The Zoo is closed??

[Janke]

Not that it matters, but I have absolutely no idea what you guys are talking about - and better that is, too!

[1]

If it's any consolation, Janke, I'm starting to get lost too...

[Steve_Karl]

Krute Wrote:
Looks like Number One has removed the "At the Zoo" thread. I had an answer to Steve Karl's indignant response to my joke post, and in the interests of harmonious relations, I'll post it here. Not that I give a crap about harmonious relations with over-sensitive people, as we all know.

{Steve Karl's reaction:} The old cliche about the foo bird, *does* seem to work eh? ... as in if the shoe fits some one will surely wear it. :-)
I have neither praised nor *vilified* any film oriented or audio oriented work presented in this thread.
I have not commented on the content of the film in one way or the other.
You are making an unfounded assumption.
I don't see the quality level of the OPs film to be relevant at all, to the content in *my* post.
Your evaluation of the work as "evil" is very strange.
Does *vilifying* the work somehow justify the personal attacks and abuse of it's creator?
I look at the whole situation as relative, as are all attempts at creative expression, and I have no problem with constructive criticism.
Also, I think if you look back through the whole thread, no one ridiculed the audience for any actual criticism, constructive or not.
Having the experience to actually understand the criticism is a different matter all together.
They may have reacted to personal attacks, none of those reactions being as harsh as the original attack, but that's normal and to be expected.
Also, as far as I could see ***, there were only 2 in this thread that intentionally exhibited any indication that they had a conscious understanding, that their point of view was not absolute, as was only a subjective point of view, and one of them happened to be the OP.
And I am not including my self in those 2.
<End Steve's Response>


Good god!!!! What an over-reaction!!! And is that tap-dancing music I hear?

You missed the whole point, didn't you, Steve....

If you want to come across as intellectual and cultured by referring to Shakespeare, it might be an idea to read some of his work first, boyo.

"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones." Julius Caesar. Act III, Scene II, by William Shakespeare...

Marc Antony was saying that sometimes, people only remember the bad stuff about you, and forget the good stuff. I was saying that Parker's poor film will probably be a thorn in his side, (you know what that one means, I hope?), for years to come. If he goes on to have a film career, people might say, "You're the guy who made that crap film and everyone told you it was crap but you just got sulky and petulant and you took it all much too personally.... you're that guy, aren't you."

Get it, Steve?

And, btw, you did criticise the audience. If your little satire wasn't meant to "shame" some of Parker's critics, I can't imagine what else it was meant for!
<End of what Krute wrote:>




Well, Krute:
Since my original post and your response to it are gone, there is no "whole point" to reference, however I will point out,
once again, you are making unfounded assumptions.

I had no desire or forethought to "come across as intellectual and cultured by referring to Shakespeare".
I just happened to use one rare (for me) reference, that I was familiar with, that popped into mind at the moment.
The part that catches you in the trap is "If you want to".
If you'd have said, "to me, you come of as a pretentious twit, referencing Shakespeare and misunderstanding my Shakespeare reference"
or something along those lines, then you'd *not* have made an incorrect assumption about *my intentions* and had a much more effective shot at me. :-)

"thorn in his side" and "everyone told you"
You must some how see this forum as really important if you think anyone of consequence would even know or care, what "everyone" (3,4 maybe 5 people) "told you",
but even if they did, in my opinion, any true professional would understand that defining an others work as "crap" is just
undignified, and paints more of a sorry picture of the one calling it "crap" than it ever could of the object of ridicule.

Of course, you are entitled to see my response as indignant.
However, I just see it as me, calling it as I see it. Sharing one mans point of view.
I don't need you to agree or disagree.
As far as it being an "over reaction" once again, that is your choice.

Just to be clear and accurate:
Going back to some now missing content, I loosely remember you saying:
"Shakespeare didn't ridicule his audience for not liking his plays" ... which set the stage for my response saying:
"Also, I think if you look back through the whole thread, no one ridiculed the audience for any actual criticism, constructive or not."

You alluded to the OP as the author of a play. I pointed out that, (from my point of view) he didn't ridicule, but rather endured ridicule.

... and you come back with:
"And, btw, you did criticise the audience. If your little satire wasn't meant to "shame" some of Parker's critics, I can't imagine what else it was meant for!"

The "and btw" implies that you're attempting to refute my original statement ("no one ridiculed...") by tying my satire into it as proof.
Well, my satire didn't happen in the "look back through the whole thread" part.
It was right then and there. ( just being clear for the sake of clarity :-)

The satire and reality:
No one can be shamed if they are above shame. It's just how it is.

And you conclude: "... I can't imagine what else it was meant for!"

Well quite simply, it was just to see what reactions came back after sharing my *subjective point of view*.
Kind of beating the bush to see which way the birds fly.

[Jim E]

Well, Krute:
Since my original post and your response to it are gone, there is no "whole point" to reference, however I will point out, once again, you are making unfounded assumptions. I had no desire or forethought to "come across as intellectual and cultured by referring to Shakespeare". I just happened to use one rare (for me) reference, that I was familiar with, that popped into mind at the moment. The part that catches you in the trap is "If you want to". If you'd have said, "to me, you come of as a pretentious twit, referencing Shakespeare and misunderstanding my Shakespeare reference" or something along those lines, then you'd *not* have made an incorrect assumption about *my intentions* and had a much more effective shot at me. :-) "thorn in his side" and "everyone told you" You must some how see this forum as really important if you think anyone of consequence would even know or care, what "everyone" (3,4 maybe 5 people) "told you", but even if they did, in my opinion, any true professional would understand that defining an others work as "crap" is just undignified, and paints more of a sorry picture of the one calling it "crap" than it ever could of the object of ridicule. Of course, you are entitled to see my response as indignant. However, I just see it as me, calling it as I see it. Sharing one mans point of view. I don't need you to agree or disagree. As far as it being an "over reaction" once again, that is your choice. Just to be clear and accurate: Going back to some now missing content, I loosely remember you saying: "Shakespeare didn't ridicule his audience for not liking his plays" ... which set the stage for my response saying: "Also, I think if you look back through the whole thread, no one ridiculed the audience for any actual criticism, constructive or not." You alluded to the OP as the author of a play. I pointed out that, (from my point of view) he didn't ridicule, but rather endured ridicule.... and you come back with:"And, btw, you did criticise the audience. If your little satire wasn't meant to "shame" some of Parker's critics, I can't imagine what else it was meant for!" The "and btw" implies that you're attempting to refute my original statement ("no one ridiculed...") by tying my satire into it as proof.
Well, my satire didn't happen in the "look back through the whole thread" part. It was right then and there. ( just being clear for the sake of clarity :-) The satire and reality: No one can be shamed if they are above shame. It's just how it is. And you conclude: "... I can't imagine what else it was meant for!" Well quite simply, it was just to see what reactions came back after sharing my *subjective point of view*.
Kind of beating the bush to see which way the birds fly.

My cat's breath smells like cat food...



.

[HueyNRolf]

My cat's breath smells like cat food...

. .

[Jim E]

Well, I just figured Steve's overwrought diatribe deserved a dumb Ralph Wiggum response.

That your cat, Huey?

Cats. Gotta love 'em! Best one I ever had was killed by a careless driver two years ago. Still bothers me a bit.

[Steve_Karl]

Krute ... sorry if you found it bitter or abusive. It was just matter of fact for me.

[Jim E]

Hey, Steve! Does it look like I found it bitter and abusive?

Does Ralph Wiggum get pissed off?!

Nah. You were a tad overwrought, is all. Bit intense. Overkill. Like swatting flies with a hammer.

Fuggedaboudit.

[Steve_Karl]

I don't know Ralph but all is good here also.

Sorry about your cat too.
Some pets are just always with us, even after they're gone. :-)

[Jim E]

Ralph is a kid in The Simpsons. Ralph is going to have "issues" when he grows up.

Yeah, cats come and go, but some leave very fond memories behind.

[mark84j]

I'm 100% lost right now, but guys... this is (everybody)... HUGE!!!

[Almohada]

Now on DVD!

[cgbier]

Who would be interested in these dumb unpacking movies?

He's wearing a halo, but where are his wings?