Discussion:
A clockwork Orange now showing in Sydney
(too old to reply)
The Enlightenment
2004-06-06 11:39:45 UTC
Permalink
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
Highlandish
2004-06-06 11:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
wot 'e sed. an' its unmodified too!
--
A torch is a case for holding dead batteries.

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
damnfine
2004-06-06 11:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Highlandish
wot 'e sed. an' its unmodified too!
He's still a dickhead.

Oh, and it's still a bad movie.


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
Deevo
2004-06-06 12:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by damnfine
Post by Highlandish
wot 'e sed. an' its unmodified too!
He's still a dickhead.
Maybe. In this instance he's correct though.
Post by damnfine
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
Maybe. It's a matter of opinion I guess. I'll make up my own mind when
I've watched it.
--
Deevo

Geraldton
WA, The Nanny State (® Corks)
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie
Darkfalz
2004-06-06 15:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by damnfine
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
I consider this a comedy. If Kubrick intended otherwise, then I guess it's a
bad movie.
damnfine
2004-06-07 07:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darkfalz
Post by damnfine
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
I consider this a comedy. If Kubrick intended otherwise, then I guess it's a
bad movie.
Oh, there's no doubting that it's a comedy, just like the book is. And it was
certainly intended as such. It's just not a very good one either way.


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
Jacques Schidt
2004-06-07 13:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by damnfine
Post by Darkfalz
Post by damnfine
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
I consider this a comedy. If Kubrick intended otherwise, then I guess
it's a bad movie.
Oh, there's no doubting that it's a comedy, just like the book is. And
it was certainly intended as such. It's just not a very good one
either way.
The novel was written after the author's pregnant wife was raped by 3
american soldiers. It's not a comedy you fuckwits. Go back to aus.tv where
you belong and stick to watching shite you can comprehend like big brother.
Post by damnfine
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
Darkfalz
2004-06-07 13:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacques Schidt
Post by damnfine
Post by Darkfalz
Post by damnfine
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
I consider this a comedy. If Kubrick intended otherwise, then I guess
it's a bad movie.
Oh, there's no doubting that it's a comedy, just like the book is. And
it was certainly intended as such. It's just not a very good one
either way.
The novel was written after the author's pregnant wife was raped by 3
american soldiers.
Now that would make a great film.
Post by Jacques Schidt
It's not a comedy you fuckwits.
It's a laugh a minute up until the point where he goes to prison at which
point it's not funny again until he gets out.
Post by Jacques Schidt
Go back to aus.tv where
you belong and stick to watching shite you can comprehend like big brother.
I don't watch Big Brother.
Jacques Schidt
2004-06-07 13:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darkfalz
Post by Jacques Schidt
Post by damnfine
Post by Darkfalz
Post by damnfine
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
I consider this a comedy. If Kubrick intended otherwise, then I
guess it's a bad movie.
Oh, there's no doubting that it's a comedy, just like the book is.
And it was certainly intended as such. It's just not a very good
one either way.
The novel was written after the author's pregnant wife was raped by 3
american soldiers.
Now that would make a great film.
Post by Jacques Schidt
It's not a comedy you fuckwits.
It's a laugh a minute up until the point where he goes to prison at
which point it's not funny again until he gets out.
Post by Jacques Schidt
Go back to aus.tv where
you belong and stick to watching shite you can comprehend like big
brother.
I don't watch Big Brother.
Too many people watch this film now and completely misinterpret it.
Although the themes are universal and they never really change, you have
to put the book and movie in the context and the time they were written
and filmed. The movie is now 35 years old, the book was written before
that. Try actually reading it, then watch the movie. It is not a
comedy.
Darkfalz
2004-06-08 04:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacques Schidt
It is not a
comedy.
That doesn't mean it wasn't funny as heck. Like The Exorcist. Not a
conventional "comedy" but one of the funniest films I've ever seen.
damnfine
2004-06-08 12:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacques Schidt
The novel was written after the author's pregnant wife was raped by 3
american soldiers.
How does that mean it's not a comedy, you ignorant fuck?! LOL!
Post by Jacques Schidt
It's not a comedy you fuckwits. Go back to aus.tv where
you belong and stick to watching shite you can comprehend like big brother.
Hahaha you stupid wanker.


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
Jacques Schidt
2004-06-08 13:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by damnfine
Post by Jacques Schidt
The novel was written after the author's pregnant wife was raped by 3
american soldiers.
How does that mean it's not a comedy, you ignorant fuck?! LOL!
Post by Jacques Schidt
It's not a comedy you fuckwits. Go back to aus.tv where
you belong and stick to watching shite you can comprehend like big brother.
Hahaha you stupid wanker.
Genius. Back to aus.tv where ya belong you halfwit.
Post by damnfine
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
damnfine
2004-06-08 13:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacques Schidt
Post by damnfine
Post by Jacques Schidt
It's not a comedy you fuckwits. Go back to aus.tv where
you belong and stick to watching shite you can comprehend like big brother.
Hahaha you stupid wanker.
Genius. Back to aus.tv where ya belong you halfwit.
Either try to prove your feeble excuse for a point, or shut up and fuck off.


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
Gregory Shearman
2004-06-08 06:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacques Schidt
The novel was written after the author's pregnant wife was raped by 3
american soldiers. It's not a comedy you fuckwits. Go back to aus.tv where
you belong and stick to watching shite you can comprehend like big brother.
While it is not exactly funny, another of his books "A Clockwork
Testament" is a scream!
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
infidel
2004-06-09 07:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Jacques Schidt
The novel was written after the author's pregnant wife was raped by 3
american soldiers. It's not a comedy you fuckwits. Go back to aus.tv where
you belong and stick to watching shite you can comprehend like big brother.
While it is not exactly funny, another of his books "A Clockwork
Testament" is a scream!
More Uni Newcastle humour?
FA
I.
V01TeK
2004-06-08 19:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by damnfine
Oh, there's no doubting that it's a comedy, just like the book is. And it was
certainly intended as such. It's just not a very good one either way.
Nonsense. Stop being wrong.
--
"Be your own God"
Chris
infidel
2004-06-07 03:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by damnfine
Post by Highlandish
wot 'e sed. an' its unmodified too!
He's still a dickhead.
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
The music is excellent
My great nephrew is still wanting to steal my" black CD", a vinyl circa
1971!
FA
I.
|-|erc
2004-06-07 03:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by infidel
Post by damnfine
Post by Highlandish
wot 'e sed. an' its unmodified too!
He's still a dickhead.
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
The music is excellent
My great nephrew is still wanting to steal my" black CD", a vinyl circa
1971!
any chance of recording to mp3?
a friend made a 250MB mp3 of his war of the worlds album I'll swap you that.

Herc
infidel
2004-06-08 00:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by |-|erc
Post by infidel
Post by damnfine
Post by Highlandish
wot 'e sed. an' its unmodified too!
He's still a dickhead.
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
The music is excellent
My great nephrew is still wanting to steal my" black CD", a vinyl circa
1971!
any chance of recording to mp3?
a friend made a 250MB mp3 of his war of the worlds album I'll swap you that.
What's this 'War of the Worlds' crap!?
ACO sound track is easy to record in MP3.
May just do it this arvo
However:
1) It's still subject to copyright laws (I think?).
2) I won't give you my address (e-mail etc.), so even if I make an MP3
version, you'll find it rather difficult to get a copy from me
3) Check eBay for a copy of this 'black CD"
4) Send spam and offer $Mbucks to the world at large.
Anyway
Great movie!
Great music!
;-)))
FA
I
infidel
2004-06-07 03:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by infidel
Post by damnfine
Post by Highlandish
wot 'e sed. an' its unmodified too!
He's still a dickhead.
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
The music is excellent
My great nephrew is still wanting to steal my" black CD", a vinyl circa
1971!
But of course Walter Carlos has now become Wendy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Carlos
The tracks
http://www.geocities.com/malcolmtribute/aco/acosound.html
;-))
FA
I.
Hunter1
2004-06-07 05:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by infidel
Post by damnfine
Post by Highlandish
wot 'e sed. an' its unmodified too!
He's still a dickhead.
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
The music is excellent
My great nephrew is still wanting to steal my" black CD", a vinyl circa
1971!
FA
I.
It's a fucking great movie! I think you could really say it
was the first ever cult black comedy!
infidel
2004-06-08 00:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hunter1
Post by infidel
Post by damnfine
Post by Highlandish
wot 'e sed. an' its unmodified too!
He's still a dickhead.
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
The music is excellent
My great nephrew is still wanting to steal my" black CD", a vinyl circa
1971!
FA
I.
It's a fucking great movie! I think you could really say it
was the first ever cult black comedy!
Yes it probably was the "first ever cult black comedy" movie
I watched it for the first time in over 30 years on SBS last sunday.
How tame, but rather fun.
I had to choose between watching ACO and something almost equaly dated as
the D-day landing in Normandy
Kubrick must have been up himself to have restricted it for so long!
The music is great.
A lot of the big "v B" and Walter (Wendy) on the Moog synthesiser.
Cheers
I.
Hunter1
2004-06-08 12:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by infidel
Yes it probably was the "first ever cult black comedy" movie
I watched it for the first time in over 30 years on SBS last sunday.
How tame, but rather fun.
We used to go see it every other year at the local cult
cinemas before it was openly released, saw it at the Kings
Park open air cinema last (think it'd already been released
by then, but we thought different sort of atmosphere so took
a carton and went anyway). Nothing great about the movie as
far as production quality, but it is definately one of a
kind, and it made McDowell, and coined some great terms like
"a bit of the old in-out in-out". Not to mention the Goodies
never would've had the "Big Bunny" episode if it wasn't for ACO!
Post by infidel
I had to choose between watching ACO and something almost equaly dated as
the D-day landing in Normandy
Kubrick must have been up himself to have restricted it for so long!
Agreed, although he probly cashed in on the royalties for
its' cult and rarely seen status.
Post by infidel
The music is great.
A lot of the big "v B" and Walter (Wendy) on the Moog synthesiser.
Gotta love the scene with the fast-motion gang-bang to the
1812 Overture. Funny thing about a lot of classical tunes,
I'd compare them to a lot of old style metal, very intricate
and very skilled (more without the Moog than with on the
skilled part of that equation), nothing like the radio
sludge we hear these days!
infidel
2004-06-08 14:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hunter1
Post by infidel
Yes it probably was the "first ever cult black comedy" movie
I watched it for the first time in over 30 years on SBS last sunday.
How tame, but rather fun.
We used to go see it every other year at the local cult
cinemas before it was openly released, saw it at the Kings
Park open air cinema last (think it'd already been released
by then, but we thought different sort of atmosphere so took
a carton and went anyway). Nothing great about the movie as
far as production quality, but it is definately one of a
kind, and it made McDowell, and coined some great terms like
"a bit of the old in-out in-out". Not to mention the Goodies
never would've had the "Big Bunny" episode if it wasn't for ACO!
Post by infidel
I had to choose between watching ACO and something almost equaly dated as
the D-day landing in Normandy
Kubrick must have been up himself to have restricted it for so long!
Agreed, although he probly cashed in on the royalties for
its' cult and rarely seen status.
Post by infidel
The music is great.
A lot of the big "v B" and Walter (Wendy) on the Moog synthesiser.
Gotta love the scene with the fast-motion gang-bang to the
1812 Overture. Funny thing about a lot of classical tunes,
I'd compare them to a lot of old style metal, very intricate
and very skilled (more without the Moog than with on the
skilled part of that equation), nothing like the radio
sludge we hear these days!
Not 1812 but William Tell.
More info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange
Enjoy
I.
David Barnett
2004-06-08 21:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Was there or was there not a sex scene at the beginning of this movie?

I thought it was a rape scene, but damnfine disputes this.

If you say no, all I can say is that I must have seen an uncensored version
which you haven't.
--
David Barnett
Chris Mayer
2004-06-08 23:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Barnett
Was there or was there not a sex scene at the beginning of this movie?
I thought it was a rape scene, but damnfine disputes this.
If you say no, all I can say is that I must have seen an uncensored version
which you haven't.
Or the actual reason, your memory is failing you.
Ich Bin Eine Kenton
2004-06-09 10:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Barnett
Was there or was there not a sex scene at the beginning of this movie?
I thought it was a rape scene, but damnfine disputes this.
It cuts away before the woman is actually raped. Don't worry, damnfine
is just a pedantic wanker in need of an ego boost.
David Barnett
2004-06-10 07:06:37 UTC
Permalink
"Ich Bin Eine Kenton" <***@kob.id.au> wrote in message news:kobNOSPAMPLEASEE-***@news.syd.swiftel.com.au...
:
: > Was there or was there not a sex scene at the beginning of this movie?
: >
: > I thought it was a rape scene, but damnfine disputes this.
:
: It cuts away before the woman is actually raped. Don't worry, damnfine
: is just a pedantic wanker in need of an ego boost.

Thanks for that.
So much also for the poster denigrating my memory.
--
David Barnett
Chris Mayer
2004-06-10 07:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Barnett
: > Was there or was there not a sex scene at the beginning of this movie?
: >
: > I thought it was a rape scene, but damnfine disputes this.
: It cuts away before the woman is actually raped. Don't worry, damnfine
: is just a pedantic wanker in need of an ego boost.
Thanks for that.
So much also for the poster denigrating my memory.
If you get solace being defended by Kenton, good luck to you.
V01TeK
2004-06-10 07:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Barnett
Was there or was there not a sex scene at the beginning of this movie?
I thought it was a rape scene, but damnfine disputes this.
If you say no, all I can say is that I must have seen an uncensored version
which you haven't.
There is - as I recall, it's just after they beat up the homeless guy.
--
"Be your own God"
Chris
fritz
2004-06-09 23:04:05 UTC
Permalink
David Barnett wrote ...
| Was there or was there not a sex scene at the beginning of this movie?
|
| I thought it was a rape scene, but damnfine disputes this.

Scene 4, about 5 minutes into the movie has a girl being stripped
by Alex's rival gang led by Billy Boy on a theatre stage.
She doesn't actually get raped though, because Alex and his droogs
arrive and she runs away while the rival gangs start fighting.
You could call it attempted rape.

Scene 6, about 10 minutes in, is the 'Singing in the Rain' rape at 'HOME'.

| If you say no, all I can say is that I must have seen an uncensored version
| which you haven't.
| --
| David Barnett
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-10 08:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by infidel
Yes it probably was the "first ever cult black comedy" movie
I watched it for the first time in over 30 years on SBS last sunday.
Ahah, so you are ONE OF THEM!!!!

I just knew it.

Stephie.
infidel
2004-06-10 21:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Post by infidel
Yes it probably was the "first ever cult black comedy" movie
I watched it for the first time in over 30 years on SBS last sunday.
Ahah, so you are ONE OF THEM!!!!
I just knew it.
Oh yeeees!
My friends call me "droogie" (among other things).
It's not PC, so why did SBS screen it?
;--))
FA
I.
dewatf
2004-06-08 12:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by damnfine
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
It's flawed but some bits are brillant.

dewatf.
damnfine
2004-06-08 12:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by dewatf
Post by damnfine
Oh, and it's still a bad movie.
It's flawed but some bits are brillant.
No question. But flawed as in VERY flawed.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
And Prowse
2004-06-06 11:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
You have to be kidding if you think moral standards are becoming
stricter. Where the hell did you get that ridiculous idea from? Sure,
more films are banned now than 20 years ago - but only because more
obscene films are being produced, and with even more vile obscenities in
them. Why, if standards are becoming stricter, was A Clockwork Orange
originally classified X when it was first released? Why was the vile
film version of 120 Days in Sodom banned outright in the 70s, yet
approved a few years ago? Even films that have been banned here like Ken
Park will be approved in 10 or so years time because standards are
freefalling, not increasing!

- And.
damnfine
2004-06-06 11:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Why was the vile film version of 120 Days in Sodom banned outright
in the 70s, yet approved a few years ago?
...and then banned again a few weeks after that. Dickhead.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
Highlandish
2004-06-06 12:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by And Prowse
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west
imposes totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology
this is a good film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief
in personal freedom and responsibility that is the result of that
imposition.
You have to be kidding if you think moral standards are becoming
stricter. Where the hell did you get that ridiculous idea from? Sure,
more films are banned now than 20 years ago - but only because more
obscene films are being produced, and with even more vile obscenities
in them. Why, if standards are becoming stricter, was A Clockwork
Orange originally classified X when it was first released? Why was
the vile film version of 120 Days in Sodom banned outright in the
70s, yet approved a few years ago? Even films that have been banned
here like Ken Park will be approved in 10 or so years time because
standards are freefalling, not increasing!
- And.
sure society is maintaining its morals, it is now confirmed that a gay can
not marry or adopt when previously the laws were questionable. I'm not
saying morals are getting tighter, but they're sure being tightly defined.
--
The more crap you put up with, the more crap you are going to get.

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
damnfine
2004-06-06 13:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Highlandish
sure society is maintaining its morals, it is now confirmed that a gay can
not marry or adopt when previously the laws were questionable. I'm not
saying morals are getting tighter, but they're sure being tightly defined.
By which, I assume, you mean "made up out of thin air".


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman
The Enlightenment
2004-06-06 12:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by And Prowse
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
You have to be kidding if you think moral standards are becoming
stricter. Where the hell did you get that ridiculous idea from? Sure,
more films are banned now than 20 years ago - but only because more
obscene films are being produced, and with even more vile
obscenities in
Post by And Prowse
them. Why, if standards are becoming stricter, was A Clockwork
Orange
Post by And Prowse
originally classified X when it was first released? Why was the vile
film version of 120 Days in Sodom banned outright in the 70s, yet
approved a few years ago? Even films that have been banned here like Ken
Park will be approved in 10 or so years time because standards are
freefalling, not increasing!
- And.
I do believe that standards are becoming less. I think the state is
treating criminality (if it is by delinquents, ethnic gangs etc) as
sickness rather than criminality. At the same time it is
criminalising what would normally be minor infractactions.
David Bromage
2004-06-07 05:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Enlightenment
I do believe that standards are becoming less.
It's not so much that standards are being lowered, rather that
society's views of what is and isn't acceptable change over time. I
can't remember the name of the film, but there was one rated "not
suitable for children" because it contained the words "you're a
tramp".

Also remember that jazz was seen as a threat to society's morals at a
time when heroin was still available over the counter.

Cheers
David
Highlandish
2004-06-06 13:16:06 UTC
Permalink
I just noticed that this film is where the gay bodybuilder in "Quads" was
pinched from. the wheelchair bound writer that was brutally bashed by
McDowell has a muscular caretaker like in quads. it cant be a coincidence.
--
Why are they called buildings, when they're already finished?
Shouldn't they be called builts? - Stephen Wright

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me
Darkfalz
2004-06-06 15:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Highlandish
I just noticed that this film is where the gay bodybuilder in "Quads" was
pinched from. the wheelchair bound writer that was brutally bashed by
McDowell has a muscular caretaker like in quads. it cant be a coincidence.
That bodyguard is Darth Vader!
Kristine
2004-06-06 15:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Highlandish
I just noticed that this film is where the gay bodybuilder in "Quads" was
pinched from. the wheelchair bound writer that was brutally bashed by
McDowell has a muscular caretaker like in quads. it cant be a coincidence.
The muscular caretaker in quads was an Aussie.

K ~ and gay 8^)))
dude
2004-06-06 15:55:56 UTC
Permalink
: I just noticed that this film is where the gay bodybuilder in "Quads" was
: pinched from. the wheelchair bound writer that was brutally bashed by
: McDowell has a muscular caretaker like in quads. it cant be a coincidence.


Heh, not a bad connection... tho the 'Quads' muscle-carer is a blond bronzed
Aussie, no less!!

It's hard to know whether John Callahan ('Quads' creator, with THE actual Quad
character in the show being 'himself') has based the muscle-carer on the
bodybuilder in 'A Clockwork Orange', or on some of the tasty carers he has
employed!!
ant
2004-06-06 22:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Highlandish
I just noticed that this film is where the gay bodybuilder in "Quads"
was pinched from. the wheelchair bound writer that was brutally
bashed by McDowell has a muscular caretaker like in quads. it cant be
a coincidence.
That might be it! I surfed in halfway through the film last night (saw it
all back in the 80s), and thought that scenario was vaguely familiar.
--
ant
Remove AU to reply
Darkfalz
2004-06-06 15:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
Lots of laughs in this film and a great performance by McDowell, but
ultimately it's pants.
Tropicana
2004-06-07 03:49:12 UTC
Permalink
When was it shown and where?
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
infidel
2004-06-07 04:13:29 UTC
Permalink
The Wog TV channel, 9:30 last night!
FA
I.
Post by Tropicana
When was it shown and where?
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
Hunter1
2004-06-07 05:27:50 UTC
Permalink
They finally released it to video a few years back so you
can finally catch it that way, after years and years and
years of only ever being able to catch it on the rare
festival/cult run.
Post by Tropicana
When was it shown and where?
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-09 07:57:50 UTC
Permalink
I watched it on DVD a few weeks ago. I didn't get it. I think it's a
generational thing. Everyone I work with (all over 50 and very well
edumacated) told me I must have no culture or class :P I agree.

Anyway, it's supposed to be the "Brave New World" thing, or something.

I reckon it was just another example of the self indulgent, 60s, pot
smoking, we are so kewl, gosh we run the world, burn your bras, get
naked, baby boomer "thing". They used to think they were so groovy
baby and now they all love Johnny Howard.

Stephie
atec
2004-06-09 08:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
I watched it on DVD a few weeks ago. I didn't get it.
Bad sign
I think it's a
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
generational thing.
Nag your uncouth you is
Everyone I work with (all over 50 and very well
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
edumacated) told me I must have no culture or class :P I agree.
Ok so I was right .
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Anyway, it's supposed to be the "Brave New World" thing, or something.
Its just plain cool
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
I reckon it was just another example of the self indulgent, 60s, pot
smoking, we are so kewl, gosh we run the world, burn your bras, get
naked, baby boomer "thing". They used to think they were so groovy
baby and now they all love Johnny Howard.
so what's the down side apart from you being left out and proven to be
a twonk ?>
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Stephie
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-09 08:34:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:01:06 +1000, atec
Post by atec
so what's the down side apart from you being left out and proven to be
a twonk ?>
I s'pose the downside is that I'd heard so much about this movie and
had looked forward to seeing it for years. Then I didn't get it. I
thought it would be sort of "romper stomper", but there was no
character development of any of the female characters (they just got
raped and dead). Like I attempted to say, it was a product of it's
time. However, I did think it would give me some insight into what my
parents and co-workers were thinking in the 60s. All I understood was
that they were off their faces most of the time (and now they run the
freaking world).

Actually, I was so bored, my partner and I decided to polish all our
shoes while attempting to watch it.

I did like the huge p3nis sculpture, but what the F8cker did with it
was abhorrent.

Stephie.
atec
2004-06-09 09:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:01:06 +1000, atec
Post by atec
so what's the down side apart from you being left out and proven to be
a twonk ?>
I s'pose the downside is that I'd heard so much about this movie and
had looked forward to seeing it for years. Then I didn't get it. I
thought it would be sort of "romper stomper", but there was no
character development of any of the female characters (they just got
raped and dead). Like I attempted to say, it was a product of it's
time. However, I did think it would give me some insight into what my
parents and co-workers were thinking in the 60s. All I understood was
that they were off their faces most of the time (and now they run the
freaking world).
Actually, I was so bored, my partner and I decided to polish all our
shoes while attempting to watch it.
I did like the huge p3nis sculpture, but what the F8cker did with it
was abhorrent.
watch it again , you almost get it , but dont just watch it , try
WATCHING IT
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Stephie.
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-10 08:25:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:02:43 +1000, atec
Post by atec
watch it again , you almost get it , but dont just watch it , try
WATCHING IT
Go on, just give me a clue. Nicely now :) I really am interested. Is
there some symbolism I'm not getting or what? I still have the DVD
(homescreen is cool) so I could watch it again if you give me the
impetus.

Stephie
atec
2004-06-10 09:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Its really rather black , Im thinking a lot of the symbolism is
whoosinhg over your head , but watch Malcom a little , its all in the
presentation and much of it is very specific in intent but can be
difficult for the uninitiated , some what like several other UK telly
shows . and yes I luv the avengers..
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:02:43 +1000, atec
Post by atec
watch it again , you almost get it , but dont just watch it , try
WATCHING IT
Go on, just give me a clue. Nicely now :) I really am interested. Is
there some symbolism I'm not getting or what? I still have the DVD
(homescreen is cool) so I could watch it again if you give me the
impetus.
Stephie
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
infidel
2004-06-09 20:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
I watched it on DVD a few weeks ago. I didn't get it. I think it's a
generational thing. Everyone I work with (all over 50 and very well
edumacated) told me I must have no culture or class :P I agree.
Anyway, it's supposed to be the "Brave New World" thing, or something.
I reckon it was just another example of the self indulgent, 60s, pot
smoking, we are so kewl, gosh we run the world, burn your bras, get
naked, baby boomer "thing". They used to think they were so groovy
baby and now they all love Johnny Howard.
You've got a real problem!
:-)))
FA
I.
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-10 08:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by infidel
You've got a real problem!
:-)))
FA
I.
Thanks dickhead. You must be a babyboomer. Piss off somewhere, like a
nursing home or something won't you.

And if you're not an aussie babyboomer, you must just not get it. If
you are under 40 years old, I suggest you do some reading or some
edumacation.

Babyboomers are the "rapists" of this country's financial wealth and
ecological wealth.. Despite their swingin' sixties, save the planet,
free lurve, burn their bras and all that crap; all they care about now
is M O N E Y and ME ME ME.

See them vomit up their free lunch when Latham dared to bring Peter
Garret (sp) into the ALP? (and both of them are not real babyboomers
they are cuspers(tm) - on the cusp on being a babyboomer or a
generation Xer)

The babyboomers versus generation X and Y is REAL. I for one have had
a gutfull of them trying to have it both ways. They are not *our*
friends. They are using us. They are screwing us over BIG TIME.

Stephie.
Roy Wilke
2004-06-10 08:59:33 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Babyboomers are the "rapists" of this country's financial wealth and
ecological wealth.. Despite their swingin' sixties, save the planet,
free lurve, burn their bras and all that crap; all they care about now
is M O N E Y and ME ME ME.
Such rampant selfishness isn't confined to any specific generation. The
excesses of the NSW Rum Corps era (1790s-1811), from my reading, were far
greater than the Skase generation of the 1980s. And the booms of the 1840s
and 1880s were rather rapacious.

I think it's that the baby-boomers were, worldwide for the West, the first
generation since the 1700s that grew to middle-age without being beset by
either a major war or a major economic depression.
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
See them vomit up their free lunch when Latham dared to bring Peter
Garret (sp) into the ALP? (and both of them are not real babyboomers
they are cuspers(tm) - on the cusp on being a babyboomer or a
generation Xer)
I think Garrett is at least in his late 40s -- hardly a "generation Xer" or
even anywhere near on the cusp. Aren't 'babyboomers' those who were born in
the first 20 or so years after the end of WW2 -- the generation born to
those who either grew up during the War or fought in the War. That would put
them anywhere between 39 this year and 59 this year. At 39, I'm on the cusp
of the two groups. Garrett and Latham are closer to being in the middle of
the boomers.
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
The babyboomers versus generation X and Y is REAL. I for one have had
a gutfull of them trying to have it both ways. They are not *our*
friends. They are using us. They are screwing us over BIG TIME.
Stephie.
One of the easiest things to do is to damn millions of people with the
broadest of generalisations, as you've just done there. We would like to
believe ourselves to be perfect and flawless individuals, whilst everyone
else are absolute bastards. Although, if truth be known, we're all just
partial bastards trying to make the best of what we've got.
red ted
2004-06-10 09:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Wilke
One of the easiest things to do is to damn millions of people with the
broadest of generalisations, as you've just done there. We would like
to believe ourselves to be perfect and flawless individuals, whilst
everyone else are absolute bastards. Although, if truth be known,
we're all just partial bastards trying to make the best of what we've
got.
Please, no more 1960s

Has any generation in history ever banged on about itself more and with
less merit than the baby boomers?

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday June 9, 2004
The Guardian

Oh good, another 1960s retrospective. And another. And another. You can't
move for celebrations of "the decade that changed the world forever".
Tate Britain is honouring the art of the swinging decade in an exhibition
starting at the end of the month. BBC Four is a week into its Summer in
the Sixties season, while the Sunday Times magazine is devoting acres to
the 10 years that shook the planet.

Why this surge of interest? Has a milestone passed? Or is there no better
excuse than the fact that 2004 marks the 40th anniversary of 1964?

Not that the 60s generation need a reason to celebrate themselves and all
their works. They rarely stop. Open a magazine or click on the TV any
time and before long you'll see the raddled face of, say, David Bailey,
cackling as he recalls how many beautiful women he slept with in those
golden years. Next Alan Parker, Terence Stamp or Ken Russell will pop up
to pay homage to David, each other and the decade that made them all.

To put the question simply: has any other generation ever banged on about
itself more and with less merit?

I spent the weekend in Normandy with veterans of D-day, a group who can
list saving the world among their collective achievements. They were
studies in stoic modesty, depicting themselves as frightened lads who had
only been doing their duty. Yet their children, the baby boomers, born at
war's end, have no such reserve. They claim for themselves much greater
accomplishments, constructing nothing less than a new society.

Note how everything they did was a first, a "revolution". Most have
quoted Philip Larkin so often - "sexual intercourse began in 1963" -
they've come to believe it, imagining their bedhopping was a genuine
innovation. They seem unaware of the hedonistic 1920s, the naughty 1890s,
the bawdy 18th century, to say nothing of the Roman and Greek empires.
No, in their eyes, promiscuity was unheard of till they invented it.

They were "the first teenagers" too, as if before 1960 children
mysteriously skipped from age 12 to 20 overnight. I know, I know -
they're referring to the youth rebellion that gave the 60s its fire.
Except that wasn't new either. In 1911, 30 kids walked out of Bigyn
school in Llanelli, to protest over the caning of one of their peers,
sparking a pupils' strike across Britain. Young people were at the
forefront of the conscientious objection movement in the first world war
a few years later. Whenever there has been a call for change, youth has
usually been its voice.

Perhaps historical accuracy is not really the point. When the 60s crowd
insist they were the first young people to walk the Earth, they mean it
was the first time they had walked the Earth - and that's what counts.
For what underpins all this 60s mania is solipsism on a massive scale:
because it happened to me, it must have happened to everyone and must
matter enormously. Thus David Frost sighs at "the joy, the exhilaration
of being in your 20s - to be young was very heaven". I could say the same
about my experience of the 1990s, but Tate Britain wouldn't do an
exhibition about that.

All of us enjoy or enjoyed being young, but that hardly makes it a social
phenomenon. "It was nirvana," recalls Eric Stewart of 10cc. "We were
being paid huge sums of money for enjoying ourselves." No doubt Wayne
Rooney or the boys from Busted would say the same today, but that doesn't
make it a revolution. It takes the arrogance of the 60s generation to
confuse their own agreeable personal experience with a historical shift.

The flipside of this thinking is that, just as the world was good when
they were young, it must be bad now that they're old. So today's music,
television, films and politics are all dismissed as pale successors of
their 1960s forebears. We'll get to the substance of this charge in due
course, but does it not strike the Mick Jaggers and Harold Pinters how
much they now resemble the William Rees-Moggs and Mary Whitehouses they
once lampooned, both generations sharing in the same dim view of
modernity?

This conservative cast of mind should not be such a surprise. For all the
grand talk of revolution, epitomised by the 1968 crowd who still regard
sitting down in a few university offices as the height of political
action, the 60s achieved strikingly little. The hedonism and search for
self-realisation of that decade took just 20 years to calcify into the
selfish individualism and materialism of the 1980s, with the old
political content rapidly dropped. Sure, they still wore the laidback
patina of 60s peace and love - businessmen in Richard Branson-style beard
and jeans - but they were and are as hard-nosed as the capitalists they
had once pretended to detest.

Even at the time, they were always more chic than radical. The sexism of
the period was rank: women were "chicks" to be used as decorations or
sexual playthings. The pill was hailed as a tool of liberation but, as
writer Mike Phillips shrewdly tells BBC Four, it made women "not free,
just more available". Nor did many of the great partygoers of the age
seem too troubled by the racism in evidence all around them. Sarah Miles
may remember "love bursting out all over", but there was not much love on
the streets of Notting Hill or Smethwick. Enoch Powell made his "rivers
of blood" speech in 1968, but it was not till the 70s - so easily mocked
as the decade of naff - that the next generation of musicians did what
Eric Clapton and the rest had palpably failed to do, forming Rock against
Racism and taking political action that actually meant something.

There is a rightwing critique of those times, and BBC Four will air it on
Saturday with I Hate the Sixties. The programme argues that this was the
period in which Britain lost its moorings, destroying the grammar
schools, undermining the church and ushering in the permissive society.
That is not my critique. I am grateful for the reforms that saw
censorship lifted, homosexuality legalised and some of the pain of bitter
divorce and back-street abortion alleviated. (Although left and right can
surely unite on the folly of 60s planning policy: old Victorian housing
demolished to make way for high-rise monstrosities, centuries-old town
centres smashed for soulless concrete.)

No, my objection to the 60s generation is their own endless self-regard,
their brimming confidence that everything they touch betters all that has
come before or since. To puncture their arrogance, it might be worth
taking the fight on to their strongest territory. Yes, the 60s produced
some first-rate music and the Beatles remain the greatest band ever. But
scan the charts and you soon see that the soundtrack of the 60s was not
made up of Lennon and McCartney alone, but the Barron Knights and the
Bachelors. Next time you see the smug face of a 60s veteran, utter these
two words: Englebert Humperdinck.
Roy Wilke
2004-06-10 09:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by red ted
Post by Roy Wilke
One of the easiest things to do is to damn millions of people with the
broadest of generalisations, as you've just done there. We would like
to believe ourselves to be perfect and flawless individuals, whilst
everyone else are absolute bastards. Although, if truth be known,
we're all just partial bastards trying to make the best of what we've
got.
Please, no more 1960s
Has any generation in history ever banged on about itself more and with
less merit than the baby boomers?
Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday June 9, 2004
The Guardian
(snip)

Yes, I read that piece too. The point I was trying to make was similar to
Freedland's, in that the baby-boomer generation aren't unique (neither are
the "Gen-X" or "Gen-Y" generations, either), but just go ahead and blunder
into making the same mistakes that have been made by those who went before.
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-10 09:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Wilke
Yes, I read that piece too. The point I was trying to make was similar to
Freedland's, in that the baby-boomer generation aren't unique (neither are
the "Gen-X" or "Gen-Y" generations, either), but just go ahead and blunder
into making the same mistakes that have been made by those who went before.
No, not unique, but at least a lot of them are somewhat a l i v e and
so can either fix up their f&ckups or just simply deal with it and
stop wanking on about how FAB they are and let the new guard in. FFS.

Stephie
Roy Wilke
2004-06-10 09:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Post by Roy Wilke
Yes, I read that piece too. The point I was trying to make was similar to
Freedland's, in that the baby-boomer generation aren't unique (neither are
the "Gen-X" or "Gen-Y" generations, either), but just go ahead and blunder
into making the same mistakes that have been made by those who went before.
No, not unique, but at least a lot of them are somewhat a l i v e and
so can either fix up their f&ckups or just simply deal with it and
stop wanking on about how FAB they are and let the new guard in. FFS.
Stephie
"New guard" is a rather inappropriate term, considering the New Guard were a
proto-fascist organisation in NSW, parts of Queensland and northern Victoria
during the early 1930s.
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-10 09:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Wilke
"New guard" is a rather inappropriate term, considering the New Guard were a
proto-fascist organisation in NSW, parts of Queensland and northern Victoria
during the early 1930s.
R E A L L Y. Oh, my. Oh DOH. I wrote "new guard" no caps, you must be
talking about an organisation, rather than a term used colloquially.

But hey, the boomers are rather pro fascist anyway. They really like
Johnny Howard and he's on the way ;)

Stephie
Hunter1
2004-06-10 14:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Wilke
"New guard" is a rather inappropriate term, considering the New Guard were a
proto-fascist organisation in NSW, parts of Queensland and northern Victoria
during the early 1930s.
I'd say a quite appropriate term considering the fascist
attitude of thinking no-one counts except whatever
particular generation she perceives herself as being a
member of.
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-10 09:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Wilke
I think Garrett is at least in his late 40s -- hardly a "generation Xer" or
even anywhere near on the cusp. Aren't 'babyboomers' those who were born in
the first 20 or so years after the end of WW2 -- the generation born to
those who either grew up during the War or fought in the War. That would put
them anywhere between 39 this year and 59 this year. At 39, I'm on the cusp
of the two groups. Garrett and Latham are closer to being in the middle of
the boomers.
Well AFAIAC, my parents are aged 60 and they are boomers through and
through. Further, who gives a rats about what Richard Neville defines
a babyboomer as. At *least* Garret has siblings who are not
babyboomers (babyboomers according to Neville). At least Garret is
sickened by the babyboomers lives of excess after the boomers
decreeing they were "THE way forward".

Check out the SMH pieces about babyboomers. They are the australians
who got free university education, free land grants, tax perks, the GD
forsaken eighties and proper child endowment (we have the freaking
family tax benefit which is really a LOAN) etc. And now they are
telling us we have to work till we are dead, get no pensions, pay HECS
fees and never buy a house until they decide to die. They were my
*teachers* at school. FFS, could you imagine Howard defending a
teacher who wore bare feet, toe rings, no bra with a singlet top
telling a bunch of 8 yr olds we could do ANYTHING we wanted to when we
grew up? No neither can I. Because THEY could and can do anything they
wanted to. They've just ensured no other generation can.

And, btw, I am 38 this year. Why are you sticking up for the
generation that screwed YOU over?

Stephie.
Jacques Schidt
2004-06-10 09:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
And, btw, I am 38 this year. Why are you sticking up for the
generation that screwed YOU over?
Same here. 38 this year. I feel the same way. We've gotta get revenge on
these arseholes.
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Stephie.
Roy Wilke
2004-06-10 11:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Post by Roy Wilke
I think Garrett is at least in his late 40s -- hardly a "generation Xer" or
even anywhere near on the cusp. Aren't 'babyboomers' those who were born in
the first 20 or so years after the end of WW2 -- the generation born to
those who either grew up during the War or fought in the War. That would put
them anywhere between 39 this year and 59 this year. At 39, I'm on the cusp
of the two groups. Garrett and Latham are closer to being in the middle of
the boomers.
Well AFAIAC, my parents are aged 60 and they are boomers through and
through. Further, who gives a rats about what Richard Neville defines
a babyboomer as. At *least* Garret has siblings who are not
babyboomers (babyboomers according to Neville). At least Garret is
sickened by the babyboomers lives of excess after the boomers
decreeing they were "THE way forward".
Check out the SMH pieces about babyboomers. They are the australians
who got free university education, free land grants, tax perks, the GD
forsaken eighties and proper child endowment (we have the freaking
family tax benefit which is really a LOAN) etc. And now they are
telling us we have to work till we are dead, get no pensions, pay HECS
fees and never buy a house until they decide to die. They were my
*teachers* at school. FFS, could you imagine Howard defending a
teacher who wore bare feet, toe rings, no bra with a singlet top
telling a bunch of 8 yr olds we could do ANYTHING we wanted to when we
grew up? No neither can I. Because THEY could and can do anything they
wanted to. They've just ensured no other generation can.
And, btw, I am 38 this year. Why are you sticking up for the
generation that screwed YOU over?
Stephie.
Hey, settle down a bit. I didn't mention R. Neville, nor was it my intention
to stick up for any particular generation. Free uni education didn't come in
until the 1970s, and many of those born between the late 1940s and late
1950s had to either come from wealthy families or get a scholarship to get
into uni (the only reason my elder brother went to UQ in 1972 was because he
was dux of his high school and so got a scholarship -- and my family at the
time were middle-class. When I got to uni, as a mature-age student after
dropping out of high-school and working as a taxman, a truck driver, an
air-traffic controller and a shop assistant, HECS was in place). Child
endowment is something that pre-dates the baby-boom, being introduced in NSW
in 1930 by the Lang Government and federally in 1941 in the dying days of
the first Menzies government.

Many of these policies are being wound-back (something I've never agreed
with), as they have in the UK and the USA, since about 1980 when the
Friedman school of economists got into influential positions, replacing the
Keynesian philosophy that was largely put in place by the Bretton-Woods
agreement of 1946 (or 1947). We appear to be reverting to a pre-Federation
type of economy, where "common good" items like public education, health,
pensions etc. are being wound back or abandoned in favour of corporate
welfare and the hope that the wealthy will discover philanthropy. Having a
Federal Government that's apparently under the delusion that they're the
government of Arizona doesn't help, either.

Try asking people of various generations, as I have, what their opinions are
about the Australian involvement in the Iraq conflict. It's surprising how
many people of the post-1945 generations (baby-boomers, and "generation
alphabets") who have never directly experienced war are in favour of the
conflict and fall prey to the propaganda, and how many of the elderly who
were born before 1940 are vehemently opposed to it. Indeed, last year's Iraq
expedition was the first conflict since 1919 that the RSL was opposed to.

And it's easy to be resentful and not understand others. I don't know about
you, but I grew up in a district where families generally had only one
telephone and one television set per household and siblings shared bedrooms.
Some of my schoolmates' parents kept chooks in the backyard and although no
one was dirt-poor, no one was overly wealthy, either. Twenty years before,
my parents were only the second family in the street to have a motor-car --
and that was a clapped-out 1935 Chev bought off of rellies -- and the second
family in the street to get a telephone.

Wind forward to my sister's kids (I don't have any kids) in the 1990s/2000s.
They each have a mobile phone, their own bedroom, their own computer and
their own television set. Almost every family has a car -- usually a fairly
new one (indeed, my 1976 LandCruiser and my immobile 1972 Holden are the
oldest cars in the street -- the neighbours have new Mercedes and Porsches).

Look at some of the techie posts on aus.tv. How many posters want the newest
type of set for no other reason than that it's new? As for their current
set, even though it may be only 6 months old and have 20 more years' of
life, in their opinion it is nothing but junk. Look at our attitude when it
comes to home computers -- how many of us poor scorn on folks who don't have
the newest gimcrackery? And yet most of us don't really *need* computers
that run on anything more complicated than DOS.

We are more disappointed, and more resentful, because we start off with a
lot more than previous generations did and we expect a lot more than
previous generations did. I can remember hearing my niece (born 1979)
promoting the idea of recycling to my mother (born 1930), and saying that
the waste of discarding things was my mother's generation's fault. Mum
pointed out that when she was a child Australia was in the Great Depression
and everyone had to recycle everything because money was a rarity, and then
Australia was at war and everything was rationed.

I suppose my point is that it really doesn't matter whether any of us think
the first post-war generation have 'screwed' us over. The world isn't fair,
and life, for every generation and every society, is largely a struggle.
Societies like Australia's also 'screw' other societies over, too. Australia
literally ripped the guts out of Nauru for a century, using Nauru's
phosphate to build our agricultural industries. We're being bastards to
Timor Leste for oil and gas drilling rights. The wealth of our great
shipping companies of the late 19th/early 20th centuries (Burns Philp among
others) was built on kidnapping slaves from the South Pacific to work on
Queensland's sugar plantations.

It's not worth the bother wasting our time being bitter towards others. All
we can hope to do is the best we can, give our kids a fair start in life,
and hurt as few people as possible.
infidel
2004-06-10 22:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Wilke
I think Garrett is at least in his late 40s -- hardly a "generation Xer" or
even anywhere near on the cusp. Aren't 'babyboomers' those who were born in
the first 20 or so years after the end of WW2 -- the generation born to
those who either grew up during the War or fought in the War. That would put
them anywhere between 39 this year and 59 this year. At 39, I'm on the cusp
of the two groups. Garrett and Latham are closer to being in the middle of
the boomers.
Well Dearie!
I'm War time Kid!
I was born in 1942.
I remember the most marvellous event; the destruction of Hiroshima with an
"atomic bomb"
It was actually a nuclear bomb!
Started Uni on scholarship in 1959.
Yep! 16 years old about to turn 17.
Qualified for my B.Sc. at the age of 19.
My Post Grad degrees were all funded by scholarship on merit OC.
Now go play with your "what's it"
You stupid BINT!
FA
I.
Gregory Shearman
2004-06-11 00:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by infidel
Well Dearie!
I'm War time Kid!
I was born in 1942.
I remember the most marvellous event; the destruction of Hiroshima with
an "atomic bomb"
It was actually a nuclear bomb!
Started Uni on scholarship in 1959.
Yep! 16 years old about to turn 17.
Qualified for my B.Sc. at the age of 19. My Post Grad degrees were all
funded by scholarship on merit OC. Now go play with your "what's it"
You stupid BINT!
The radiation must have affected your brain. I see no sign of intelligence
in the above.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
DemSoc
2004-06-14 14:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Again treating people as if they are somehow stupid because they have the
audacity to think different to you.

No wonder you post on internet. At least latham has the balls to appear in
public and lie (but then again he is relying on gulliables like you).
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by infidel
Well Dearie!
I'm War time Kid!
I was born in 1942.
I remember the most marvellous event; the destruction of Hiroshima with
an "atomic bomb"
It was actually a nuclear bomb!
Started Uni on scholarship in 1959.
Yep! 16 years old about to turn 17.
Qualified for my B.Sc. at the age of 19. My Post Grad degrees were all
funded by scholarship on merit OC. Now go play with your "what's it"
You stupid BINT!
The radiation must have affected your brain. I see no sign of intelligence
in the above.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
Gregory Shearman
2004-06-15 00:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by DemSoc
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by infidel
Now go play with your "what's it"
You stupid BINT!
The radiation must have affected your brain. I see no sign of intelligence
in the above.
Again treating people as if they are somehow stupid because they have the
audacity to think different to you.
When that "someone" fills their posts with insulting comments in the
place of reasoned argument, how else can I take their comments but as
unintelligent.
Post by DemSoc
No wonder you post on internet. At least latham has the balls to appear in
public and lie (but then again he is relying on gulliables like you).
I post under my real name, which is more than I can say about you,
Mosely.

BTW... I've NEVER been a supporter of Labor. I see both Labor and
Liberal as the one party. I don't vote for either. They both stink.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
DemSoc
2004-06-16 12:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Since when is insulting unintelligent. You are just a cranky old fart who is
trying cut down tall poppys because you have no outstanding qualities other
than a perpensity to lie.
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by DemSoc
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by infidel
Now go play with your "what's it"
You stupid BINT!
The radiation must have affected your brain. I see no sign of intelligence
in the above.
Again treating people as if they are somehow stupid because they have the
audacity to think different to you.
When that "someone" fills their posts with insulting comments in the
place of reasoned argument, how else can I take their comments but as
unintelligent.
Post by DemSoc
No wonder you post on internet. At least latham has the balls to appear in
public and lie (but then again he is relying on gulliables like you).
I post under my real name, which is more than I can say about you,
Mosely.
BTW... I've NEVER been a supporter of Labor. I see both Labor and
Liberal as the one party. I don't vote for either. They both stink.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
Gregory Shearman
2004-06-16 22:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by DemSoc
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by infidel
Now go play with your "what's it"
You stupid BINT!
The radiation must have affected your brain. I see no sign of
intelligence
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by DemSoc
Post by Gregory Shearman
in the above.
Again treating people as if they are somehow stupid because they have
the
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by DemSoc
audacity to think different to you.
When that "someone" fills their posts with insulting comments in the
place of reasoned argument, how else can I take their comments but as
unintelligent.
Since when is insulting unintelligent.
Since it takes the place of reasoned argument. I've already explained
all this to you Mosely.
Post by Gregory Shearman
You are just a cranky old fart who is
trying cut down tall poppys because you have no outstanding qualities other
than a perpensity to lie.
"perpensity"

"Propensity" is the word you are looking for.

Again you accuse others of lying, without producing any evidence of a
lie. Typical Mosely.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
DemSoc
2004-06-18 15:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Proving you are a liar ten times a day at least.

Which is it you are horsell or just incapable of thinking for yourself?
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by DemSoc
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by infidel
Now go play with your "what's it"
You stupid BINT!
The radiation must have affected your brain. I see no sign of
intelligence
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by DemSoc
Post by Gregory Shearman
in the above.
Again treating people as if they are somehow stupid because they have
the
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by DemSoc
audacity to think different to you.
When that "someone" fills their posts with insulting comments in the
place of reasoned argument, how else can I take their comments but as
unintelligent.
Since when is insulting unintelligent.
Since it takes the place of reasoned argument. I've already explained
all this to you Mosely.
Post by Gregory Shearman
You are just a cranky old fart who is
trying cut down tall poppys because you have no outstanding qualities other
than a perpensity to lie.
"perpensity"
"Propensity" is the word you are looking for.
Again you accuse others of lying, without producing any evidence of a
lie. Typical Mosely.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
Hunter1
2004-06-10 14:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Thanks dickhead. You must be a babyboomer. Piss off somewhere, like a
nursing home or something won't you.
And if you're not an aussie babyboomer, you must just not get it. If
you are under 40 years old, I suggest you do some reading or some
edumacation.
Babyboomers are the "rapists" of this country's financial wealth and
ecological wealth.. Despite their swingin' sixties, save the planet,
free lurve, burn their bras and all that crap; all they care about now
is M O N E Y and ME ME ME.
See them vomit up their free lunch when Latham dared to bring Peter
Garret (sp) into the ALP? (and both of them are not real babyboomers
they are cuspers(tm) - on the cusp on being a babyboomer or a
generation Xer)
The babyboomers versus generation X and Y is REAL. I for one have had
a gutfull of them trying to have it both ways. They are not *our*
friends. They are using us. They are screwing us over BIG TIME.
I've seen bigots of all sorts in this group, but you're the
first age bigot I've seen. Try getting real, everyone is
different, there are young fucks that are more conservative
than most old fucks, and there are old fucks around that
happily sit around with the young'uns and have the exact
same attitude as them. Not greenleft by any chance are you?
They seem to be really heavy on the race/sex/age bigotry theme.
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-11 07:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hunter1
I've seen bigots of all sorts in this group, but you're the
first age bigot I've seen. Try getting real, everyone is
different, there are young fucks that are more conservative
than most old fucks, and there are old fucks around that
happily sit around with the young'uns and have the exact
same attitude as them. Not greenleft by any chance are you?
Why yes, I believe I am. Bingo.
Post by Hunter1
They seem to be really heavy on the race/sex/age bigotry theme.
You will be seeing more generational tension in the next few years.
It's not age bigotry btw, it's one generation being pissed off at the
preceeding generation for feeding us lies. They were supposed to be
our "parents" instead (as a generation) they are economically and
culturally screwing us over.

I have "old fucks" for friends too, they just get really pissed off
when I tell them how much they have fucked up the world ;)

Stephie.
infidel
2004-06-10 22:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Post by infidel
You've got a real problem!
:-)))
FA
I.
Thanks dickhead. You must be a babyboomer. Piss off somewhere, like a
nursing home or something won't you.
And if you're not an aussie babyboomer, you must just not get it. If
you are under 40 years old, I suggest you do some reading or some
edumacation.
Babyboomers are the "rapists" of this country's financial wealth and
ecological wealth.. Despite their swingin' sixties, save the planet,
free lurve, burn their bras and all that crap; all they care about now
is M O N E Y and ME ME ME.
See them vomit up their free lunch when Latham dared to bring Peter
Garret (sp) into the ALP? (and both of them are not real babyboomers
they are cuspers(tm) - on the cusp on being a babyboomer or a
generation Xer)
The babyboomers versus generation X and Y is REAL. I for one have had
a gutfull of them trying to have it both ways. They are not *our*
friends. They are using us. They are screwing us over BIG TIME.
Well Dearie!
I'm War II time kid!
I was born in 1942.
I remember the most marvellous event; the destruction of Hiroshima with an
"atomic bomb"
It was however actually a nuclear bomb!
Started Uni on scholarship in 1959.
Yep! 16 years old about to turn 17.
Qualified for my B.Sc. at the age of 19.
My Post Grad degrees were all funded by scholarship on merit OC.
Now go play with your "what's it"!
You stupid BINT!
Look up "bint" in a decent dictionary.
You twerp!
FA
I.
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-11 07:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by infidel
Well Dearie!
I'm War II time kid!
I was born in 1942.
I remember the most marvellous event; the destruction of Hiroshima with an
"atomic bomb"
It was however actually a nuclear bomb!
Started Uni on scholarship in 1959.
Yep! 16 years old about to turn 17.
Qualified for my B.Sc. at the age of 19.
My Post Grad degrees were all funded by scholarship on merit OC.
Now go play with your "what's it"!
You stupid BINT!
Look up "bint" in a decent dictionary.
You twerp!
FA
I.
Oh my, you are so clever. Thank you for our wonderful world. For you,
sir, are one of the selfless ones. That great generation of wankers
who crapped on about all they wanted to do to make the world a better
place and then walked off laughing, counting their money and
masturbating at the same time.

Perhaps you could go and play with your whatever, but you'd have to
take your viagra first.

Stephie (BINT and proud of it)
infidel
2004-06-11 09:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Post by infidel
Well Dearie!
I'm War II time kid!
I was born in 1942.
I remember the most marvellous event; the destruction of Hiroshima with an
"atomic bomb"
It was however actually a nuclear bomb!
Started Uni on scholarship in 1959.
Yep! 16 years old about to turn 17.
Qualified for my B.Sc. at the age of 19.
My Post Grad degrees were all funded by scholarship on merit OC.
Now go play with your "what's it"!
You stupid BINT!
Look up "bint" in a decent dictionary.
You twerp!
FA
I.
Oh my, you are so clever. Thank you for our wonderful world. For you,
sir, are one of the selfless ones. That great generation of wankers
who crapped on about all they wanted to do to make the world a better
place and then walked off laughing, counting their money and
masturbating at the same time.
Perhaps you could go and play with your whatever, but you'd have to
take your viagra first.
Stephie (BINT and proud of it)
I've no need for Viagra you stupid BINT.
Anyway how does one count their money and wank at the same time?
Sounds something a droog may attempt
;--))
FA
I.
Roy Wilke
2004-06-11 09:54:50 UTC
Permalink
"infidel" <***@somewhere.co> wrote in message news:Gbfyc.3554$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
(snip)
Post by infidel
Anyway how does one count their money and wank at the same time?
Sounds something a droog may attempt
;--))
FA
I.
Well, you see, having grown up in the days of £/s/d, you're more adept at
mental calculations than we young'uns are :)
ant
2004-06-11 00:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
And if you're not an aussie babyboomer, you must just not get it. If
you are under 40 years old, I suggest you do some reading or some
edumacation.
what is your definition of baby boomer? People born in 1964 turn 40 this
year: are they baby boomers or gen X?
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
See them vomit up their free lunch when Latham dared to bring Peter
Garret (sp) into the ALP? (and both of them are not real babyboomers
they are cuspers(tm) - on the cusp on being a babyboomer or a
generation Xer)
Latham is 43-ish, and Garrett is over 50. Sadly, I'd say that Garrett is
firmly in Boomer territory. Latham maybe on the cusp.
Some definitions of Boomers would have people born in 64 (turning 40 now) as
boomers, which I think is crap.
--
ant
Remove AU to reply
red ted
2004-06-11 00:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ant
what is your definition of baby boomer? People born in 1964 turn 40
this year: are they baby boomers or gen X?
Anyone born in 1962 or before. Being a baby boomer is more about 1980 than
1955. I tuned 14 in 1980. I got nothing out of the 70s. By the time I was
going into adulthood it was full on unadulterated greed. 1980 was the year
the baby boomers deserted all their principles and turned into cunts. That
includes my parents, both born in 1946, both baby boomers.
red ted
2004-06-11 00:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by red ted
Post by ant
what is your definition of baby boomer? People born in 1964 turn 40
this year: are they baby boomers or gen X?
Anyone born in 1962 or before. Being a baby boomer is more about 1980
than 1955. I tuned 14 in 1980. I got nothing out of the 70s. By the
time I was going into adulthood it was full on unadulterated greed.
1980 was the year the baby boomers deserted all their principles and
turned into cunts. That includes my parents, both born in 1946, both
baby boomers.
btw, the reason we need to get revenge on them is that when we were growing
up they made sure they indoctrinated us with all their principles. Then
they deserted the principles themselves and turned into leeches. That
included causing a great deal of damage to the futures of their own
children.

They have to pay for it. We need to get revenge. And we will.
s***@iloveagoodbook.com
2004-06-11 07:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by red ted
Anyone born in 1962 or before. Being a baby boomer is more about 1980 than
1955. I tuned 14 in 1980. I got nothing out of the 70s. By the time I was
going into adulthood it was full on unadulterated greed. 1980 was the year
the baby boomers deserted all their principles and turned into cunts. That
includes my parents, both born in 1946, both baby boomers.
Hey Red, you'd remember 1979 like I do "The International Year of the
Child". That was when the aussie babyboomers crapped on about how much
they LOVED the children of Australia. What was the song they played
over and over again that year? Can't recall it atm. They didn't really
mean it though, did they.

They loved us so much they gave us unemployment. Then they called us
dolebludgers. Then,when we were at Uni they brought in HECS fees. They
now own not one house, but the one they live in plus their tidy little
investment properties. We are now told that "a job for life" is an
unreasonable request and that we have to get used to casualistion,
part-time and contract work (and pay off hecs and try to get a
mortgage). Further, we won't get a pension, our superannuation funds
are nowhere near as generous as the ones they bought into in the 80s
AND we have to work until we drop dead (to help pay for their
pensions).

What's going to happen when they all drop dead and the workforce will
essentially be made up of a generation of "dolebludging",
inexperienced 40 somethings with no experience of management? Plus,
that workforce will be debt- ridden because they will still be paying
off their family tax benefit debts (thanks for that Johnny and Amanda)
- btw my advice to everyone with kids is to NOT ACCEPT fortnightly FTB
payments (if you can afford it) and just claim what you should have
got at the end of the financial year. Accepting FTB on a fortnightly
basis simply means that (because most of us work casually, part-time
or on contract) you will end up with a DEBT.

Funniest thing I ever saw was one of those family transporters that
seat about 7 people, brand spaking new and shiny, being driven at
about 40 kmph by an old geezer and his wife. My kids were in their
second hand car seats in our clapped out old 3rd hand Magna. Laugh, I
nearly shat, I have not laughed so much since grandma died or aunty
mabel caught her left tit in the mangle.......


Stephie.
RT
2004-06-11 09:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Post by red ted
Anyone born in 1962 or before. Being a baby boomer is more about 1980 than
1955. I tuned 14 in 1980. I got nothing out of the 70s. By the time I was
going into adulthood it was full on unadulterated greed. 1980 was the year
the baby boomers deserted all their principles and turned into cunts. That
includes my parents, both born in 1946, both baby boomers.
Hey Red, you'd remember 1979 like I do "The International Year of the
Child". That was when the aussie babyboomers crapped on about how much
they LOVED the children of Australia. What was the song they played
over and over again that year? Can't recall it atm. They didn't really
mean it though, did they.
They loved us so much they gave us unemployment. Then they called us
dolebludgers. Then,when we were at Uni they brought in HECS fees. They
now own not one house, but the one they live in plus their tidy little
investment properties. We are now told that "a job for life" is an
unreasonable request and that we have to get used to casualistion,
part-time and contract work (and pay off hecs and try to get a
mortgage). Further, we won't get a pension, our superannuation funds
are nowhere near as generous as the ones they bought into in the 80s
AND we have to work until we drop dead (to help pay for their
pensions).
What's going to happen when they all drop dead and the workforce will
essentially be made up of a generation of "dolebludging",
inexperienced 40 somethings with no experience of management? Plus,
that workforce will be debt- ridden because they will still be paying
off their family tax benefit debts (thanks for that Johnny and Amanda)
- btw my advice to everyone with kids is to NOT ACCEPT fortnightly FTB
payments (if you can afford it) and just claim what you should have
got at the end of the financial year. Accepting FTB on a fortnightly
basis simply means that (because most of us work casually, part-time
or on contract) you will end up with a DEBT.
Funniest thing I ever saw was one of those family transporters that
seat about 7 people, brand spaking new and shiny, being driven at
about 40 kmph by an old geezer and his wife. My kids were in their
second hand car seats in our clapped out old 3rd hand Magna. Laugh, I
nearly shat, I have not laughed so much since grandma died or aunty
mabel caught her left tit in the mangle.......
Stephie.
So? You're a blonde loser that can't hack it so you blame your parents.
Now where have I heard THAT before?

VERY impressive, Stephie. And, you poor Diddums! Fancy having to put up
with a 3rd hand Magna after a full 12 months in the workforce while
wrinklies who had spent a mere 25 years in it were driving something a bit
better. Where is the social justice?, I hear you cry!

Idiot.
red ted
2004-06-11 10:18:57 UTC
Permalink
***@iloveagoodbook.com wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

Good nick, I read a couple of those books on long flights between London
& Bangkok, Tokyo etc when I was working for the government.
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Post by red ted
Anyone born in 1962 or before. Being a baby boomer is more about 1980
than 1955. I tuned 14 in 1980. I got nothing out of the 70s. By the
time I was going into adulthood it was full on unadulterated greed.
1980 was the year the baby boomers deserted all their principles and
turned into cunts. That includes my parents, both born in 1946, both
baby boomers.
Hey Red, you'd remember 1979 like I do "The International Year of the
Child". That was when the aussie babyboomers crapped on about how much
they LOVED the children of Australia. What was the song they played
over and over again that year? Can't recall it atm. They didn't really
mean it though, did they.
Nope I have wiped out all memories of the 80s. Surely the worst decade
for everyone with any decency and humanity. That doesn't include the baby
boomers, they'd remember it well.
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
They loved us so much they gave us unemployment. Then they called us
dolebludgers. Then,when we were at Uni they brought in HECS fees.
I went to TAFE, then worked for 15 years, then took time off to go and
did 2 uni degrees. So no HECS luckily, but it still sent me almost broke.
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
They
now own not one house, but the one they live in plus their tidy little
investment properties. We are now told that "a job for life" is an
unreasonable request and that we have to get used to casualistion,
part-time and contract work (and pay off hecs and try to get a
mortgage). Further, we won't get a pension, our superannuation funds
are nowhere near as generous as the ones they bought into in the 80s
AND we have to work until we drop dead (to help pay for their
pensions).
One of my older sisters owns half a dozen houses. Her husband had the
hide to call me a loser because I took 5 years off in my 30s to study.
This is the way baby boomers think. If you're not building on your
property portfolio and sucking your own children dry you're a loser.
They'll still be sucking us dry in 25 years.
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
What's going to happen when they all drop dead and the workforce will
essentially be made up of a generation of "dolebludging",
inexperienced 40 somethings with no experience of management? Plus,
that workforce will be debt- ridden because they will still be paying
off their family tax benefit debts (thanks for that Johnny and Amanda)
I doubt that will happen. They vote for John Howard because the lie is
that he hates immigrants (while bringing in record numbers). Just wait.
When the baby boomers get old they'll suddenly rediscover their
principles and the hypocrisy will be enough to make you throw up. Of
course the only principles they'll discover will be the things that we
have to pay for and they get for free. Suddenly they'll be all for free
aged care, free health care, unimpeded immigration, etc. Everything that
can make their lives easier and we have to pay for. It's unfortunate that
there's so many of them they'll still get their way. Meanwhile we'll
still be paying for it.
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
- btw my advice to everyone with kids is to NOT ACCEPT fortnightly FTB
payments (if you can afford it) and just claim what you should have
got at the end of the financial year. Accepting FTB on a fortnightly
basis simply means that (because most of us work casually, part-time
or on contract) you will end up with a DEBT.
Funniest thing I ever saw was one of those family transporters that
seat about 7 people, brand spaking new and shiny, being driven at
about 40 kmph by an old geezer and his wife. My kids were in their
second hand car seats in our clapped out old 3rd hand Magna. Laugh, I
nearly shat, I have not laughed so much since grandma died or aunty
mabel caught her left tit in the mangle.......
Stephie.
leebee
2004-06-12 02:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@iloveagoodbook.com
Post by red ted
Anyone born in 1962 or before. Being a baby boomer is more about
1980 than 1955. I tuned 14 in 1980. I got nothing out of the 70s. By
the time I was going into adulthood it was full on unadulterated
greed. 1980 was the year the baby boomers deserted all their
principles and turned into cunts. That includes my parents, both
born in 1946, both baby boomers.
Hey Red, you'd remember 1979 like I do "The International Year of the
Child". That was when the aussie babyboomers crapped on about how much
they LOVED the children of Australia. What was the song they played
over and over again that year? Can't recall it atm. They didn't really
mean it though, did they.
"Care for Kids"

Care for kids
It's importatnt to .. care .. for kids ...
la la la important to share something

With the stars in their eyes,
there's so much to be learning
Care for kids

etc.

I remember the tune - the lyrics are a bit lost ;) ...coz I remember
thinking wot a load of rot it was and that my parents didn't give a shit
about me ( pre-teen angst ). For some reason, I also remember I was reading
the Narnia series at the same time. I also had a big yellow "Care for Kids"
badge too - I think it was given to me at a fete or something.
Ken CleanAir-System
2004-06-14 20:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
The movie reminds me of the left wing politically correct police
states of England, Canada and Australia.
®
2004-06-14 22:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken CleanAir-System
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
The movie reminds me of the left wing politically correct police
states of England, Canada and Australia.
So, for you, the Alex character is a hero, yes? Or are you just one of his
Droogies?

R
Ken CleanAir-System
2004-06-15 01:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ®
Post by Ken CleanAir-System
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
The movie reminds me of the left wing politically correct police
states of England, Canada and Australia.
So, for you, the Alex character is a hero, yes? Or are you just one of his
Droogies?
R
Alex and his Droogies were only slight less evil that those who
enabled him. They felt that he was not o blame for his crimes.

The film and book exposed political correctness before anyone even
knew what PC was. Alex would be less symapthetic to the PC crowd
today because he is white. He might be tagged as a yob.
Scott Hillard
2004-06-15 10:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken CleanAir-System
Post by The Enlightenment
As the therapeutic nanny state that is developing in the west imposes
totalitarian order to ensure conformity to its ideology this is a good
film to stimulate reflection on the loss in belief in personal freedom
and responsibility that is the result of that imposition.
The movie reminds me of the left wing politically correct police
states of England, Canada and Australia.
Sharpens plenty of people up, and gets them in the mood for a bit of the old
"in-out, in-out".
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...