He was a good writer but
he was also a drunken, drug-addled *beep* Two hours of watching of the fatuous moron proved that.
share.........And that's ALL you got out of this documentary?
I SEE. But THOMPSON is a "moron". Yeah, Go On....
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
[deleted]
Ooh, another Internet Bad Ass. Scary, scary, scary.
Totally drug-free and a 167 IQ on this end, Big Talker. Go back to your Bill O'Reilly circle jerk.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Bill O'Reilly circle jerk? WTF does that mean? Hey *beep* insults carry more weight when they actually mean something. Even an obvious imbecile like you should know that.
share"When They Mean Something"?
Sorry, not my fault if you're too dim to interpret the English Language. (As I've noticed from some of your other posts, along with this one.) You might want to take your own words into consideration while you're running around barking at people on these threads...
Here. I'll explain: You sound like a cheap, argumentative Bill O'Reilly clone, busting in and laying judgements on the thread topics and on the other posters in a way that does nothing more than draw attention to your own loudmouthed self. Or, in simpler, more comprehensible terms, just another blustering internet f*c*w*t.
There. Can you grasp that, son? I doubt it. Merry Christmas, jagoff.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
What's your obsession with this O'Reilly person? Did he not pay up when you sucked his dick for a dollar?
By they way, you imbecile, the "L" in English language isn't capitalized. You really are a *beep* moron.
I'm a "moron"....but you don't know who Bill O'Reilly is.
And your rebuttal hinges on the capitalization of a letter.
Game.
Set.
And Match.
Happy New Year. And Good Riddance.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You really have a fetish for this O'Reilly person don't you?. He's all you can talk about it seems. But you've let your depraved fantasies about your performing mutual masturbation with him, to wit: your post about having a circle jerk with O'Reilly, distract you from what the original thread was about. That is, that two hours of watching Hunter Thompson drink and drug himself into oblivion was almost as un-entertaining as reading most of his later works.
shareYOU'RE the one obsessed with gay sex and masturbation, I noticed. Freudian Slip? Or have you never heard of him, either?
As for the original point of this thread, you never heard me denying that Thompson's writing powers were on the wane. Or that he was some sort of moral beacon.
However, in his prime, he WAS an American Original, worthy of comparison to Twain and Mencken, and he lived LARGE, because he COULD. Too bad for YOU if that doesn't coincide with your opinions of how ANYBODY should behave. Welcome to the Real World, Dipsh*t, ye who have yet to suggest that you yourself have ever contributed a goddam thing to the world, besides some internet hate posts...
Back to the movie at hand, you dolt....I felt that one of the points of the documentary was the sadness of watching any lionized icon - Thompson, Hemingway, Michael Jordan, Bobby Fischer, whoever - as their abilities desert them, and how Thompson's decay was just one aspect of how those icons deal with it.
Now, are we back on track according to your specifications, Thread Cop, or do you need to go google any of those other names?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
[deleted]
OK, I'm Juuuuust about through with you....
Now, James Wood, if you're so certain that Thompson bears no literary comparison to Mencken or Twain......
Then explain to me where I was wrong, you being a first-cless literary critic and all.
C'mon, it'll be easy for a big smart guy like you, what with you being armed with your big sister's thesaurus and all. Show me your dissective and analytical skills.
And no Cliff Notes cheating, either. I'll know.
Oh, and by the way....Yeah, I know what a "Freudian Slip" means. And I've read Twain and Mencken back to front....a claim I seriously doubt that you can make.
Dazzle me with your acumen, won't you?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Even someone of your obviously limited perspicacity should be able to see that there is little to compare between Twain and Thompson, or even Mencken and Thompson for that matter. If you think that one readable book about the Hell's Angels and the two Fear and Loathing books which had their merits but were otherwise flawed, compare to the works of Mencken and Twain, then you really are more illiterate than you appear. Why not go all out and tell me that Thompson is a worthy successor to Shakespeare and Dickens? You no doubt think so why not say it? Twain and Mencken were dedicated artists. Hunter Thompson was a semi-coherent,drug-addled alcoholic. He had gifts but he drank and drugged them into oblivion and ended up writing a pathetic sports blog. And you think this puts him the same class as these literary masters? You are either putting me on or incredibly naive.
And what's this about James Woods? First Bill O'Reilly now James Woods. Keep your gay male crushes to yourself, I have no interest.
Didn't think you could meet that challenge.
Instead, all you can do is hurl invective and state your own opinion as undeniable "fact". You have a personal dislike for Thompson, based more on his private life, his habits and his political beliefs than on his actual work, and you seek to elevate yourself by tearing him (and his fans) down, instead of objectively absorbing and accepting his writing for what it was.
You worship literary gods with no real critical discernment or detachment. Comparing Thompson to Shakespeare is like comparing baseball to chess - The two styles and subject matter are so irrelevant to each other that it doesn't make sense to even try. And Dickens did hack newspaper columnist work, too, but then that doesn't fit in with your argument, now does it?
"They had their merits but were otherwise flawed"? As if Twain never put out a sub-par piece of work (Ever read "Captain Stormfield's Visit To Heaven"?), or that all of Mencken's stuff was Nobel-worthy.
And, so WHAT if Thompson had a substance abuse problem? So did Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Edgar Allan Poe. Coleridge's "Kublai Khan" was written while he was entirely swacked on opium (As was Lewis Carroll when he wrote "Alice In Wonderland", for that matter), and Poe was deep into laudanum and absinthe when he scrawled out "Lenore" and "The Masque Of The Red Death", but I don't see you bitching about those works.
See, you can't really defend your positions - you can only back up and screech that you're Right because you're Right.
And....For a self-proclaimed persipacious Genius such as yourself....I didn't THINK that that you would recognize the name James WOOD, the chief literary critic for the New York Times, instead confusing him with the actor James WOODS. Just as I thought you would.
Let me guess. You're Home Schooled, aren't you? That, or a private, probably religious academy. You REEK of that self-righteous, grandiose, superior attitude.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Your stupidity is even more pronounced when you get your ire up. I made no reference to the occupation of the James Woods whom you mentioned. Only that you seem to have a homosexual crush on him, whomever he may be.
It's no doubt an effort in futility to point this out to someone of your obvious low intelligence and literacy but the sheer volume of Twain's work and originality puts Thompson's to shame. Twain's worst work is far superior to Thompson's best. As for education and credentials, your lack of both is exemplified in your inability to make a coherent point, your lack of attention to detail and your constant use of red herrings such as Woods and O'Reilly which have nothing to do with the point at hand but do seem to provide you some sort of depraved sexual thrill.
Me? My "Ire's Up"? You DO like to flatter yourself, don't you? Wait, I think I've figured you out just a little bit more..
You hate Thompson so intensely because your father was an abusive alcoholic / dope fiend that sexually abused you as well - (assuming you're male - notice I didn't say a "man")- and that would explain your need to condemn anybody that offends your personal taste as being gay, as well as your seething contempt for Hard Livers.
Kinda sad, I guess. You'd be pitiable, a little, if you weren't so pathetic. After all, you're the one whose sole recurring argument is that merely refering to another man as a cultural point means that there must be a lurking homosexual lust underneath it. Maybe you were molested by an particularly macho English professor or a balding writing instructor instead of Dear Old Dad? Whoever it was, they seem to have left a big dent in your brain...
It also helps to explain your childish need to smear those that differ from you. As well as your egotistical, over-compensating inability to tell the difference between your opinion and verifiable fact. You are one scared, belligerent, floor-pissing little puppy.
Thompson has been debated all across the spectrum for decades, long before you or I locked horns, but one thing that nobody ever said (except for envious cranks and imitators)was that Thompson was a BAD writer. Even his fiercest critics, like Pat Buchanan and G Gordon Liddy admired his ability to put words together.
But looky here - along comes kuroino77, screaming - "YOU'RE ALL WRONG!!! I HATE THOMPSON SO YOU ALL SHOULD TOO OR YOU'RE GAY!"
Really, now - How can you expect to be taken seriously with an attitude like that?
"Twain's worst work is far superior to Thompson's best"? That is PURELY a matter for conjecture, and I don't think that Tom Wolfe would have ranked Thompson alongside Twain as a great American humorist if there were any scholarly resistance to that idea. As far as Twain's "originality" - This is no slur on Twain, for whom I have the utmost respect, but even he didn't have an entire genre of writing named after his own personal style - but then you and I may have entirely different definitions of the word "Originality" - in that you probably consider yourself an "original" writer. Oh well - maybe one day you'll be recognized as a practitioner of the "Egomaniacal Screed" style of writing.....
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Wonderful, another entire post full of the usual inane blather, puerile insinuation and dunce-like generalization and that is more a product of your fetid and festering imagination than anything pertinent to the issue at hand. The truly hilarious aspect of all this is that you actually think you are making some sort of grandiloquent statement when in reality your artless ranting is all over the map with its wild conjecture that, in your typical witless manner, fails to make any relevant or even coherent point.
It’s no doubt that you really do think that Hunter S. Thompson is in the pantheon of truly great literary lights such as Mark Twain. He, Thompson, is obviously a writer who has appeal for semi-literate dolts such as you. Give Harold Robbins a try sometime, he should be easy for you to read and comprehend. You’d certainly find him superior to, say, Defoe, Thackeray or Joyce. You could continue making an ass of yourself saying so on-line.
I stand by my original point that Hunter S. Thompson did some good writing but watching him on film for two hours was an unpleasant experience. Obviously it wasn’t for you though. No doubt because your entire pathetic, illiterate life is an unpleasant experience.
And a Very Happy New Year to you.
Perhaps you've made a resolution to finally get some therapy regarding your God Complex and your uncontrollable need to sh*t on people online, instead of continuing to claim that you fill your swollen noggin with the writings of people that probably would have kicked you in the kidneys upon hearing your smug self-glorifications, especially when hearing you shamelessly use their good names to inflate the value of your own opinion.
Maybe you should try another line of reading, something that might increase your appreciation of things like humility and empathy, instead of fueling the pseudo-profundities of a hateful, envious, tenth-grade literature critic wanna-be.
The interesting thing about your total lack of insight or perceptive abilities is your needy assumption that I HAVEN'T read Descartes, Joyce, DeFoe or any of the titans for whom YOU wield such a (secretly gay?) hard-on. Your foaming-at-the-mouth conviction that I MUST regard Thompson as the ne plus ultra of all writing, as you so desperately need that assumption to validate your argument. That your merely having read those same authors somehow elevates you to their status.
Unlike the speculations regarding your depraved background that I have indulged in, your stale bitcheries accorded my personality and habits sound remarkably similar to the squealings of a frequently-beaten, bully-attracting, higher-IQ-than-average-but-certainly-no-Genius, bedwetting, neurotically insecure, Social-Outcast, Online-Sex-Predator, Mama's-Boy Freak. You're no Pro, that's for damn sure.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Frequently-beaten, bully-attracting, higher-IQ-than-average-but-certainly-no-Genius, bedwetting, neurotically insecure, Social-Outcast, Online-Sex-Predator, Mama's-Boy Freak. You're no Pro, that's for damn sure.
An apt description of yourself to be sure. Your IQ isn't all that high but otherwise an apt description. Your ideas about capitalization are always fascinating as well. You apply capital letters at random for no apparent reason, a sure sign of the poorly-educated, semi-literate.
Blah Blah, Blah. Don't you ever get tired of typing the same sentence over and over? "I'm Smart and You're Stupid!", with a few alternating words traded from your thesaurus? You DO realize that that's all you've been doing for a week now, right?
Ah well, what the hell. It's not like I've had any silly ideas, like actually changing your opinion about anything. Your endless loop of self-glorifying bullsh*t pretty much precludes ANYBODY doing that, I think. Nor, like any other poor writer, are you actually interested in bringing anybody around to your point of view. You're just here to listen to yourself rant. Not once have you in any way demonstrated how your idols are morally or culturally superior to Thompson, despite my challenge to you to do so, except in the size of their reputations, which certainly appears to be more than enough to trigger that drool reflex that you confuse with your own critical perceptiveness.
You just go on and on about how Thompson was a drunk and a fool and a moron. Or flogging your obsession with petty technicalities, like punctuation or capitalization. (Wow. THOSE are undeniable proof of BAD IDEAS, aren't they? Lucky that Joyce never misplaced a single capital letter during "Ulysses", eh? 'Woulda ruined THE WHOLE BOOK!)
You're one of those myopic dolts who confuse a "Bad" person with a bad WRITER, aren't you? Which I'd bet works quite conveniently to your advantage. "Anybody that likes somebody I think is a Bad writer is a Bad Person, TOO! So if I name-drop "GOOD" writers, then that must make ME a GOOD writer! It's so EASY!" I'd think that "Simple" would be a more fitting term, for what should be obvious reasons....
One of the interesting things is how I've never claimed that Thompson was NOT a flawed, mercurial writer or human being, or that his skills were diminishing with age and abuse. All I said was, "That's ALL you got from the movie?" and you went completely boop-shooby. Have you always been this high-strung and reactionary? Or did that start after the "Geek" and "Fag" remarks began, soon after your literary aspirations became known to the school bullies? (Or are you still just pissed that Obama won?)
If you're ever going to make it in the real world of real writing, you'd better develop a damned bit thicker skin, or you'll never be anything but an unpublished crybaby, sending hate letters to editors that turned down your three-thousand-page dissertation on how you're a "better" writer than your cable repairman.
But So What? It's not like your opinion matters any more than mine. Except mine, to my girlfriend, daughter, friends and dogs, and yours to the Dostoyevsky buttplug you keep hidden in that ratty TP cozy that granny crocheted for you. We each have our own set of values, don't we? You Bet.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
[deleted]
Let’s review the story so far: I posted my opinion of the movie, to wit: that Thompson produced some worthwhile work, but watching him on film was an unpleasant experience. I started the thread; I neither responded to you nor sought out your uninformed opinion. You, however, in the manner of most knuckle-dragging chin-droolers, were utterly intolerant of an opinion that differed from yours and responded in an insanely hyperbolic manner. You didn't just take exception to my opinion in a measured and reasonable way, you responded with bile and outrage making all sorts of wild accusations and bringing up the names of people (always men, interestingly enough) who were completely irrelevant to the subject. In subsequent posts you continued your over-the-top ranting and raving and constantly veered off into the land of the utterly irrelevant. The last post even saw the introduction of your girlfriend and your dog. You didn’t explain how one tells the difference though, but I digress.
Hunter Thompson and this execrable movie have long since moved out of my sphere of interest. The only reason I continue responding to you is to see what new heights of red-faced, spittle-spewing, pig-ignorant rage your next post will bring. And with poor grammar and random capitalization to boot!
It's fun, in a sick way, to watch the way you inflate your own estimation of your effect on my day. You actually think that I sit here, apoplectic with rage, driven to wild-eyed hysteria by your evasive, one-note responses? And you accuse ME of hyperbole?
Nah, I don't think so. You very badly need to "prove me wrong" about something - why else do you keep coming back to a topic you claim to be done with? It sure as hell isn't my breezy insouciance.
That's what's interested me about you - You ARE an insecure narcissist, I think, an id-driven, Library-Club nerd who isn't really equipped to actually address any of the questions or challenges I've presented to you, but you just can't bear the idea of somebody disagreeing with brilliant little "I-Read-BIG-Books" you.
So, Back You Come, every time, braying and screeching, clumsily shlepping around any chance I offer you to actually put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate your alleged scholarly abilities.
You need to show everybody how smart you are, am I right? How IMPORTANT and FINAL your opinion is, right? "I started the thread; I neither responded to you nor sought out your uninformed opinion." Meaning, you went on a popular, widely-read website, started a thread about a well-reviewed documentary detailing the life of a well-regarded and highly controversial author, slammed both him and the movie - and you expected no response from ANYBODY?
Hmf. Disingenuous at best, a supercilious little troll at most. I bet if you'd been answered by legions of Scholastic Book Club kindergartners telling you how they like the way you use Big Person Words, you wouldn't have had any problem with that, eh?
That, plus the limits of your invective - repetitious variations on how I'm either "gay" or "stupid" show a distinct lack of range or imagination on your part, Old Bean. Surely, if you were as wise and worldly as you like to pretend, you could come up with more varied descriptions for my slope-browed subhumanity? (Hell, Hunter S. skewered Nixon with more creative obscenities in one paragraph than anything you've managed here in over a week's time.) Instead, you keep regurgitating the same ideas, over and over, like a 6-year-old with a slightly better-than-average vocabulary.
You do have greater knowledge about grammar and punctuation than I. I have no doubt or problem concerning that.
But that doesn't make your opinions any more "right", any more than knowing the difference between a "cut" and "scrape" makes you a surgeon. You're clinging to cheap technicalities with somebody that prefers colloquialisms and color to dry, "correct" usage of the language. That may mean more nerd cred for you, but it ain't helping you win any artistic arguments. You declare me to be illiterate; I see a fussy Rules Freak. Whatever.
Okay, it's about time for me to go do something actually important. I will close with this: Do you REALLY believe that I'm an inarticulate, butt-pirate troglodyte, or are those unpleasantries just the confines of your own personal experiences?
You DO? Well, Shucks then. I feel just awful about that. I guess it wouldn't hurt to brush up on my manners when dealing with a sophisticate such as yourself. Perhaps a smidgen of Old World courtliness would reduce the frictions betwixt us. Perchance, this would salve the wound:
Awaiting with bated breath and sweaty palms Your Imminence's next salvo of William-F.-Buckley-wannabe horsesh*t ,
Your very fine adversary,
Snagglepuss
You DO know who Bill Buckley was, don't you? He's not in your private directory of Gay Crushes, I doubt very much.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I've made my point. Your inability to comprehend it is of no further concern to me. Your constant introduction of completely irrelevant names into these posts continues to be of interest though. Now it's William F. Buckley. What exactly William F. Buckley has to do with this thread is a mystery. Apparently your gay crushes have strayed into necrophilia now as I believe that William F. Buckley has shuffled off the mortal coil. Fortunately, there is medical help available for your mental illness. For your low IQ, well you're on your own.
share"What exactly William F. Buckley has to do with this thread is a mystery".
Why, that's EASY.
William F. Buckley, while a competent writer, was more a patrician, snooty, close-minded, persnickety, conservative old right-wing fart, a cultural figurehead who presumed to sit in pompous judgment of all that strayed from he and his own social circles' narrow definitions of "acceptable". (A judgment, by the way, that was roundly ignored by all that fell under it's purview.)
You remind me of him. As in the phrase, "William-F-Buckley-wannabe".
There. I have done thee a kindness. I have compared you in a favorable light to an Esteemed Author. Your Dream Made Real. You can Kiss My Ass in gratitude.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A response in one hour! Apparently you sit by the computer just waiting for my response so you can launch another moronic riposte. Aren't your dogs and/or girlfriend enough to keep you occupied? So now we're into politics! I didn't like the Gonzo movie so I'm some sort of right-winger. I see. You do have a vivid imagination little boy. Too bad there's not enough brain power there to do anything creative with it. Still, you have with every post, proved Pope's conjecture about a little learning being a dangerous thing to be absolutely true.
shareOf Course. I have "a vivid imagination". That's the ONLY possible explanation for why I'm sitting at my computer. Because of your conviction that you're the center of my universe. But I'm the one with, I repeat: "a vivid imagination".
Go on with your smug self. Unlike you, my dogs are just fine, as they nowhere NEAR crave attention in the way that you do. Not to mention they possess superior reading comprehension skills.
To Wit: I didn't say that you're a right winger because you dislike "Gonzo", or because you remind me of William F. Buckley.
I think that you're a right winger because of the way you spew "gay" as an insult.
I think that you're a conservative because of the way you cite and defend "Classic" authors, like someone who's been taught to revere and maintain the status quo, while conveniently ignoring the undeniable failings of those same writers whenever it contradicts your arguments.
I think that you're a "non-progressive" based on your bigoted (and mis-spelt) deferences towards Philipinos and other non-Caucasians on other threads.
I think that you're a Republican sympathizer because you regard honest, hard-working proles as "chumps".
I think that you're a Tory gasbag because of the way you treat non-conservative viewpoints on other threads with contempt and derision.
And I think that you're a GOP suck-up because you're a chunka chickensh*t who has always, in this thread, used cheap, Rovian straw-man tactics such as making hate-based, outrageous claims regarding me or my "ilk", avoiding addressing those remarks whenever I respond directly to them, proclaiming "Victory" in every expression of your own viewpoint and changing the subject or accusing me of saying what you yourself actually said. Very, VERY reminiscent of the current Republican playbook. And very much the way I expect your equivocating, dissembling, sputtering, self-aggrandizing response to this post to resemble.
And as long as we're elevating our discourse through the quoting of other writers and philosophers, how 'bout this one for your pompous ass: "Pride goeth before the fall", you presumptuous, arrogant prick.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Rovian straw-man tactics such as making hate-based, outrageous claims regarding me or my "ilk", avoiding addressing those remarks whenever I respond directly to them, proclaiming "Victory" in every expression of your own viewpoint and changing the subject or accusing me of saying what you yourself actually said
Only someone lacking even a modicum of perspicacity would be unable to see the irony in this sentence. I would also like to remind you, for all the good it would do, that it is you who has been throwing the “gay” insult around. I merely responded in kind. The fact that you have mentioned your canine girlfriend would seem to indicate that homosexuality remains a fantasy for you rather than something you actually practice. Bestiality is no doubt more up your street.
Twice now you have responded within an hour of my post. You have also eagerly sought out and read other messages posted under this nom de plume. You seemed to be quite aroused by all of this, a thoroughly nauseating thought to be sure. However, I can assure you that I have no interest in reading any of your other posts, all of which I am sure were written by you and all of which would no doubt be as full of bile and illiteracy as your posts here. You continue to amuse though with your accusations of misspelling and Freudian slips where none exist. Your constant bilious rants about Republicans are fascinating as well. You’d think a banker in a pin-striped suit kicked your dog or your girlfriend the way you go on.
Of course, all of this will once again fail to penetrate that desiccated little pea rattling around in your head but it gives me a chance to practice my typing.
Please excuse my tardiness in replying. I have a cold.
I'll be brief. Does it ever occur to you that for all of your verbosity and self-regard, that at your best, you're still nowhere near as observant, clever ot funny as Thompson himself, even on his worst day? Let alone the other authors you so love to name-drop?
But, I try to give credit where credit is due. You do come close in the "assh*le" department...
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Oh dear, you're ill. Let's hope it's nothing trivial.
If memory serves, this whole pointless panoply of pusillanimous pig-ignorance was started by my simple observation that Thompson wrote some good things but an entire movie of his drunken and/or drugged marble-mouthed mutterings was unpleasant. He is funny though. Calling himself "Dr" is pluperfect hilarity.
In closing, while I may come close in the assh*le department no matter how hard I try I can never surpass you.
Oh, Marvy. An ALLITERATIVE assh*le.
Yeesh. What did I ever do to YOU, god?
At least yer trimming yer spew down to less than a thesis' worth. That's a step in the right direction. Brevity being the soul of wit and all that.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Both of you, are complete w-a-n-k-e-r-s.
shareAnother country heard from. Welcome to the party, chief...
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
[deleted]
He's just trying to explain who O'Reilly is to you, you *beep* wit.
P.S.
Are you 16 or so?
Always nice to hear from the extra chromosome set. How does a chin drooler like you manage to use a computer anyway?
share>>How does a chin drooler like you manage to use a computer anyway?<<
Presumably the same way you managed to luck into learning how to breathe, you pissant halfwit.
It must have taken that feeble little mind of yours a full day of hard thinking to come up with something as brilliant as "pissant halfwit". What do you do for an encore you cretin?
sharelmao, this is funny. What's the point of arguing like this with people you'll never meet?
Personally I do truly admire what Hunter S. Thompson's talent was, even to the point of comparing him to Twain, but I'm not gonna claim to be an authority on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Ace19444&view=videos
music videos I've made^