Why do you guys say these things AFTER I unleash hordes of undead monkey ninjas to wreak my revenge? Doesn’t this thread testify to my tendencies toward impetuous & stupid lashings out?
:: sighing ::
Look. I’ll see about hinkying with the Orb of Zuvembie Mastery so I can recall the monkeys. Just, um, stay inside till Monday. Or go to Tenerife. Tenerife is good.
Well, that was unexpected. Skald said something stupid.
(That wasn’t snark. I like you, man. When the revolution comes, I wish to sit at your right hand.)
I think you meant to write “When you begin your conquest of this wretched orb Earth, i want to be at your right hand, O Dark One.” But as I began this thread stupidly I will overlook it.
I love it when pittings backfire. I particularly love it when they reveal that the pitter is just being a bully, picking on an easy target. And when the pitting reveals great effort to appear oh-so-smart-and-literate, that’s a really nice gift beautifully wrapped.
Thanks!
Oops, forgot to mention: 5-HT nailed it in the third post.
Which, again, you’ve never supported with examples.
You know, you could have posted to this thread acknowledging that the OP withdrew the pitting, and it would have been classy.
I was pretty sure it was a bad idea to come into this thread. I was right.
Actually, I’m glad you did, since it brought lissener into the thread. I may now do this:
lissener, my pitting of you was unwarranted and unfair. I apologize.
Mods, please close the thread.
I hadn’t gotten to that yet.
I’m sorry no one came to your blanket party, Skald. 
And thanks for providing the first opportunity for the discussion of the actual *issue *at the center of a lissener pitting, rather than just another instance of totally ignoring the point to indulge in another pile on. That’s sincere; I’ve been trying to fight the misperceptions that I’ve been laboring under for what, like four years now–which I can only do passively; hoping that if I try to be more conscious of how I am perceived, then eventually someone will notice. Obviously I continue to make some mistakes, but hopefully the ridiculously prejudicial nature of most of these pittings–you only objected to the content of my initial posting because I was the one who posted it, Skald; thanks for admitting that; let’s hope you’ve started a fad.
I’ll try again. This thread was essentially going your way. For the most part, people were saying that it was undeserved, even if they didn’t particularly like you. Had you come in and simply acknowledged the OP withdrawing his point because, as he admits, it was just 'cause it was you who said it, this would have been a 100% win for you.
Instead, your first foray into the thread was seemingly an attempt to rehash old grievences w/another poster ** who was on your side in this thread**.
That wasn’t smart. It made/makes you look like a pissant. (mho and all).
I understand that you’re trying to revamp your rep here, and I applaud that effort.
By pointing out this lapse, I’m hoping that you take it as a learning example, vs another challenge. Good luck.
In all seriousness, twix, overall I like you as a Doper. But you’ve made a completely unfounded accusation, and have refused to support it. You can understand why I, of all people, am a little sensitive to that. Please don’t add to the general white-noise pileon atmosphere that the Dope has become for me unless you have a legitimate reason. Unless I’ve earned, it in other words.
Of course. But I’m trying to earn it back honestly. If I could’ve eased my way here with fawning obsequiousness, don’t you think I would’ve tried that by now? Sorry, not my style. I will gratefully acknowledge Skald’s, um, acknowledgment, but I don’t care what the context is–a winning thread or a singing telegram–I’m not going to let someone lob a driveby charge of misogyny without asking for clarification. Especially because she’s made this accusation before, was asked for a supporting example, and refused to provide it. As far as I understand the Dope culture, that doesn’t give her the right to continue to lob her drivebys; if you refuse a request for a cite around here, in doing so you acknowledge that you are withdrawing from the debate. At least that’s my understanding. You don’t to keep making the same unfounded accusation over and over again, and keep refusing to back it up with evidence. I’m only asking for what’s fair. At least, I don’t think I’m asking for anything more than that.
It was my recollection that I had withdrawn my accusation and left the thread while you and QED continuted to go after each other. I definitely left the thread – I apologize if it wasn’t sufficiently clear to you that the accusation was withdrawn.
My intention in mentioning it in this thread wasn’t to renew the accusation – since I considered it withdrawn – but to note the irony. I can see that this is not the only possible way to interpret what I said. I apologize if you felt it was a renewal of an disagreement that I had left behind if you don’t feel that it was left behind.
I apologize for the overreaction; I hadn’t remembered it as withdrawn. Thanks for the response.
Group hug, anyone? 
I remember back in the day when we used to pit Lissener it meant something!
It’s just sad to see how low the bar has dropped.
(trying to salvage something)
Lissener:
Never really having participated in the Veerhoven threads (but having seen much about them in the pit) I was inspired to kind of do a Veerhoven evolution through Netflix. I usually watch a couple of movies a week while on the treadmill. Over the last few months I watched Flesh and Blood, Basic Instinct, Robocop, Starship Troopers, Total Recall, and Showgirls.
I find many entertaining qualities in these films. They are thought provoking for the most part and tend to stick in your mind a little bit longer than they otherwise might based strictly on their subject matter. I thought about this and considered what I liked and didn’t like. Oddly, this turned out to be the same thing. Veerhoven is a subtle satirist in a kind of european tradittion. I sense that he doesn’t necessarily respect his subject matter, and I sense that he is also making an elaborate insult at his audience. One may watch a Robocop or Starship Troopers and not realize that one’s own sensibilities and tittilations are the butt of the joke. That’s ok. I suppose you are allowed to make fun of the audience. What I don’t like though is that it seems like he doesn’t respect or even fully understand his own characters. For example, Starship Troopers works if taken at face value. It succeeds in spite of itself. Robocop does much the same thing. This flaw is most pronounced and obvious in a junior effort like Flesh and Blood which kind of highlights in own flaws and doesn’t work on much of any level **except for looking at tits.[.b]
I think it’s well-hidden in Basic Instinct which takes a little while to sink in. This film works as an effective commentary and satire because it does take its characters seriously. Rico and his Federation buddies gain a lot of their sympathy and credibility because you kind of sense there is somebody that doesn’t think much of them, pushing them around cruelly and toying with them for their own amusement. It takes a while to realize that the person doing this isn’t in the Federation and isn’t a bug, it’s the Director. This unfair treatment is what makes them and their film succeed at face value. Same with Robocop. Basic Instinct is character driven, and you don’t have this artificial outside influence throwing them around. They create their own parody themselves. That’s why that works.
Showgirls looks to me like a return to earlier form, but much worse. Not only does Veerhoven have no respect for his characters it seems to me like he did the same thing to his star actress, Berkely. Not only is her character treated cruelly. She is, herself as an actress. Having seen her in Saved by the Bell I can’t help but wince about how Veerhoven seems to be taking advantage of her and directing her in poor faith. It appears to me that he’s directing her in one fashion and seeking a sincere if over the top (overracting is usually the director’s fault) performance and ownership in her character, while kind of doing a wink wink nod nod to the audience, an “isn’t this pathetic.” Ultimately Berkely mirrors her own character by trusting the wrong people i.e. the director to do the right thing.
That’s my inspired by Lissener to watch a bunch of movies analysis of Veerhoven.
Now in all this time you’ve been a fan of this director, I’ve never actually read what your thoughts were. Those are mine. I think he’s worthy and interesting, and I’ll watch and think about what he does, but I don’t really “like” him, as I feel like his films aren’t really done in good faith. You can’t “trust” them.
Maybe this is a naive conceit or complaint as insisting on a faithful director is probably as fallacious as insisting on a faithful, and reliable narrator in a book. A lot can be done with an unreliable narrator. Even taking that into account, I can’t help but be left with the idea that Veerhoven is “cheating” or not playing fire with his audience and characters. This is much of the fascination and value and I’m sure a lot of it is clearly deliberate, but I still feel unhappy with the effect.
Geeze, Scylla, if you’re going to critique a director at least make a marginal effort to get his name spelled right.
So, would you call him misogynistic?:dubious:
Too right. “Veerhoeven.” Apologies.
That’s right. Just like Lissener
You see, that was easy to prove.