XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.current-films   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: paul@harper.net   
      
   On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:20:24 -0400, "John W. Kennedy"   
    wrote:   
      
   >Paul Harper wrote:   
   >> Troy.Heagy@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>> Paul Harper wrote:   
   >>>> dialogue is some of the shittiest exposition I have every had to listen   
   >>>> to. When his characters were *supposed* to be making speeches, then   
   >>>> fine, but even when they weren't, they were *still* making speeches.   
   >>> Sounds like Shakespeare.  He did alright (or so I'm told).   
   >>   
   >> We have progress. At least in that posting you admit you don't know   
   >> what you are talking about.   
   >>   
   >> And anyone who thinks that...   
   >>   
   >> "A mote it is to trouble the mind's eye. In the most high and palmy   
   >> state of Rome, a little ere the mightiest Julius fell, the graves stood   
   >> tenantless, and the sheeted dead did squeak and gibber in the Roman   
   >> streets; as stars with trains of fire and dews of blood, disasters in   
   >> the sun; and the moist star upon whose influence Neptune's empire   
   >> stands was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse."   
   >>   
   >> is comparable to...   
   >>   
   >> "Get the hell out of our Galaxy"   
   >>   
   >> Has lost his mind some considerable distance beyond redemption.   
   >   
   >A) You need to learn the difference between verse and prose, which makes   
   >you a moron.   
      
   And you need to learn the difference between quality and quantity,   
   which makes you a raging fanboy.   
      
   >B) You're cherry-picking, which makes you a weasel.   
      
   Well, since Straczynski has done precisely that to assorted posts of   
   mine in the past, completely throwing away the context as well, I   
   would find it difficult to argue with that. I look forward to you   
   letting him know your opinion of him.   
      
   Still, it seems to work for Michael Moore, so why shouldn't   
   Straczynski use the same mechanism?   
      
   >C) In the context of your own premise, the above example is completely   
   >irrelevant, which makes you insane.   
      
   Really?  Comparing one writer's output to another's is insane? Even   
   when the original comparison wasn't mine?  Who's the insane one around   
   here, tick dick?   
      
   >None of which, of course, are your /real/ problem, which is that you're   
   >nothing but a fanboy who was disappointed when his idol didn't dance to   
   >his fantune. Like many another such fanboy in such a situation, you've   
   >simply gone rabid.   
      
   I don't do idols. And that is 100% Straczynski's problem with me (and   
   several other of my countrymen - and yours too - come to think of it).   
   Fortunately for him, there are enough unquestioning sycophants around   
   to make up the missing numbers. "Oh Joe, you're wonderful, Joe, Joe,   
   please talk to me Joe, bless me, anoint me, make my life mean   
   something, please please please...".  Morons.   
      
   >(Si parva licet componere magnis, Dorothy L. Sayers believed that   
   >something of the sort is the theory that best explains Judas....)   
      
   Funnily enough, the pointlessness of comparing the small (Straczynski)   
   to the great (Shakespeare) is exactly the fallacy I was illustrating.   
      
   Thanks for making my point for me.   
      
   Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)