Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/20/89)
Really-From: jw@math.mit.edu
Well, I read a "Rolling Stone" article on Gabriel last summer, and in
response to a question about drugs in the sixties he said "the only
drug I was ever interested in was acid, and I was too scared of my
ordinary dreams to try that." I always thought this was the thinking
person's attitude, so I had a lot of respect for this.
A (creative) person could certainly write about a "drug" experience
that was not chemically induced. Though why would one want to?
PS. I don't believe everything I read in "Rolling Stone."
PPS. I have now seen Richard Vensen's posting which says that
the above is well known.
-----------
In "Houdini" I believe Kate writes "...using code only you and I know..."
so she must be able to write using proper grammar. My own theory
with regard to "You and me knew life itself..." is that it fits the
meter a little better, and is consonant.
>to that zany british convention of considering something like radar
>to be more than one thing,
"...radar send..." sounds okay to me. I think "radar" is an acceptable
plural of "radar" because it is after all an acronym. So you could
say that "radar" is an acronym for "Radio Detection and RangingS".
Anyway "...my radio detection and ranging send..." wouldn't be
grammatical either, so what she is really saying is "..my radar
[sets] send..."
----------
What exactly did Martin Gardner write about Reich? Providing a reference
will suffice. I thought that the FDA was prosecuting Reich because
it was a legal way for the government to persecute a communist
sympathiser during the McCarthy era. Wrong?
-----------
For Drukman:
> the one who repeatedly spells my last name "Druckman" which is ALMOSt as
> bad as you spelling it "JOHN."
An astonishing spelling error indeed!
(Besides, you should write "..your spelling..")
(I'm only being mean to you because I liked Zardoz.)
-----------
For Tamar...
"Hammer Horror" is certainly about Hammer's suspense movies.
"Kashka" certainly sounds as though it is about a gay couple to me.
It isn't just the word "another" in line one. It is the whole idea
of portraying a couple as being happy together, despite the world's
expectations of them. If it were a heterosexual couple, why would
this be a big deal?
----------
For IED...
Am I ever dumb! I never realized that radioactivity provided the link
between "special" and "dangerous" in _Cloudbusting_! By the way, do
you know why the Duncan yo-yo company is called the Duncan yo-yo
company?
>conducted by Christopher Ward for Canadian TV in November 1985
specifically, for the MuchMusic network. ICYDK.
>well be a pun. If so, it's a pretty good one...
Do you just mean a pun between "Orgonon" and "orgasm"? That's not
a pun at all, because the name "Orgonon" is derived from "orgasm".
>of _Hounds_of_Love_ (a body of work too often slighted as "light-
Well it IS light-weight compared to TNW. But only relatively speaking.
----------ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward Suranyi) (08/20/89)
In article <8908191922.AA13222@laurent.mit.edu> Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU writes: >Really-From: jw@math.mit.edu > >What exactly did Martin Gardner write about Reich? Providing a reference >will suffice. I thought that the FDA was prosecuting Reich because >it was a legal way for the government to persecute a communist >sympathiser during the McCarthy era. Wrong? > It's quite likely that that was a part of it, since Reich was (for a while at least) definitely a Communist. I think the main objection was to the medical use of his "Orgone Accumulators.", however. Martin Gardner wrote a few pages on Reich in his essay "Hermit Scientists", which was reprinted in his book _Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus_. The essay was written in 1951, and he added a postscript for the book, which was published in 1981. It was this that I quoted a few weeks ago on the net. Gardner wrote an entire chapter on Reich in his book _Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science_, which was published in the late fifties, I think. There are three ways of looking at Reich's work: 1) He was an outstanding psychoanalyst who later became one of the world's most brilliant biologists. 2) He was an outstanding psychoanalyst who later went off the deep end when he became a biologist, and lost all trace of scientific objectivity. 3) When he moved from psychoanalysis to biology, he moved from a field where his incomptence could be hidden to one where it was obvious to all. When one considers that almost nothing was truly known and accepted by psychoanlysts then, and that whatever one said was sure to be denied by another, this theory becomes plausible. I don't think psychoanalysis is a true science in the sense that biology or physics are, even today. I don't think that anyone who believes any one of these three statements is correct will ever be convinced otherwise, so it's pointless to argue. If people want to understand me, they should know that I've been trying to fight against superstition, pseudoscience, and so-called paranormal phenomena now for a long time -- much longer than I've been a Kate fan (which is now about seven years). So I must object when I see stuff like that, in order to keep my self-respect. Incidentally, to IED: It's true that Reich was a good writer, and if one is interested strictly from the artistic point of view, then his books can be interesting. One could get the same pleasure out of them as a good fantasy novel. Ed ed@das.llnl.gov P.S. That was my last posting before my trip, I promise!
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/20/89)
Really-From: jsd@gaffa.mit.edu (Jon Drukman) >Really-From: jw@math.mit.edu > > >Well, I read a "Rolling Stone" article on Gabriel last summer, and in >response to a question about drugs in the sixties he said "the only >drug I was ever interested in was acid, and I was too scared of my >ordinary dreams to try that." I always thought this was the thinking >person's attitude, so I had a lot of respect for this. Hah! What about empirical evidence? Ever hear of that? "Thinking persons" attitude? I scoff! It's almost as bad as my (clearly deranged) sister refusing to listen to any other Kate songs than "Wuthering Heights" just cos she thinks they won't be as good... >A (creative) person could certainly write about a "drug" experience >that was not chemically induced. Though why would one want to? Well, I would assume that if it were a chemical experience worth writing about, then writing about it at the time would be extremely difficult. At least, I would hope so! >In "Houdini" I believe Kate writes "...using code only you and I know..." >so she must be able to write using proper grammar. My own theory >with regard to "You and me knew life itself..." is that it fits the >meter a little better, and is consonant. I looked up "consonant" in my unabridged dictionary (yes, this is a real happening saturday night 'round the Drukman residence) and, while I readily admit that the sentence does indeed fit the definition, I am at a loss as to the significance. In other words: big deal! Are you being sarcastic? (I haven't been exposed to any sarcasm in a while so I don't recognize it easily any more... Henceforth include an X-Sarcasm header line, OK?) >For Drukman: >> the one who repeatedly spells my last name "Druckman" which is ALMOSt as >> bad as you spelling it "JOHN." > >An astonishing spelling error indeed! >(Besides, you should write "..your spelling..") > >(I'm only being mean to you because I liked Zardoz.) Bah, I was using a colloquial mode of speech. Presumably you didn't get it because I didn't put it in the "X-Pretension-Factor" header line. (I'm only being mean to you because Zardoz was a complete crock.) +---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? --------------------+ | | |\ | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu | "I think quotes are very dangerous | | \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet | things." -- Kate Bush | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/21/89)
Really-From: halley!steve@cs.utexas.edu (Steve Williams) In a recent screw-up, jsd@gaffa.mit.edu (Jon Drukman) sez: > >(I'm only being mean to <someone else> because Zardoz was a complete crock.) Zardoz was a crock, but not a *complete* crock. The early scenes with the floating head are worthy of Gilliam's Time Bandits, etc, years in advance. And the transparent but still excellent main gag is worth suffering through the "deep" portions of the rest of the flim. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Williams ...!cs.utexas.edu!halley!steve -----------------------------------------------------------------------------