's not exactly the burning issue of my
deepest soul. I spend much more time wondering why the north pole of
Saturn has a *hexagonally* shaped opning in the clouds - not round, but
hexagonal. Geez but that vexes me - what can explain it? It makes no
sense given anything that I know about weather patterns and wind and the
flow of gas/vapor. THey showed a photo from one of those missions (?
Voyager?), and there it was, a *hexagon*, a perfect benzene-ring, beehive-
cell hexagon...

Well, anyhoo - I know that