Thanks for the dance / baby?

Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:31 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol: Just too funny Kevin. But not all of us are going to the GT, here. But this event is just great according to all comments. Put it on the ordinary Cohen magic touch.

OK. I'll stop to morrow :oops: - I swear 8)

And OK I fight in the mud a little with the kid :

Ydf it is not that I went too far, it is that you don't went far enough (lets face it : the truth is : you went no where at all) and you know it. You and i are also knowing that you will never admit it, so even if you are covered with your own mud to the point that we can hardly read what you write, I guess that you will continue that way. Fine. Go ahead. Darkness is only giving light more attention by stressing the contrast. My statement will be just more and more clear.
Last Year's Man
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:22 am
Location: Livin' in the USA

Thanks for the Dance, Mr. Knight

Postby Last Year's Man » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:32 am

This is trivial, but . . . does anyone know if that is Leonard dancing? The only time we see his face, he is by himself. Pity it would be that is a body double, because this whole thread would have been in vain (not that it wasn't anyway).
Last Year's Man
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:22 am
Location: Livin' in the USA

2 Down, 11875 to go.

Postby Last Year's Man » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:39 am

It CAN be done. But it won't unless I live to 169. Y'all should be grateful.
Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:52 am
Location: Illinois, USA. Planet Earth.

Postby Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:19 am

I have no idea what either of those posts mean. Nice name. Looks familiar. Perhaps I should change mine to Two Years Ago Man so people won't get confused.
Kevin©
User avatar
linda_lakeside
Posts: 3857
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea..

Postby linda_lakeside » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:43 pm

I don't think anyone will be confused. You have the copyright symbol. Which means nothing, but it does differentiate between the two.
User avatar
tomsakic
Posts: 5245
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 2:12 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Postby tomsakic » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:04 pm

linda_lakeside wrote:You have the copyright symbol. Which means nothing
How nothing? It means he's copyrighted, while the orher guy isn't :lol:
Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:52 am
Location: Illinois, USA. Planet Earth.

Postby Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:49 pm

As far as the comment board goes it is a differentiation gimmick--since there are a lot of posters here. As for me it does have a little meaning. A small tribute to Jean Michel Basquiat. I use it most of the time. Letters to people, emails, personal notes, etc. But I wasn't intending for it to "mean" anything to you. So it's appropriate and expected that it doesn't. Just a little individualism on my part. :wink:

Kevin©
User avatar
linda_lakeside
Posts: 3857
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea..

Postby linda_lakeside » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:01 pm

And just a little jest on mine. :wink:
Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:52 am
Location: Illinois, USA. Planet Earth.

Postby Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:09 pm

Got ya. (Sometimes it's hard to get the tone that something is written in.)

And I'm all for jest.
Kevin©
User avatar
linda_lakeside
Posts: 3857
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea..

Postby linda_lakeside » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:15 pm

Oh, good. Yes. It is hard to make out the 'tone' when it's written,
sometimes. The emoticons, however evil they may be, can be useful in that area. Also, when we're writing in a hurry, and don't know each other, it's easy to misread on another's meaning. Although I do remember you from the time just before I left.

So, now that we've got that out of the way ... poets bring out the serial killer in you?? Very unusual trait. Cereal Killer.

See you,
Linda.
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25339
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Postby lizzytysh » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:17 pm

Hi Kevin ~
But I wasn't intending for it to "mean" anything to you. So it's appropriate and expected that it doesn't.
It looks like, de facto, it does now :lol: .

~ Lizzy
Last Year's Man
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:22 am
Location: Livin' in the USA

The Name Game

Postby Last Year's Man » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:43 pm

Apologies to Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan. I had no idea there was a pre-existing similar name. I dread the thought that anyone else could be confused with me and me with anyone else. That having been said, I do not see any possibility of confusion, so I'll keep "Last Year's Man." It is also a better name than what I originally planned to use, which was either "Trailer Trash" or "Eurotrash." Rather than insult anyone, I will instead honor the Great Man.

ps: to the literally minded--that was tongue in cheek! (wow, a double pun)

Y'all come down here, y'hear?
Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:52 am
Location: Illinois, USA. Planet Earth.

Postby Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:57 pm

I was just kidding with you, Last Year's Man. And I don't want to see you have to call yourself Trailer Trash on here.

Kevin©
Last Year's Man
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:22 am
Location: Livin' in the USA

Postby Last Year's Man » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:55 am

Thanks. I knew you weren't serious, and my response was in the same vein.
Simon
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:09 pm
Location: Montréal

Postby Simon » Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:55 pm

Well I didn’t expect this thread to reach these respectable proportions. But it is indeed a very interesting topic.

I believe it would take a fair amount of scholarly time to realy throw an elegant ligth on the matter. I say elegant because scholarly is not necessarly a guarantee of absolute truth. This would call for a multi-disciplinary approche; history, anthropology, sociology, ethology and psychology. Aries is one of the most intersting writers of our time but cannot be our only reference to close this investigation. I do wish I had more time to get deeper into this, but I’ll have to limit myself to a few ideas.
In another century, when pregancy and parenthood were not planned and children arrived like another year and child mortality rate was so high, people were not attached to their children (only adults were considering to have a value of some sort) and it was very bad behaviour for a mother to be sad for the death of a baby or a child. Mothers were expected not to complain about the loss at all.
Very strange attitude in our time.
Despite the social expectations or constraints of any period of history (culture), I still need to cling to some basic commun ground (nature). It is indeed difficult not to project our own present day individualism on the past cultures we attempt to look back to. Individualism is maybe a new thing. People in the past were more drowned into the group or caste. The group’s survival may, for a long time, have been more important than the individuals composing it. Does this acknowledgement permit to conclude that people were not attached to their children in the past, frankly, I don’t know. But intuitively (what ever that is worth) I don’t think so. I think there must always have been attachement. I’ll even risk saying that any social (culture) impairment of attachement (nature) is never and has never been without heavy consequences. I like to percieve psychology as an atempt to fix cultural traumas imposed on the natural universals. It is not because psychology is a creation of the twenthieth century that people were not screwed up and did not suffer traumas in the past, no matter what the social norm may have been.

My own bias about attachement has been influenced a great deal over the last few years by John Bowlby’s theory of attachement. But again that is just one thinker in the sea of knowledge. See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowlby

http://psychematters.com/bibliographies/bowlby.htm

http://www.doctissimo.fr/html/psycholog ... bowlby.htm


In The mist of Avalon, by Marion Zimmer Bradly, Morgane, King Arthur’s sister, gives birth to Mordred in Scotland. The Queen Of Scotland (I forget her name) makes sure that Morgan doesn’t nurse the child, specificaly to prevent attachement. Of course this is a projection from a contemporary writer onto legendary medieval characters, but still. Isn’t this something well known. Samething for newborns destined for adoption; usually mesures are taken so the mother doesn’t even see the child. That is nature impaired by culture.

What is nature? When you put the seed of a carrotinto the ground, a carrot will grow. Not a brocoli, a carrot. Until recently that remainded one of the few certainies accessible to the vast majority of humans. Nature has also been for a long long time that when a child was born, it was put to the breast, and in the vast majority of cases that triggered attachement. That initial attachement is outside of culture and can only be prevented by culture or altered only afterwards by culture.

Finally, I don’t percieve the nature/culture debate as confusing, nor even as an opposition. Rather they complement one another in a dynamic exploration of the human cosmos. Sociologists and ethologists may like to argue in favor of their own respective field, but does that change much of anything. Right now, ethology is rather hot. In a hundred years it will be something else. So… I hope the matter is not closed.
Cohen is the koan
Why else would I still be stuck here

Return to “Blue Alert”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests