LawTalkers - Fashion Board 12-09-03 through 1-08-04

Originally posted by robustpuppy
When I was younger I thought Clint Eastwood was creepy. I only recently realized that when he was younger, he was the most fuckable man alive.

Ahem. What about Rockford?

Anyhoo, best present is a tie between the authentic Luc Robatille LA Kings retro sweater (purple and yellow, baby!) and the tickets to the Poulin Weed-Eater Cereal Bowl in Lincoln, Nebraska. Nothing says "New Year's Day" as much as the annual pigskin celebration of all that is good and true about the amber waves of grain grown in the breadbasket of America. The Podunk University "Fighting Pawnees"* will take on arch-rival Geographic Directional Unit State's "Fighting Cartographers." I think ESPN 5 is showing it -- look for Big Ed and I in our full Pawnee regalia. Go, Big Red! Scalp those Scribes! Woo-hoo!

I received no bad presents. Although a court reporter did drop off a can of those Danish butter cookies, I find them quite tasty, so ...

*The school was going to change its mascot a few years ago, but the Pawnee Tribal Council told them not to, as the tribe considered the success of the team as a "positive portrayal" of the tribe. I'm sure that the deal giving them a cut of the apparel licensing fees and a committment by the alumni association to hold its next 5 annual meetings at the Sheaton attached to the tribal casino managed by Ballys had nothing to do with it.

bold_n_brazen

12-30-2003 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm just sitting here waiting for someone to tell me what sebby and paigow's posts really mean.

I'll translate for you. Remember Raiders of the Lost Ark? This of Sebby as Harrison Ford and Paigs as Kathleen Turner.

SD: I don't have time to follow your argument. (Subtext: becasue I'd really like to fuck you).

PP: Well, that's childish and prole-ish. (Subtext: I'd really like you to fuck me.)

Are we clear now?

spookyfish

12-30-2003 01:21 PM

Bar Sign Language

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
These are pretty funny:

Bar sign language:

http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.co..._bar_signs.htm

I'm more surprised by the magazine. Such a thing actually exists?
I'd get a subscription, except I'm more of a classic drunkard myself.

sebastian_dangerfield

12-30-2003 01:23 PM

Speaking of LOTR

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
That would be a good philosophy if all poets, playwrights, and authors taught others how to read their work. Many people need to be taught how to understand literature (the actual text, let alone the context and subtext), just like they need to be taught how to look at art, listen to music, and the like. If everyone could be an autodidact, we wouldn't need liberal arts colleges, and then where would everyone learn to drop acid and eat shrooms?

You don't need anyone to teach you to listen to music or appreciate a painting. I understand the intricacies of brushstroke skill, color blending, etc..., and when looking at the paintings, that knowledge makes me say "Hmm, he was pretty damn skilled." However, skill alone does not make great art. Rush is undoubttedly one of the most skilled bands alive... The art - i.e., what impacts you about the piece - is about the piece itself. It could be the subject matter, the unintentional shading, whatever. Its a conglomeration of different things that make whatever you're seeing/hearing move you in some way. The Stones are sloppy. Neil Young is sloppy. But their shit is nevertheless art. The professors and pompous arses who hyperanalyze and hypthesize on the real meaning of any piece of art crtique skill. They miss the point, but they don't care. They don't give a rat's ass about the actual thing they're analyzing - they just want to use it as a jumping off point to wastefully exercise their grey matter.

All things come full circle... I've just wasted three minutes analyzing analyzers. But I hate them, so its OK. Its venting.

Tyrone Slothrop

12-30-2003 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
Are we clear now?

As a bell. Thanks. Now I'm thinking of that scene from Barcelona:

Fred Maybe you can clarify something for me. Since I've been, you know, waiting for the fleet to show up, I've read a lot, and--

Ted Really?

Fred And one of the things that keeps popping up is this about "subtext." Plays, novels, songs: they all have a "subtext," which I take to mean a hidden message or import of some kind. So subtext we know. But what do you call the message or meaning that's right there on the surface, completely open and obvious? They never talk about that. What do you call what's above the subtext?

Ted The text.

Fred OK, that's right, but they never talk about that.

As I recall, they didn't want to sleep with each other, but there were lots of cute Spaniards about.

paigowprincess

12-30-2003 01:27 PM

Speaking of LOTR

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, I just think that sort of analysis is gay. Each person takes a little something different from art. Dissecting it like a scientist and trying to prove that you know the "real meaning" behind it means you're not content to appreciate the art on the simple merits of how it affects you. In short, you're more enomored with your powers of analysis than the art, and accordingly, you suck.

Criticize art all you like, but please, don't be a pompous ass and try to tell others what the art "really means." Sure, if you have some worthwhile historical fact which may add some context to the work, by all means, tell me. But if all you've got is some tenuous explanation of what the third act of Hamlet REALLY means based on some shlock you heard in a seminar, do me a favor and bite your lip and fetch me a drink.

I just want to bookmark the fact that I invented the nonhomosexual use of the word "gay" for the purposes of this board. Meaning I intruduced it to the board. Sebby, get off of my cloud.

Penske_Account

12-30-2003 01:27 PM

Keira

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Smugness is not a preternaturally boyishly good looking quality.

Indeed it is not, and despite the fact that some people, who shall remain nameless (and ftr, I do NOT mean PLF, as I do not IM with him-in fact I do not even know what IM references), think you a drunken office gossip-souse who has posted yet another incoherent ramble, in the spirit of the holidays and the holiness of such season, I have given you the bennie of the doubt, so to speak, if you will, and here note, publicly to the board, that I appreciate your gratious compliment noting both my non-smugness and preternaturally boyishly good looking youthful beauty.

You are now officially my number one fan. I heart you (ps, fwiw, fyi, just between you, me and my IT guy, I never thought I would type those words again-after the last debacle with that heart thing-hush hush, nuff said, iykwim).

Congratulations!

Shape Shifter

12-30-2003 01:28 PM

Romancing the Stoner

I don't think was in Kathleen Turner in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Quote:

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
I'll translate for you. Remember Raiders of the Lost Ark? This of Sebby as Harrison Ford and Paigs as Kathleen Turner.

SD: I don't have time to follow your argument. (Subtext: becasue I'd really like to fuck you).

PP: Well, that's childish and prole-ish. (Subtext: I'd really like you to fuck me.)

Are we clear now?

Penske_Account

12-30-2003 01:30 PM

Keira

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I would think smugness would be the main preternaturally boyishly good-looking quality.

Remind me of when Christmas is next year and I will send you a dictionary. CoD.

robustpuppy

12-30-2003 01:32 PM

But I have a Firebird! and presents poll

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Ahem. What about Rockford?

ok. Young Eastwood was the most fuckable unattainable and emotionally unavailable man alive, in a "that was great, I don't need you to talk much or even stay for breakfast, I know you lead a solitary life and have to move on, but call me when you're back in town" kind of way.

Rockford, OTOH, was probably as much fun to go out to breakfast with as he was to fuck. The type who was always either making you laugh, or making you come, with a little bit of the Eastwood capable hero thing thrown in, and whom you would really miss if he moved on.

paigowprincess

12-30-2003 01:33 PM

Keira

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Clint Eastwood ...the most fuckable man alive.

concur. and the reason why a good voice will get me in the sack with you even if you look and spit like Daffy Duck doing a Less impersonation

Shape Shifter

12-30-2003 01:34 PM

subtext

Quote:

Originally posted by robustpuppy
A brilliant comment on the ambiguity of Shape Shifter's post, Miss NorthChick. Doesn't the lack of clarity in his meaning reflect the confusion of the post-post-modern age?

Now, does anyone care to comment on whether the author's intention is relevant?

You could teach at my community college any time. Be sure to wear the boots.

Aloha Mr. Learned Hand

12-30-2003 01:36 PM

Romancing the Stoner

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't think was in Kathleen Turner in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

She wasn't. But maybe there's a subtext there too...

Personally I wish she was because I can't stand Karen Allen in that movie (or in any other for that matter -- she's awful in Animal House too). Maybe its the writing, but they set her up as being tough at first, then the rest of the movie is all damsel in distress, help me, help me crap. And that voice...

As bad as she is in Raiders, she is not as abysmal as the future Mrs. Spielberg in Temple of Doom.

paigowprincess

12-30-2003 01:38 PM

Speaking of LOTR

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You don't need anyone to teach you to listen to music or appreciate a painting. I understand the intricacies of brushstroke skill, color blending, etc..., and when looking at the paintings, that knowledge makes me say "Hmm, he was pretty damn skilled." However, skill alone does not make great art. Rush is undoubttedly one of the most skilled bands alive... The art - i.e., what impacts you about the piece - is about the piece itself. It could be the subject matter, the unintentional shading, whatever. Its a conglomeration of different things that make whatever you're seeing/hearing move you in some way. The Stones are sloppy. Neil Young is sloppy. But their shit is nevertheless art. The professors and pompous arses who hyperanalyze and hypthesize on the real meaning of any piece of art crtique skill. They miss the point, but they don't care. They don't give a rat's ass about the actual thing they're analyzing - they just want to use it as a jumping off point to wastefully exercise their grey matter.

All things come full circle... I've just wasted three minutes analyzing analyzers. But I hate them, so its OK. Its venting.

You are the biggest whiffer to haev ever walked this planet. From the Flowerpot to this, you have always shown an inabiltiy to interpret a post as anything but literal. When you are interpreting at all. Congrats.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

12-30-2003 01:42 PM

Romancing the Stoner

Quote:

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand

As bad as she is in Raiders, she is not as abysmal as the future Mrs. Spielberg in Temple of Doom.

a propos of nothing, are you really Abe Froman?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:36 AM.

Page 246 of 339