Too much propaganda - The Girl in the Café (2005) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thebin 19 years ago

"And the 3 second snapping at the end of the credits was waaay too much for me. It's like HBO has to say, "Well, you've just enjoyed your dinner and a movie, but now it's time to feel guilty again."

I totally agree with the sentiment, but blaming HBO is silly- they give complete artisitic freedom. Blame Curtis, even if you liked his previous work.

reply

[–] mtupper1 19 years ago

totally agree with you both. There needs to be a line drawn between entertainment and propaganda. I would absolutely have watched a movie on the G-8 regarding the funding of those programs, or a romantic comedy, but to put them together is a bad concoction. Politics aside, i thought the 2 main characters did well in depicting the romance between them. I'm also glad i saw the film, i just don't anticipate watching it ever again.

reply

[–] videodiscounters 19 years ago

OK--fine. All posts below this one are totally BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH! What a bunch of crap! Just comment on the movie. If you have literary political diarrhea, post elsewhere!

reply

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 19 years ago

Well my obviously Repubican friends one has to remember that some issues are not fully understood by the masses. If you lot are Americans it would also be good to think of extreme poverty elemination as a national security issue. After all our latest problems with the third world terrorists spring partially from their poverty. If throwing some money their way helps to eleminate that threat it can only be good for America.

People who take their own lives to make some sort of statement are obviously serious about the issues they are sacraficing themselves for. I mean really, what would rankle you so much that you'd blow yourself up over it?

Finally, if throwing some money toward nations that have not yet produced terrorists ends that possibilty that is also good for America.

reply

[–] tetrahex 19 years ago

its not poverty that makes them blow themselves up though. many people are poorer then the terror countries and do not face such phenomenon. stats i've seen have the suicide bombers mostly coming from middle class, are literate, and educated with atleast hs, and a great many college educated.... its not bitter starvation. heck its not even divorce or whatnot. they come from normal intact families. just look at the 9/11 suicide hijackers for instance. what they do have in common are their fanatical views, and their belief that their society will revere them as martyres. and well a large portion of their societies in fact do.

just look at the big man himself. bin ladin, millionaire. and his sidekick..the doctor:P

reply

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 19 years ago

"its not poverty that makes them blow themselves up though."

How do you know that? Are you one of them?

"many people are poorer then the terror countries and do not face such phenomenon."

Could it be that's because these other countries have less money to make bombs? Your logic escapes me.

"stats i've seen have the suicide bombers mostly coming from middle class, are literate, and educated with atleast hs, and a great many college educated.... its not bitter starvation."

Maybe they aren't blowing themselves up for themselves, but for their neighbors and their beliefs. That's not an alien concept to you is it? And just so you know there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

"heck its not even divorce or whatnot. they come from normal intact families. just look at the 9/11 suicide hijackers for instance. what they do have in common are their fanatical views, and their belief that their society will revere them as martyres."

Along with a desire to get American troops out of what they consider a holy land and the strong belief that any act they commit, regardless how horrible, will be acceptable to God. These guys belonged to a very small fringe group in the Islamic religion. You missed this of course.

"and well a large portion of their societies in fact do. "

Again you are expressing an opinion as if you are an authority on the subject. I freely admit that I am not, but by the same token I KNOW that you are not.

As to bin Ladin. We haven't caught him. Why is that? He may be a millionaire, but he's living like a pauper. People like bin Ladin are the most dangerous of all. They are well-to-do, but are so idealists in the extreme, that wealth and comfort mean nothing to them; the cause is everything.

Yadda yadda yadda

reply

[–] thebin 19 years ago

bbean- you are wrong. Its simply not a poverty issue, its a religious fanaticism issue. No terrorists blowing themselves up in the poorest ghettos of India. No terrorists blowing themselves up on the wretched farms of rural China. No terrorists killing people in the slums of Sao Paolo. Nor in the frozen Russian wasteland.

They are fanatical bigots who want all Jews dead, all Christians converted or killed, all homosexuals stoned to death, and all women subjugated. Its a cultural and religious problem, not a financial one. Many of these jerkoffs are college educated.

reply

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 19 years ago

"bbean- you are wrong."

No thebin. You are wrong. See how easy it is to say someone's wrong? At least I do some research though. You, apparently just want something to be so and justify your attitude with dogged determination with a complete lack of facts or research. In short you are spouting crap and don't even know it. It's a real b!tch to spout the party line and not be able to back it up.

"Its simply not a poverty issue, its a religious fanaticism issue."

Religious fanatacism has little chance of developing in a prosperous environment. There is always a root cause for these things. Ignoring that root cause does not make it non-existent or cause it to go away.

"No terrorists blowing themselves up in the poorest ghettos of India."

India is a democracy.

"No terrorists blowing themselves up on the wretched farms of rural China."

China has a reputation for draconian measures to quell unrest. They are also working toward democracy.

"No terrorists killing people in the slums of Sao Paolo."

Brazil is a democracy.

"Nor in the frozen Russian wasteland."

Did you forget about the Chechen rebels? They didn't just blow themselves up, they've blown up apartment buildings and caused a great deal of mayhem and descruction; even in Moscow. Short attention span eh! Russia, by the way, is a struggling democracy with a very low per-capita income.

"They are fanatical bigots who want all Jews dead, all Christians converted or killed, all homosexuals stoned to death, and all women subjugated."

And they are also a very small minority who got a start in Afghanistan when the U.S. and Russia decided to ignore them after the Russians gave up.

"Its a cultural and religious problem, not a financial one. Many of these jerkoffs are college educated. "

It's rooted in financial problems. Are you telling me the Somalis (in Africa) had no hand in bringing down our blac-khawk helicopters? Are you telling me that two embassies in Africa were not bombed? None of this would have been possible if democracy or a decent living wage were available. And a democracy typically means a decent living wage for it's citizens.

Stating something as fact does not make it true. And I predict that we are going to be having more and more problems facing us from Africa in the very near future.

Yadda yadda yadda

reply

[–] tetrahex 19 years ago

"How do you know that? Are you one of them? "

no, i've read books, and articles on suicide terrorism. the stats just dont back your assertions up. the fact is that most come from stable families are educated. ironically the educated in some of these countries are more fanatical as they are exposed to far more types of hate propaganda. and of course there is no more clearer example then the 19 hijackers of the planes that flew into the twin towers and such. saudi's..and NOT poor...NOT uneducated. heck, some were fanatisised in GERMANY!..that land of horrid poverty.

"

Could it be that's because these other countries have less money to make bombs? Your logic escapes me. "

no, look at the gdp list from lowest to highest. the middle east is low, but certainly not lowest. and the lowest certainly do not always resort to suicide terror.

"
Maybe they aren't blowing themselves up for themselves, but for their neighbors and their beliefs. That's not an alien concept to you is it? And just so you know there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. "

that is the point and you are missing it. it is not because they are poor or uneducated. it is for fanatical belief and martyredom with community strong support and strong group support to make sure they are swiftly and firmly guided along the path to death with all decisions taken out of their hands so there can be no floundering. there tends to also be suicide pacts for the peer pressure to boot. and no, you can't lie about education/income statistics. you are either educated or not. you are either poor compared to your neighbor or not.

"
Along with a desire to get American troops out of what they consider a holy land and the strong belief that any act they commit, regardless how horrible, will be acceptable to God. These guys belonged to a very small fringe group in the Islamic religion. You missed this of course. "

you've been listening to too much pc apologist nonsense. there is wide and deep support for their actions. they may say that they wouldn't kill civilians or cannot really condone it, but their core beliefs sympathise with those of the terrorists. its really fuzzy nonsense.

"
Again you are expressing an opinion as if you are an authority on the subject. I freely admit that I am not, but by the same token I KNOW that you are not. "

terror groups do not benifit when they alienate their own societies. they grow stronger as gthey have been only because there is at the very least widespread tacit support of their actions/goals.

"
As to bin Ladin. We haven't caught him. Why is that? He may be a millionaire, but he's living like a pauper. People like bin Ladin are the most dangerous of all. They are well-to-do, but are so idealists in the extreme, that wealth and comfort mean nothing to them; the cause is everything. "

that has nothing to do with strengthening your claim that terror comes from poverty. he's still rich, still brought up in splendor, and still turned to mass murder like so many others. and no, gi goe did not kill his mommy. he's the perfect example of fanatisism and its roots in RELIGION!!! not poverty. ideology is ideology. not every country becomes nazi's because they are poor.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 19 years ago

It does not matter that I'm outnumbered. Only sheep think that being outnumbered matters. I'm right and I know it.

"no, i've read books, and articles on suicide terrorism. the stats just dont back your assertions up"

Who's books? Who's stats? Always question the source. If most of these people are Republican appologists then the "facts" are mere propoganda. My sources claim no political affiliation.

"you've been listening to too much pc apologist nonsense."

Got this on the Discovery Channel in an interview with an Arab. He was not a PC apologist.

The fact of the matter is poverty of a people is at the core of all of this. The Taliban did not spring up from some educated mass of people, but that does not mean that the educated did not take hold of the idea and embrace it. You are still ignoring the root of all of this. Perhaps your sources are NOT going back far enough.

"there is wide and deep support for their actions. they may say that they wouldn't kill civilians or cannot really condone it, but their core beliefs sympathise with those of the terrorists. its really fuzzy nonsense."

About as fuzzy as our nonsense. Do you ever root for the underdog? Enough said.

"terror groups do not benifit when they alienate their own societies."

Terror groups grow when they can demonstrate that they can strike a blow against a far bigger enemey. They do this to the G8 on a daily basis. How many of the G8 countries have terrorist activities, from the same groups, mounted against them? All of them!

We have failed in Iraq and it will be years before anyone admits this. Viet Nam was a similar situation. We failed there because we ignored the real problem. We were trying to stop communism, but gave the Vietnamese nothing worthwhile to replace it. Plus we killed quite a few of them. This was a civil war. I wonder what ours would have been like if Germany, France, and Britain sent large numbers of troops to help in that effort. I think the North would have lost.

"they grow stronger as gthey have been only because there is at the very least widespread tacit support of their actions/goals. "

It still began with very poor people who had nothing else to cling to except a rather extreme form of the Islamic Religion. In Afghanistan. With the Taliban.

"that has nothing to do with strengthening your claim that terror comes from poverty."

Bin Ladin is a multimillionaire living in poverty. Say again please?! So you think all these poor Afghans do not admire a man who will risk his life and live in filth for a cause? Even though he could be living in splendor? Where the heck is your head dude? He may have all kinds of money, but the man lives as if he has none.

"he's still rich, still brought up in splendor, and still turned to mass murder like so many others. and no, gi goe did not kill his mommy. he's the perfect example of fanatisism and its roots in RELIGION!!! not poverty."

Once again the Taliban formed in extremely poor regions of Afghanistan simply because the people there had nothing else to turn to. From there the idea snow balled.

"ideology is ideology. not every country becomes nazi's because they are poor."

You just scewered yourself there bud. The Nazi party took hold precisely because in post WWI Germany a simple loaf of bread cost a wheelbarrow of paper currency. The people were tired of paying so much in war reparations that ANY alternative looked good to them. Including the Nazi party.

You are obviously an intellgent person, but please study your history.

Did communism grow as a grand idea? No, it grew when Russia could no longer afford to fight in WWI and the Russian people were starving. Again that's poverty.

Spreading the wealth is in our own best interest. And wealth breeds more wealth.

Yadda yadda yadda

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tetrahex 19 years ago

"
Who's books? Who's stats? Always question the source. If most of these people are Republican appologists then the "facts" are mere propoganda. My sources claim no political affiliation.
"

like any book on terror? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400063175/ Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (Hardcover)
by Robert Pape

there are plenty more. the whole 9/11 terror/middle east book explosion passed you by i guess.

its not a fringe opinion. it is simply a fact. and i'm a democrat so really politics has nothing to do with it anyways.

"
About as fuzzy as our nonsense. Do you ever root for the underdog? Enough said. "

and thus you agree, there is support in the community. martyrdom operations thrive in such enviroments.

"
Terror groups grow when they can demonstrate that they can strike a blow against a far bigger enemey. They do this to the G8 on a daily basis. How many of the G8 countries have terrorist activities, from the same groups, mounted against them? All of them!
"

?? stating the obvious? they attack the great satan..really?

"We have failed in Iraq and it will be years before anyone admits this. Viet Nam was a similar situation. We failed there because we ignored the real problem. We were trying to stop communism, but gave the Vietnamese nothing worthwhile to replace it. Plus we killed quite a few of them. This was a civil war. I wonder what ours would have been like if Germany, France, and Britain sent large numbers of troops to help in that effort. I think the North would have lost.
"

its true we didn't send in enough troops to fight a geurilla style war successfully. and that was part of the cold war. the vietnamese didn't build their migs and stuff. anyways off on a tangent...

"
It still began with very poor people who had nothing else to cling to except a rather extreme form of the Islamic Religion. In Afghanistan. With the Taliban. "

again, it is not inevitible that poor people become extremist fanatics.

"Bin Ladin is a multimillionaire living in poverty. Say again please?! So you think all these poor Afghans do not admire a man who will risk his life and live in filth for a cause? Even though he could be living in splendor? Where the heck is your head dude? He may have all kinds of money, but the man lives as if he has none.
"

he did not come from poverty. and that is what you are claiming. that poverty creates terrorists. he chose the life of a terror monger hiding in afganistan, and that is quite different. its much harder to live a life of luxury when you are up to that kind of stuff.

"
Once again the Taliban formed in extremely poor regions of Afghanistan simply because the people there had nothing else to turn to. From there the idea snow balled. "

no, its not a matter of having no choice. theres a reason there are madrassas(religious schools) to brainwash the youth. it takes more then handing out guns to the very poor and asking them to fight the great satan:P many of the madrassas in pakistan and afganistan were funded by the saudi's and other middle easterners. many imams/mosques are commissioned/built by those who wish to spread fundamentalist idealogy. it does not sprout from a vacume.

"
You just scewered yourself there bud. The Nazi party took hold precisely because in post WWI Germany a simple loaf of bread cost a wheelbarrow of paper currency. The people were tired of paying so much in war reparations that ANY alternative looked good to them. Including the Nazi party.
"

not really, i chose the nazi's for the very fact that they were poor after ww1. does every poor country become nazified? obviously not. suffering and poverty were not limited to germany..even back then. and in the germans case the poverty was from the direct actions of france and the allies with their reperations, and that is much different from the cases of the countries creating suicide terrorists. we actually funnel vast quantities of money to these countries. and especially in the saudis case we actually built their country for them, every...their infrastructure, their oil assets, everything. and all the while they kept the foreign workers in their separate compounds so they could keep their backwards culture uncontaminated by western ideas. the situations could not be more different.

"
You are obviously an intellgent person, but please study your history. "

take your own advice.

"
Did communism grow as a grand idea? No, it grew when Russia could no longer afford to fight in WWI and the Russian people were starving. Again that's poverty. "

communism came out of idealism and was a revolution against the authoritarian rule of the czar and was a project to solve the inequities of society. it wasn't a religious jihad to please the will of god. it wasn't to throw out infidels or keep them from defiling holy lands with their presense and such. sure they had poor people rise up, but once again its not quite the same, the 9/11 bombers were not poor. most suicide bombers aren't that bad off compared to their neighbors. and of course not all starving people became communists:P the inevitibility isn't there. the fanatics from afganistan and pakistan are not looking at huge skyscrapers and decadent mansions and such of the rich and becoming fanatics. they are more or less ALL poor. atleast far more evenly then russia was.

and simply making a people not poor doesn't make them any less fanatical. once again look at the saudi's. many saudi's have enormous wealth. and look at what they do with it, they fund the spread of terror. there were fundraising drives after 9/11 to raise funds for the families of suicide bombers. 155 million was raised in one 2002 telethon alone.

"
Spreading the wealth is in our own best interest. And wealth breeds more wealth. "

of course, but its not as simple as people make it to be. just throwing money at problems, distorts local markets/economies. supports horrible regiems. papers over corruption...etc etc etc. aid should be rational and conditional.

reply

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 19 years ago

aihyah

"again, it is not inevitible that poor people become extremist fanatics."

I agree with this. The point is though that poverty is and always will be a contributing factor to terrorism. It many not be the only cause, but it is certainly a root cause. One among many.

I'm a Libertarian. And as a Libertarian my view is that our goverments only viable purpose is to protect our rights a U.S. citizens. That is what the constitution was written to do and that is what our lawmakers should be concentrating on.

"Liberating" the people of Iraq does not further that purpose. Interferring in Israel over what amounts to a family feud does not further that purpose. It does not protect our rights as citizens so we can persue "life, liberty, and happiness." paraphrased

Our government should never have gotten us into the G8 KNOWING that the U.S. might be called upon to "kick into the kitty" on issues like poverty. Americans are the most generous people in the world WITHOUT being coerced into contributing by our own government. All world leaders seem to publicly ignore that simple fact, while knowing the truth of it behind closed doors.

But now that we are invovled we are committed to being viable members of the G8 until someone has the foresight to either get us out of it, or impress upon the other members that America's citizens can and will fund efforts like this on their own without out governments forcing it upon us.

Yadda yadda yadda

reply

[–] lel513 19 years ago

Wow, this thread has really gone out of control. First of all, I am offended bbean that you assumed people who criticized the movie were Republicans who were against funding to Africa. I am not a Republican(I hate Bush) and my criticism about the movie was not its message but the way they slapped it together with a romantic comedy. That is what I said in the original message on this thread. Other then that I'm not going to debate the issue, just to say if we(being America) can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war in Iraq, why can't we spend some of that money to help starving people in Africa. If the money doesn't help after a number of years we can stop, but at least try.

reply

[–] Guillaume_Fayot 19 years ago

lel513:

I did not assume that every poster here was a Republican.

As long a root causes are ignored they will continue to have a devasting effect.

You have every right to be offended. I'm offended that obviously intellgent people are so easily swayed by right-wing and left-wing propaganda. For example, both parties are using Iraq as a political football. Unfortunately there are real live human beings involved that neither party seems to care about.

This is a major issue I have with Democrats that seem to have started this "broad-brush" approach to criticism. The Republicans have adopted this tactic as well. It's denigrating and insulting. It also prevents any real dialog from taking place. When people like Ann Coulter accuse half the population of treason I think this country is in real trouble. Treason, by the way, is an offense punishble by death. THAT is in the constitution.

I never agreed with the war on Iraq. I did agree (slightly) with throwing Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. But frankly all of this crap started when the British decided to force three (or more) warring tribes of people to share the same country. There have been problems in that region of the world ever since.

No civil war succeeds when it's citizens are secondary participants to that war. Iraq was not ready for independance or its people would have done this themselves long ago. Forcing independence from outside is doomed to failure. After all our civl war was OUR CIVIL WAR. Though we had outside help the outsiders did not start it or finish it.

Finally the Taliban, the source of all of our current terrorist woes, started in a very poor region of Afghanistan (the whole country is poor by the way) when religious fundamentalists convinced a portion of the population that their way was the best way. How many of those converted would not have been had they been a bit more prosperous?

reply

[–] lel513 19 years ago

bbean:

You said and I quote: "Well my obviously Repubican friends one has to remember that some issues are not fully understood by the masses." in your first reply to the thread, so don't try to deny it. And what did you think of the movie, which is what this thread is supposed to be about?

reply

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 19 years ago

"Well my obviously Repubican friends one has to remember that some issues are not fully understood by the masses."

Was I addressing you specifically? No I was not.

in your first reply to the thread, so don't try to deny it.

You sound might defensive to me dude. There are pills for that.

"And what did you think of the movie, which is what this thread is supposed to be about? "

And what are you responding to? Bugger off butt-head.

Yadda yadda yadda

reply

[–] ikanboy 19 years ago

"You sound might defensive to me dude. There are pills for that."

"And what are you responding to? Bugger off butt-head."

Methinks thou dost protest too much! Perhaps you need some of those pills?

reply

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 19 years ago

PhilipWyckoff:

"Methinks thou dost protest too much!"

Really!?! And what's your excuse?

Read the thread from top to bottom and get back to me on that eh?

It's been fun gents, but there comes a time when it becomes glaringly obvious that no amount of reason will penetrate. After all more than a handfull of brain-cells are required to see beyond the immediate problems.

Something about ignoring history and repeating it's mistakes comes to mind.

Yadda yadda yadda

reply

[–] ikanboy 19 years ago

"Read the thread from top to bottom and get back to me on that eh? "

Did so!

You called the previous poster defensive and then (defensively) insulted him. You're so defensive that you have to attack anything that doesn't concur with your narrow opinion, which is: stop poverty and stop all of humanities problems!

You claim "no amount of reason will penetrate", as if your reasoning is faultess! It ceases to be a discussion when insults take the place of cogent points. You have many(cogent points) as do others! No-one's opinion can be definitive!

reply

[–] lel513 19 years ago

Bbean,

You are defensive and get way too into your arguement. I think you didn't even see the movie and are just using this forum to espouse your own political views. If you did see it, give us a little review of what you thought of it.

reply

[–] untamed_atalanta 19 years ago

regardless of the propaganda, there is a good message at the heart of this film. on top of that it's definitely bill's best performance. ;)

reply

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 19 years ago

I think the film worked well for it's intention.

I was a bit surprised at the turn it took about mid-way through and was intially disappointed when it became political. Then I got used to the idea of the new direction and appreciated what the message was.

It could have been two seperate films. One going toward a romantic conclusion and the other starting with the political question and making the blooming romance a side story.

From the producer and director point of view I'm sure it did exactly as intended. Got you hooked on a story between two people and then delivering a message.

As to the insults and to Ikan in particular. People who risk my life and the lives of my family members with stupid political policies deserve every insult I can muster. And by the way the insults didn't start with me. "the whole mid-east...passed you by I guess" was pretty frigging insulting considering what I know about the middle-east and what you folks obviously do not. Have you been there? I have! If you can dish it out you better be prepared to take it.

By the way. How are you guys going to feel about all this when the draft comes back and you and your friends are "volunteered" to serve your country?

Yadda yadda yadda

reply

[–] blaine3 19 years ago

Everybody is missing the point. The Western Democracies and the Russian Empire have been occupying the East and just about everywhere there is raw material and slave or cheap labor for the past 500 years. This has included much warfare, killing and even genocide. Then suddenly the western powers react to terrorism on its own soil with amazement and indignation. I'm surprised it took this long for the occupied to strike back. This good life at the expense of the third world has been going on so long that even the average joe feels a sense of entitlement and superiority.

reply

[–] meigie 19 years ago

Spot on, Dude. I couldn't have said it better!!!

reply

[–] s-bongo5 19 years ago

Well said!!! When your belly is full, there's alot more contentment. I wonder how such comments will change if the people were out there actually helping the less fortunate. Now, I would love to hear from those people. Republicans, Democrates? Who really cares!! Look inside your hearts people!!! Start thinking for yourselves and simply do the right thing!

reply

[–] j-miguel-goncalves 19 years ago

Praise your God - the dollar bill - in you pocket, of course. eheheh, you've made my day... I bet you *e*k o*f, by watching a 100 dollar bill.

reply

[–] j-miguel-goncalves 19 years ago

You're scared they going to get your money ? You should go out more.

reply

[–] neptune3116 19 years ago

I felt it was a bit over the top on with the political agenda.....but, let's face it....and get used to it.....we'll be seeing politics in most movies in the future. I liked the movie.....there was good tension between the characters and I was entertained for the duration.

reply

[–] lel513 19 years ago

What are you talking about neptune, why will we be seeing politics in most movies in the future? I think there has always been politics in movies and there is no more now than in the past. I don't think there is anything changing that would make movies suddenly be filled with political views.

reply

[–] Stratego (29246) 3 years ago

Oops!

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kirbyjp-1 19 years ago

I so agree! I was just complaining to my husband about the very same thing after viewing the movie this evening.

reply

[–] meigie 19 years ago

Personally, I feel that the combination of romance and politics was quite appropriate. In "real life," neither romance nor politics exists in a vacuum. If a man's life is so wrapped up in a political job that he has no time for a personal or romantic relationship, it is likely that he is not predisposed to "standing up to the leaders and showing his own courage." It is likely that some catalyst would be required for him to break out of the confines of his compromising pattern. Without the romantic element of Gina, only some invasion of his life by terror or personal tragedy would have been sufficient to shake Lawrence out of his complacency.
One more point that I would like to make regarding this thread is about a trend that I have observed in discussion boards in general. This point does not particularly apply to the initial post in this thread. However, the trend is particularly egregious in threads like this one where there are accusations about people not being adequately educated to discuss a particular topic. The trend I refer to is that of ignoring many, if not all, of the traditional rules of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar in general. In some cases, I am happy to cut people some slack because I recognize that English is not their first language. However, when a poster states "i am a educatedd american" or "im british Colege studint" (not direct quotes, but composites of the sort of things I have seen)I find it difficult to give any credence to the assertions or opinions of the poster. If you are, in fact, educated in the English language, please take the time to use it correctly for its intended purpose: communication. Sloppy typing communicates one thing: i are a idiot.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] meigie 19 years ago

"'spelling-homophobia'"
Are you suggesting that I am afraid of homosexual spellers? Perhaps you mean that I am afraid of misspelled homonyms.
"The only time I get annoyed by spelling is when it's used by hypocrites." Well, hypocrites annoy me whether they are "using spelling" or not. I believe I pointed out the fact that the spelling and grammar problems were particularly egregious because some of the people in the thread who were exhibiting the problems were also arguing that those who disagreed with them were not adequately educated. This would be, for me, a pretty good example of a hypocrite.
"'not worthy of my attention'"
Excuse me, I don't believe I used that phrase. If I implied that in anything I said, I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that these people have nothing valuable to say. I only meant to say that random misspelled words and incorrect punctuation convey the impression of ignorance and/or laziness. By the way, please note that my signature line is a quote from a poem by E. E. Cummings. He was well-known for manipulating punctuation, spelling, and capitalization to achieve various effects in his poetry. He happens to be my favorite poet and is certainly worthy of anyone's attention.
Where can I get a "spelling stick" such as the one you mention? Will it work better than Spell-check?

Sincerely,
Meigie

time is a tree; this life one leaf
but love is the sky.....
e e cummings

reply

[–] saulodavi2 19 years ago

I agree with you. I just watched the movie yesterday and I felt it was kind of lost between a drama (the man's life could have been more detailed, since he was a very lonely man) and a movie that aimed to convey a social message. It should have been a drama or a political movie, I think. Nonetheless, I give it 4 out of 5 stars...

reply