Master Index of Archived Threads


Unexpected news...

Benjamin Grimm Feb 03 2015 12:57 PM

Reports today that Harper Lee is going to publish a sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird

Ceetar Feb 03 2015 12:59 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Reports today that Harper Lee is going to publish a sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird Or more accurately Go Set A Watchman was the original unpublished novel and TKAM was a prequel.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 03 2015 01:02 PM Re: Unexpected news...

But in my head, it will be "2 Kill a Mockingb2rd."

Ceetar Feb 03 2015 01:05 PM Re: Unexpected news...

@GeorgeRRMartin_: Harper Lee is going to publish a sequel after 55 years...and you people think I write slow.

Edgy MD Feb 03 2015 01:24 PM Re: Unexpected news...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: But in my head, it will be "2 Kill a Mockingb2rd." I going Mets with it and calling it The Curious Case of Scout Finch.

Frayed Knot Feb 03 2015 01:51 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy MD wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: But in my head, it will be "2 Kill a Mockingb2rd." I going Mets with it and calling it The Curious Case of Scout Finch. Hey, she was reportedly a Mets fan back when she'd spend portions of her year in NYC. Maybe the new book will be ... wait for it -- a Jem!

cooby Feb 03 2015 04:04 PM Re: Unexpected news...

I got this book for my daughter in law for Christmas... Now I can give her this new one :)

sharpie Feb 04 2015 07:19 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Year after year TKAM is the best selling backlist book usually placing in the top 20 of all books sold in a given year. Catcher in the Rye is usually a distant second.

Edgy MD Feb 04 2015 07:26 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Sure, but year after year, they're required reading in high school and college courses.

Ceetar Feb 04 2015 07:38 AM Re: Unexpected news...

I obviously read To Kill A Mockingbird in school, but I remember so little of it. I'm not denying that it's a classic, but I am genuinely surprised there is this much love for it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 04 2015 07:48 AM Re: Unexpected news...

It really is the best book ever.

Rockin' Doc Feb 05 2015 10:23 PM Re: Unexpected news...

I read To Kill A Mockingbird 2 or 3 years ago and thoroughly enjoyed the book. I was disappointed when I learned that Harper Lee never wrote another book, though she assisted her childhood friend Truman Capote with his research for his classic, In Cold Blood. . It is interesting to learn that an unpublished manuscript for a second book has been found. I fully intend to read it, but I doubt it will live up to the expectations I have for it as a follow up to the classic TKAM.

Frayed Knot Feb 05 2015 10:35 PM Re: Unexpected news...

In the follow-up to the Super Bowl hype this past week, Rob Gronkowski apparently told some talk show host that 'To Kill a Mockingbird' was the last book he read ... in 9th grade Whatever college he attended (and maybe even 'graduated' from) must be so proud.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2015 06:21 AM Re: Unexpected news...

I'm sure that won't stop him from writing one. Or "writing" one. The other shoe is really starting to drop — reports suggesting its no coincidence that this is breaking three months after the death of Lee's sister who had protected her interests for decades, that she's suffering from dementia and prone to signing off on anything put in front of her just to get people to leave alone, and that she's beyond working with any editors to get this story in the form she would want it published in.

Ceetar Feb 06 2015 07:44 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy MD wrote: I'm sure that won't stop him from writing one. Or "writing" one. The other shoe is really starting to drop — reports suggesting its no coincidence that this is breaking three months after the death of Lee's sister who had protected her interests for decades, that she's suffering from dementia and prone to signing off on anything put in front of her just to get people to leave alone, and that she's beyond working with any editors to get this story in the form she would want it published in. seeing some of that. I don't quite understand how it's necessarily harmful to her though, besides perhaps her ultimate estate if she's being taken advantage of financially. There's the intellectual property aspect of it, but I haven't seen any quotes she wants/wanted the manuscript destroyed/never published. (If in fact its 'discovery' is fabricated)

Edgy MD Feb 06 2015 07:50 AM Re: Unexpected news...

You don't see the harm in taking advantage of someone's medical condition to make millions for you and your company by selling off something of hers that she, had she been in full control of her faculties, may well have never wanted sold? Something she insisted not be sold through decades of better health? If the scenario is truly playing out that way, it's textbook exploitation. If the fates allow, we're all going to be old some day. We'll certainly all be vulnerable.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2015 07:54 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Best Internet title suggestion I came across: 'To Beat the Living Shit Out Of A Penguin'

Ceetar Feb 06 2015 07:59 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy MD wrote: You don't see the harm in taking advantage of someone's medical condition to make millions for you and your company by selling off something of hers that she, had she been in full control of her faculties, may well have never wanted sold? Something she insisted not be sold through decades of better health? If the scenario is truly playing out that way, it's textbook exploitation. If the fates allow, we're all going to be old some day. We'll certainly all be vulnerable. did she insist it never be sold, or was it just found? Important question. It's presumably going to make her money as well. It's not like they're stealing her money away, they're adding to it. Yes it's exploitation and sleazy and possibly even criminal, but it's not something that's going to make her life worse. And I fall strongly on the side of supporting things that get new stories and books published versus destroyed. Also, unless something comes out (in her will?) that demands it be destroyed, etc, this book is getting published no matter what, even if you argue that she can't give consent to have it published, now that it's clear it exists it's never going away. I don't know what the law says in regards to this, is it a copyright/public domain thing if it's unpublished? 70 years or whatever? Eventually it's going to get published. Why shouldn't she at least benefit from it, if minimally?

Centerfield Feb 06 2015 08:10 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Wow, this is just fascinating news. Rob Gronkowski knows how to read?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2015 08:24 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Yes it's exploitation and sleazy and possibly even criminal, but it's not something that's going to make her life worse.

Vic Sage Feb 06 2015 08:32 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You don't see the harm in taking advantage of someone's medical condition to make millions for you and your company by selling off something of hers that she, had she been in full control of her faculties, may well have never wanted sold? Something she insisted not be sold through decades of better health? If the scenario is truly playing out that way, it's textbook exploitation. If the fates allow, we're all going to be old some day. We'll certainly all be vulnerable. did she insist it never be sold, or was it just found? Important question. It's presumably going to make her money as well. It's not like they're stealing her money away, they're adding to it. Yes it's exploitation and sleazy and possibly even criminal, but it's not something that's going to make her life worse. And I fall strongly on the side of supporting things that get new stories and books published versus destroyed. Also, unless something comes out (in her will?) that demands it be destroyed, etc, this book is getting published no matter what, even if you argue that she can't give consent to have it published, now that it's clear it exists it's never going away. I don't know what the law says in regards to this, is it a copyright/public domain thing if it's unpublished? 70 years or whatever? Eventually it's going to get published. Why shouldn't she at least benefit from it, if minimally? sometimes you spout some stupid shit that really irks me. But this is ceetarded to the max. even for you.

Ceetar Feb 06 2015 08:34 AM Re: Unexpected news...

sorry I'm not black and white enough for you. common complain really.

d'Kong76 Feb 06 2015 08:36 AM Re: Unexpected news...

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: We gotta save this for IGT's!!

batmagadanleadoff Feb 06 2015 10:18 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You don't see the harm in taking advantage of someone's medical condition to make millions for you and your company by selling off something of hers that she, had she been in full control of her faculties, may well have never wanted sold? Something she insisted not be sold through decades of better health? If the scenario is truly playing out that way, it's textbook exploitation. If the fates allow, we're all going to be old some day. We'll certainly all be vulnerable. did she insist it never be sold, or was it just found? Important question. It's presumably going to make her money as well. It's not like they're stealing her money away, they're adding to it. Yes it's exploitation and sleazy and possibly even criminal, but it's not something that's going to make her life worse. And I fall strongly on the side of supporting things that get new stories and books published versus destroyed. Also, unless something comes out (in her will?) that demands it be destroyed, etc, this book is getting published no matter what, even if you argue that she can't give consent to have it published, now that it's clear it exists it's never going away. I don't know what the law says in regards to this, is it a copyright/public domain thing if it's unpublished? 70 years or whatever? Eventually it's going to get published. Why shouldn't she at least benefit from it, if minimally? Instead, I'll just sanitize my response to write that this is the "strangest" post I've ever read on this forum.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 06 2015 01:27 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You don't see the harm in taking advantage of someone's medical condition to make millions for you and your company by selling off something of hers that she, had she been in full control of her faculties, may well have never wanted sold? Something she insisted not be sold through decades of better health? If the scenario is truly playing out that way, it's textbook exploitation. If the fates allow, we're all going to be old some day. We'll certainly all be vulnerable. did she insist it never be sold, or was it just found? Important question. It's presumably going to make her money as well. It's not like they're stealing her money away, they're adding to it. Yes it's exploitation and sleazy and possibly even criminal, but it's not something that's going to make her life worse. And I fall strongly on the side of supporting things that get new stories and books published versus destroyed. Also, unless something comes out (in her will?) that demands it be destroyed, etc, this book is getting published no matter what, even if you argue that she can't give consent to have it published, now that it's clear it exists it's never going away. I don't know what the law says in regards to this, is it a copyright/public domain thing if it's unpublished? 70 years or whatever? Eventually it's going to get published. Why shouldn't she at least benefit from it, if minimally? I like this reasoning. I mean, this planet's headed toward heat death someday, so in the meantime, why not enjoy ourselves in whatever way each of us sees fit, even if that means a few other people have to get unwillingly drugged-then-sexed/bankrupted/dead in the meantime? I mean, they won't feel it, right?

metsmarathon Feb 06 2015 01:53 PM Re: Unexpected news...

lets pretend that htis is your first time brewing beer, and you're working out the kinks. and that one brewer friend of yours came by as you were ready to tap it, and he tasted it and helped you figure out what you did wrong and what you did right, and what you could make better hte next time. and hte next time you brew up a batch of beer, you know what? it's the best fucking beer. the absolute best beer. people who try it acclaim it wherever they go. you sign up with a major beer distributor and they sell hte everloving shit out of it. years later, it is acclaimed hte best beer of hte fucking century. the whole goddamned century! you've still got the recipe for hte first batch, but man, it was no good. maybe it could be ok if you worked at it, i guess, but you're happy with your success, having made your pinnacle of beering achievement. plus, promoting it is a drag, and you're not much into the limelight. you're good. maybe you still homebrew a bit, but its just for you and your close buds. you know what you're doing, but you've made your mark in alcohol. youre place is set. years later, someone comes along and, you're old and you're not feeling well, and eventually they slide a piece of paper in front of you and you're fucking 90 years old and are tired of people bothering you, so you just agree to shit because it seems to make people happy. you've just signed away the first batch. when people drink it, they'll think of you. they'll have such high expectations. but it's still that first batch. and you learned so much from it, and you could improve on it, but never bothered. but there it is, now, added to your everlasting legacy. and it's just plain shit. nasty ass juice. it sells, because people will buy it. and you make money off it, or rather your estate does. you're not so much in hte kind of state where you can take advantage of hte newly acquired wealth, fame, and fortune. but now, when people drink your good beer, they also think of the bad beer. and maybe some of htem start to wonder if your perfect beer was ever all that good in the first place. you're no longer a one-hit wonder of hte most glorious kind. you're the one-hit wonder with the shit second album. in your right mind, you would never have allowed this to happen, to tarnish your legacy. because that first batch is not a beer you were proud of, and is not a beer you would have wanted to have your name attached to it. it is not up to your standards. but some sneaky snook subverted all of that, took advantage of you. and now you're name, your reputation, your place in history is taking a hit. sure, the recipe might have come out, but not as a commercial product. as a historical product, it would have been intriguing, interesting. maybe even establish a hiipster following becuase of how bad it is. but it owuld have been released with its appropriate context of an early first draft, unfinished in its final form, and recognized to be substandard and unreleasable by its creator. and in that form it would do no harm to your fame, your reputation, your history. in the proper context, it might even help to trace hte threads of how your one true best beer came to be, and thereby magnify your greatness, and people's understanding of your beermaking genius. but instead, it tears all of that down.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2015 02:26 PM Re: Unexpected news...

marathon celebrates Babe Ruth's 120th birthday with a wallop of his own.

cooby Feb 06 2015 02:27 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy MD wrote: You don't see the harm in taking advantage of someone's medical condition to make millions for you and your company by selling off something of hers that she, had she been in full control of her faculties, may well have never wanted sold? Something she insisted not be sold through decades of better health? If the scenario is truly playing out that way, it's textbook exploitation. If the fates allow, we're all going to be old some day. We'll certainly all be vulnerable. If we have a manuscript hidden away

Ceetar Feb 06 2015 02:35 PM Re: Unexpected news...

metsmarathon wrote: sure, the recipe might have come out, but not as a commercial product. as a historical product, it would have been intriguing, interesting. maybe even establish a hiipster following becuase of how bad it is. but it owuld have been released with its appropriate context of an early first draft, unfinished in its final form, and recognized to be substandard and unreleasable by its creator. and in that form it would do no harm to your fame, your reputation, your history. in the proper context, it might even help to trace hte threads of how your one true best beer came to be, and thereby magnify your greatness, and people's understanding of your beermaking genius. but instead, it tears all of that down. Disagree wholeheartedly here. This is exactly the same. It tarnishes, or doesn't tarnish, just the same. In my mind, and I think we're intelligent enough as a society here, we'll be able to look at this is the first draft that is is (if that's in fact what it is) whether or not she's actually dead. But I sorta took the news in a historical sense anyway. That's how these things usually are. posthumous, or late career data-dumps of undiscovered and unreleased works are rarely refined novels. Maybe the general public doesn't realize that, but I'd have to think the literary critics or people in charge of defining her legacy do. But, also to me, the second work can't possibly diminish the first. They're separate entities. Tom Seaver had a 5.5 ERA with the Reds in 1982. Does it diminish his career and the '69 championship to you? Maybe he just got a little lucky? She wrote a great book, nothing changes that. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I like this reasoning. I mean, this planet's headed toward heat death someday, so in the meantime, why not enjoy ourselves in whatever way each of us sees fit yeah, a little bit. It's all a little ephemeral. It's hard to take certain things very seriously in light of just how damn meaningless everything actually is. I mean, I don't want the woman paraded around a puppet for the masses, extolling this book as some great long-lost national treasure, but I have trouble worrying about if it's going to be released exactly how she might want it.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2015 02:41 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Clearly, you don't. But you should care about people being exploited and our society participating in that. I'm happy to report that everything isn't meaningless. I would ask you to look at your child and reconsider this thought. coob wrote: If we have a manuscript hidden away We all have something. Shortly after my my mother-in-law died back in November — or perhaps as she lay dying — somebody came into her room and pulled off her wedding ring. It hurt my wife almost as much as losing her mother. We all have something. Our innate human rights and dignity not least of it.

cooby Feb 06 2015 02:42 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy, that is terrible!

d'Kong76 Feb 06 2015 04:03 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy MD wrote: Shortly after my my mother-in-law died back in November — or perhaps as she lay dying — somebody came into her room and pulled off her wedding ring. Sadly, this is all too common an occurrence.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 06 2015 04:55 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy MD wrote: . Shortly after my my mother-in-law died back in November — or perhaps as she lay dying — somebody came into her room and pulled off her wedding ring. So long as the ring-taker sells the ring and shares some of the proceeds with your mother-in-law's heirs, I'm okay with the whole transaction.

Ceetar Feb 06 2015 08:15 PM Re: Unexpected news...

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: . Shortly after my my mother-in-law died back in November — or perhaps as she lay dying — somebody came into her room and pulled off her wedding ring. So long as the ring-taker sells the ring and shares some of the proceeds with your mother-in-law's heirs, I'm okay with the whole transaction. The ring no longer belonged to her. That's flat out theft actually.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 06 2015 10:12 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: . Shortly after my my mother-in-law died back in November — or perhaps as she lay dying — somebody came into her room and pulled off her wedding ring. So long as the ring-taker sells the ring and shares some of the proceeds with your mother-in-law's heirs, I'm okay with the whole transaction. The ring no longer belonged to her. That's flat out theft actually. If the ring didn't even belong to her, then how's that a theft? How could Ratso be stealing the salami when the salami's free?

Ceetar Feb 07 2015 06:56 AM Re: Unexpected news...

. Shortly after my my mother-in-law died back in November — or perhaps as she lay dying — somebody came into her room and pulled off her wedding ring. So long as the ring-taker sells the ring and shares some of the proceeds with your mother-in-law's heirs, I'm okay with the whole transaction. The ring no longer belonged to her. That's flat out theft actually. If the ring didn't even belong to her, then how's that a theft? How could Ratso be stealing the salami when the salami's free? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance

dgwphotography Feb 07 2015 07:00 AM Re: Unexpected news...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You don't see the harm in taking advantage of someone's medical condition to make millions for you and your company by selling off something of hers that she, had she been in full control of her faculties, may well have never wanted sold? Something she insisted not be sold through decades of better health? If the scenario is truly playing out that way, it's textbook exploitation. If the fates allow, we're all going to be old some day. We'll certainly all be vulnerable. did she insist it never be sold, or was it just found? Important question. It's presumably going to make her money as well. It's not like they're stealing her money away, they're adding to it. Yes it's exploitation and sleazy and possibly even criminal, but it's not something that's going to make her life worse. And I fall strongly on the side of supporting things that get new stories and books published versus destroyed. Also, unless something comes out (in her will?) that demands it be destroyed, etc, this book is getting published no matter what, even if you argue that she can't give consent to have it published, now that it's clear it exists it's never going away. I don't know what the law says in regards to this, is it a copyright/public domain thing if it's unpublished? 70 years or whatever? Eventually it's going to get published. Why shouldn't she at least benefit from it, if minimally? I like this reasoning. I mean, this planet's headed toward heat death someday, so in the meantime, why not enjoy ourselves in whatever way each of us sees fit, even if that means a few other people have to get unwillingly drugged-then-sexed/bankrupted/dead in the meantime? I mean, they won't feel it, right? Just ask the Wilpons. This is their specialty... I was initially excited by this discovery. The more I hear about it, the less enthused I become...

d'Kong76 Feb 07 2015 07:04 AM Re: Unexpected news...

batmagadanleadoff wrote: So long as the ring-taker sells the ring and shares some of the proceeds with your mother-in-law's heirs, I'm okay with the whole transaction. You approve of someone stealing a ring from a dead woman's hand? I'm missing something here. We have a friend who lost his wife in a tragic accident. Someone stole all her jewelry in the hospital... it's disgusts me to think about it.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2015 07:08 AM Re: Unexpected news...

I think he was being ironic, to point out the emptiness/absurdity of ceetar's argument.

d'Kong76 Feb 07 2015 07:29 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Ahhh, my bad. The irony went over my head and rolled on to the warning track... My friend got arrested that night at the hospital for disorderly conduct. One of the items stolen was an antique cross that was his grandmothers. I hope their fingers fell off and they have to pick their nose with boney stumps.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 07 2015 06:01 PM Re: Unexpected news...

I'm amused-- and a little bemused-- by how this has become the Attempted Moral Education of Ceetar thread.

d'Kong76 Feb 07 2015 07:04 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Things morph sometimes in threads.

Mets Guy in Michigan Feb 07 2015 07:17 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Steering this back... If the old manuscript is great, everybody wins. If it's not so great, it will be sort of forgotten by all but people who really follow this stuff, a curiosity -- like Rush's "Caress of Steel." The legacy of TKAM remains intact and always will. "Moving Pictures" will always be a classic even if "Caress of Steel" remains on the discography. The people who stole Edgy's mother-in-law's ring are vile. Sorry to hear about that.

Ceetar Feb 07 2015 08:21 PM Re: Unexpected news...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'm amused-- and a little bemused-- by how this has become the Attempted Moral Education of Ceetar thread. should we branch off and discuss morals themselves? like how this: Edgy MD wrote: We all have something. Our innate human rights and dignity not least of it. is certainly not a hard fact. Do we really have innate human rights? Or is that a societal/government thing? Strip it all away, remove the laws and the government and society. Just two folks alone in a quiet forest with on one to give them or define 'rights'.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2015 09:08 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Maybe you and I need to meet in a forest and talk about it.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 07 2015 09:15 PM Re: Unexpected news...

If you don't believe that human life has innate worth and humans an innate dignity, then why have a child? Boredom? Tax breaks?

Fman99 Feb 08 2015 06:04 AM Re: Unexpected news...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I like this reasoning. I mean, this planet's headed toward heat death someday, so in the meantime, why not enjoy ourselves in whatever way each of us sees fit, even if that means a few other people have to get unwillingly drugged-then-sexed/bankrupted/dead in the meantime? I mean, they won't feel it, right? Don't you guys know, any time you mention drugging and sexing someone in a message post I am supposed to be notified? Sheesh.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 08 2015 09:53 AM Re: Unexpected news...

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: So long as the ring-taker sells the ring and shares some of the proceeds with your mother-in-law's heirs, I'm okay with the whole transaction. You approve of someone stealing a ring from a dead woman's hand? I'm missing something here. We have a friend who lost his wife in a tragic accident. Someone stole all her jewelry in the hospital... it's disgusts me to think about it. Why do you even continue to read my posts? It's obvious that your powers of reading comprehension shut down totally when you see my name and avatar. In the end, all you do is make a jackass out of yourself.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 08 2015 09:55 AM Re: Unexpected news...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'm amused-- and a little bemused-- by how this has become the Attempted Moral Education of Ceetar thread.

d'Kong76 Feb 08 2015 10:10 AM Re: Unexpected news...

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Why do you even continue to read my posts? It's obvious that your powers of reading comprehension shut down totally when you see my name and avatar. In the end, all you do is make a jackass out of yourself. Lose the hate, metbro... I said my bad. I totally Paulie'd a lot of what was written in this thread when it got all mucked up. I apologize.

Edgy MD Feb 08 2015 11:00 AM Re: Unexpected news...

"Paulied" = "skimmed"

batmagadanleadoff Feb 08 2015 11:14 AM Re: Unexpected news...

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Why do you even continue to read my posts? It's obvious that your powers of reading comprehension shut down totally when you see my name and avatar. In the end, all you do is make a jackass out of yourself. Lose the hate, metbro... I said my bad. I totally Paulie'd a lot of what was written in this thread when it got all mucked up. I apologize. Whatever. Even though it's always my posts you don't understand. For like seven years running.

Edgy MD Feb 08 2015 11:20 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Ah, come on. He never gets me either sometimes.

Mets – Willets Point Feb 08 2015 03:37 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy MD wrote: "Paulied" = "skimmed" That's an ancient reference.

d'Kong76 Feb 08 2015 05:17 PM Re: Unexpected news...

My guess is he woulda gotten it, but now we'll never know.

Ceetar Feb 09 2015 07:38 AM Re: Unexpected news...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: If you don't believe that human life has innate worth and humans an innate dignity, then why have a child? Boredom? Tax breaks? different between rights and worth. But as a part of society I've agreed that humans should have worth and rights in exchange for the same worth and rights being applied to me. It's a compact, and one that doesn't apply without these rules and guidelines. Hell, it's the premise of dozens of post-apocalyptic movies. Do you owe that random stranger in the woods the time of day? Or should you eliminate him as a potential enemy? And what it often boils down to is the people that want to cling to society, or hope to reform it, embrace the strangers and look to form a community. In essence, they're trying to recreate that agreement that all people have rights and worth. They may be acting on the belief that it's innate, but it's the act that creates the worth, not the belief. The people that have given up hope of society and want to find a safe secure life for themselves and/or their family often look at the stranger the same as they would a bear. Just another create on this vast planet that may or may not be a threat. fwiw I'd probably fall into the 'rebuild the community' faction trying to treat everyone with fairness and worth, but that doesn't mean that that exists innately. Ahh, philosophy.

metsmarathon Feb 09 2015 09:08 AM Re: Unexpected news...

y'know... those movies and plots are about the breakdown of civilization and society. the subsequent episodes should generally feature either hte rebuilding of society and civilization, and therefore the realization, acknowledgement, reinforcement, and defense of those same human rights, or a descent further into despotism and/or extinction. or are we setting ourselves up for a splinter thread wherein we argue whether murder and theft are really wrong, or if it's just because they're against the law.

Ceetar Feb 09 2015 09:47 AM Re: Unexpected news...

metsmarathon wrote: y'know... those movies and plots are about the breakdown of civilization and society. the subsequent episodes should generally feature either hte rebuilding of society and civilization, and therefore the realization, acknowledgement, reinforcement, and defense of those same human rights, or a descent further into despotism and/or extinction. or are we setting ourselves up for a splinter thread wherein we argue whether murder and theft are really wrong, or if it's just because they're against the law. They generally do. Hell, real life history is full of similar type things. Revolutions, anarchy, new government has it's own idea of your worth. I heard a bit about this discussion recently, of all places, at a beer podcast's postshow in regards to the french newspaper murders and the 'right' to free speech and the difference between a person in a country without those rights being denied rights he innately should have, or if it's just a right he clearly doesn't have and who are we to say he should be able to speak his mind in his country?

Edgy MD Feb 09 2015 09:51 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Ceetar wrote: I heard a bit about this discussion recently, of all places, at a beer podcast's postshow in regards to the french newspaper murders... 'Splains a lot.

Ceetar Feb 09 2015 09:52 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: I heard a bit about this discussion recently, of all places, at a beer podcast's postshow in regards to the french newspaper murders... 'Splains a lot. why, are people that are interested in beer more or less qualified to have philosophical discussions?

Edgy MD Feb 09 2015 09:54 AM Re: Unexpected news...

No.

Frayed Knot Feb 09 2015 10:07 AM Re: Unexpected news...

There's that 'Dueling Banjos' scene in DELIVERANCE where Ronny Cox's guitar playing can no longer keep up with the kid with the banjo and so he just looks up and says; "I'm lost" as the kid goes on rapid fire without him. I find that scene increasingly coming to mind as I read this thread.

metsmarathon Feb 09 2015 10:53 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Ceetar wrote: metsmarathon wrote: y'know... those movies and plots are about the breakdown of civilization and society. the subsequent episodes should generally feature either hte rebuilding of society and civilization, and therefore the realization, acknowledgement, reinforcement, and defense of those same human rights, or a descent further into despotism and/or extinction. or are we setting ourselves up for a splinter thread wherein we argue whether murder and theft are really wrong, or if it's just because they're against the law. They generally do. Hell, real life history is full of similar type things. Revolutions, anarchy, new government has it's own idea of your worth. yes, governments and those with power do have hte ability to take away and/or bestow rights as they see fit. happens all the time. those which bestow less of these are generally seen as less good than those which bestow more rights unto it's peoples. the founders of this very nation (and, well, the freemasons before them) put forth the notion that there are very many rights which are indeed inherent to humans, a basic quality of our existence, and whose limitation by governments and/or the powerful is a violation of those same human rights, and is a violation indeed of the natural order of things. people are killed all the time, things are stolen. the occurence of these thing does not and should not counterindicate one's right to living, and one's right to own property. I heard a bit about this discussion recently, of all places, at a beer podcast's postshow in regards to the french newspaper murders and the 'right' to free speech and the difference between a person in a country without those rights being denied rights he innately should have, or if it's just a right he clearly doesn't have and who are we to say he should be able to speak his mind in his country? what does that even mean? that the right to be able to express oneself is determined only by the rules of hte society in which you find yourself, or in which you were raised? is the argument really that a fundamental islamist really and truly does have the right to murder you for blaspheming their prophet because where they came from, you would not have that right? is that really a point that was being made? by sober people? otherwise, i'm not sure i even understand the preceding paragraph. i think that i do understand the paragraph, and i would counter it with the following. if you believe that the freedom to express oneself should not be met with murder, then you should be outraged when it does, and you should be outraged and appalled by a society that allows it. the counterargument is that there is no such thing as oppression. that rights and the human existence is defined by the specific rules regulations and the whims of the powerful which preside over those indivudual human lives. that the north koreans are not being oppressed by their government because hte government made those rules that they have to live by. that muslim women living under sharia law are not oppressed because they have been granted no rights and therefore no rights can be taken away from them. that african americans were not oppressed because those were the laws and rules and you had to be a slave, or more recently, you had to drink from a differnt fountain or sit in different seats or use a different door or not date my daughter. that, to invoke godwin, the jews were not oppressed in nazi germnay beacuse the government had the ability and power to strip of tehm even the ability to live. and anyone who was in a position to have enjoyed greater rights than these supposed oppressed classes should simply shrug their shoulders, toss up their hands, and dismiss it all saying, 'them's the breaks, now pass me a pumpkin peach porter." the concept of a fundamental set of human rights is something that humans innately should understand. and should and indeed do question when they do not recieve as such. it is frequently the goal of hte powerful to tamp down on these fundamental human rights in order to maintain and increase their own power and control. and it is indeed one of the greater accomplishments of mankind to have in the past few centuries recognized and enumerated the understanding of these fundamental human rights, and increased in the attempt to include all of humanity under their umbrella, to the greatest extent possible. to wrap this back into the preexisting thread, harper lee has a fundamental right to own and control that which she created, her own intellectual property. she created something that, for whatever her reasons, she chose not to share with the greater world. and in a weakened and reduced state, someone came in a took it, not for her benefit, but for their own financial enrichment and personal wealth. to put it another way, if i get you drunk, buy your sex tape off of you at pennies on the dollar (not the good one, mind you, that fman directed, with the sexy dialogue and favorable lighting, but the awkward first one that looks like two seal pups barking and wrestling over a fresh herring under the harsh flourescent lights in the furniture display at the local raymour & flannigan) put it up on youtube and make tens of dollars off of it, you'd be totally cool with that, right? there would be no innate human rights of yours that i would be violating.

Edgy MD Feb 09 2015 11:20 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Second homer in one game for Zapata.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 09 2015 11:25 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Somehow eloquence and 'poorly-directed fman sex tape' do go together.

metsmarathon Feb 09 2015 11:34 AM Re: Unexpected news...

no, no. when fman directs a sex tape, you get a quality product. good lighting, believeable dialogue, expert cinematography, and only the finest bow-chica-wow-wow soundtrack money can buy. he's hard to work with, and very demanding, and even the simplest scene requires doezens of takes "to get it right" he says, but it's totally worth it for an heirloom-quality recording you'll be proud to hand down to coming generations.

Ceetar Feb 09 2015 11:35 AM Re: Unexpected news...

yes. I'd be cool with that. my bad. And we're making quite a few assumptions about Lee's condition and state of mind, both now and in the past. The last thing I read seemed to state that the novel WAS only recently discovered, so it's not like we have a written document from 30 years ago saying "I wrote this novel, that's been lost. should it be discovered, I don't want it published under any circumstances" So what exactly do we have to go on? Not to mention that she, presumably at a time when she was (definitely?) in her right mind, was the one that hired her lawyer? There's not a right answer to these things. Wars are fought over this stuff, revolutions, etc. What I was saying is that North Koreans for example, don't have the right to freedom of speech, at least not the way we define it in America. This is apart from any retaliation for speaking out, obviously murdering said people, regardless of freedom of speech, is also not a protected right. Though some governments, in fact probably most, have that right. Like how the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery doesn't apply to the government if they find you guilty. But North Koreans don't have the right to speak their mind. That doesn't mean it's not horrible, that it's not an oppressive system. But does it justify the US, or others, to take action against them because we feel they do/should have that freedom? What exactly gives us the right to act and define what rights are human? the founders of this very nation (and, well, the freemasons before them) put forth the notion that there are very many rights which are indeed inherent to humans, a basic quality of our existence, and whose limitation by governments and/or the powerful is a violation of those same human rights, and is a violation indeed of the natural order of things. Indeed. But we have those rights because they said so. Had they said we DON'T have them, we wouldn't. (and we've spent the entire history of this country trying to define exactly what those freedoms mean and how far they extend) I'd wager a lot of money that their idea of the 'ideal' society and representation of rights is much different than what's put forth today. (Never mind that some of them were very iffy on what defined 'human') Go back further and you'll find plenty of enlightened progressive people trying to define what rights we do/should have as humans, and defining things we'd find appalling today. It's no stretch to imagine 100 years from now people shuddering at what we felt we had the right to do, or the so-called 'innate' human rights we're violating.

Mets – Willets Point Feb 09 2015 11:36 AM Re: Unexpected news...

This is a weird thread.

themetfairy Feb 09 2015 11:37 AM Re: Unexpected news...

metsmarathon wrote: no, no. when fman directs a sex tape, you get a quality product. good lighting, believeable dialogue, expert cinematography, and only the finest bow-chica-wow-wow soundtrack money can buy. he's hard to work with, and very demanding, and even the simplest scene requires doezens of takes "to get it right" he says, but it's totally worth it for an heirloom-quality recording you'll be proud to hand down to coming generations. I'm cracking up over this. Which is very bad, because I'm at work and would be hard pressed to explain what's so funny.

Mets – Willets Point Feb 09 2015 11:40 AM Re: Unexpected news...

themetfairy wrote: metsmarathon wrote: no, no. when fman directs a sex tape, you get a quality product. good lighting, believeable dialogue, expert cinematography, and only the finest bow-chica-wow-wow soundtrack money can buy. he's hard to work with, and very demanding, and even the simplest scene requires doezens of takes "to get it right" he says, but it's totally worth it for an heirloom-quality recording you'll be proud to hand down to coming generations. I'm cracking up over this. Which is very bad, because I'm at work and would be hard pressed to explain what's so funny. I had to hold in a guffaw about "coming generations" so I would not have to explain what is so funny to my son.

Edgy MD Feb 09 2015 11:50 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Ceetar wrote: And we're making quite a few assumptions about Lee's condition and state of mind, both now and in the past. I don't know who "we" refers to. I wrote quite clearly, as this insanity started, "If the scenario is truly playing out that way, it's textbook exploitation."

Ceetar Feb 09 2015 11:52 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: And we're making quite a few assumptions about Lee's condition and state of mind, both now and in the past. I don't know who "we" refers to. The people making assumptions about her condition.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 09 2015 11:55 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Mets – Willets Point wrote: themetfairy wrote: metsmarathon wrote: no, no. when fman directs a sex tape, you get a quality product. good lighting, believeable dialogue, expert cinematography, and only the finest bow-chica-wow-wow soundtrack money can buy. he's hard to work with, and very demanding, and even the simplest scene requires doezens of takes "to get it right" he says, but it's totally worth it for an heirloom-quality recording you'll be proud to hand down to coming generations. I'm cracking up over this. Which is very bad, because I'm at work and would be hard pressed to explain what's so funny. I had to hold in a guffaw about "coming generations" so I would not have to explain what is so funny to my son. "Coming Generations" was his debut film. Won an award in the Octogenarian Porn category, IIRC.

Edgy MD Feb 09 2015 11:55 AM Re: Unexpected news...

ceets wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: And we're making quite a few assumptions about Lee's condition and state of mind, both now and in the past. I don't know who "we" refers to. The people making assumptions about her condition. Well, we're reduced to circular arguments now. How disappointing.

metsmarathon Feb 09 2015 11:57 AM Re: Unexpected news...

if you don't know that you have a right, it can't be taken away from you. said every oppresser, ever. (i feel like such a hippie repeatedly using the word oppressor over and over again) the scope of human rights should not be limited by the breadth of the imagination of the human in question. as we as a society (and by that i mean a complete human society, not just a community, or nation, but humanity as a whole) come to realize and understand new horizons of human rights, we should strive towards expanding those rights to all humans, not only those who already know of them. as we come to the slow understanding that men should be able to marry men, and women women, and various variations inbetween, we should strive towards expanding that freedom to all of us. just as, as we came to a slow and grudging ackowledgement that one's african heritage and/or brown skin does not make one somehow less human than the whiter among us. just as we came to a slow and belligerent understanding that the full and total ownership of another person, to buy and sell and treat as property is a violation of that person's humanity. just as we came to the slow understanding that one's god should not be determined by the ruling class. just as we came to the realization that the free expression of ideas is at the core of the human experience. the right to vote for the president of the united states of america is a right granted by a specific government to its own people. it is not a fundamental human right, although hte ability of a people to have a say in its own governance, one would likely say, is. the right of a person to live, however, is a fundamental human right. which cannot be given by a government, and can only be stripped away, in violation of that fundamental human right, in violation of humanity itself. the ownership of one's own ideas is another of these fundamental human rights. if i write something on paper, it should be up to me wether or not those ideas are disemmanated, and to whom. not to whichever opportunistic trickster comes along. no, i don;t know much about harper lee, and her mental and emotional state over the "new book" beyond what i've read about it, largely in these pages. and what i see is an elderly and infirm woman, lacking the support structure that she herself had held in place through the majority of her life when she was in greater control of her faculties, changing direction in a substantial way for seemingly no reason, and with no great or meaningful benefit to herself, but at great benefit to him hose direction she turned. it stinks and i say so, as have many others. its akin to ted williams and his frozen, cracked head. was it really his wishes, or his son's, for his son's gain and not his father's?

Centerfield Feb 09 2015 12:10 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Marathon makes no sense. There is nothing quite as American as a good old-fashioned exploitation. I don't see why he has his panties in a bunch. Me, I've already pre-ordered all prequels written by Ted Williams' frozen head. Free shipping on Amazon if you order today.

Edgy MD Feb 09 2015 12:12 PM Re: Unexpected news...

I had Steve J. Rogers shoot my sex tape. NOT a good time to have gone the cheap route, in retrospect.

Ceetar Feb 09 2015 12:25 PM Re: Unexpected news...

These rights of the 'greater human society' exist only in our collective agreement of them. And again, that agreement is often up for much debate/war. Way back when we first stepped, evolutionally, away from the apes, where did these rights come from exactly? One human kills another for his food. Another kills for a warm place to sleep. Somewhere down the line, two early humans come to an understanding that they're similar, and they should both be able to survive. One's a better hunter, one's a better gatherer. They enter into an agreement to share, and to defend their shared bounty. Perhaps any innate human right is simply a set of rules and agreements that are believed to lead to a greater good for all. But hell, why stop there? why not include the apes? The dogs and cats, the other living beings. (If I had to guess, I think the treatment of dogs/cats/apes and the like are likely to be one of those things future societies cringe at from our day) But those clearly aren't 'human' rights. Obviously it'd be better to have a discussion about the new book with a younger and more coherent Harper Lee, but that doesn't exist. All we can do is negotiate with the current one, and the systems and people she chose to put around her. We can disagree with their judgement, but I think the decision to declare her infirm like we're all doctors or something is a sadder thing. I'm starting to suspect that it's the town of Monroeville that's the real problem here. They are possessive of Lee and don't want to be left out. They feel like Harper Lee groupies that think they're part of the family. They're the ones talking about her being mentally unfit. There are quotes from fellow residents that say Lee's just fine and excited about the new/old book.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 09 2015 12:40 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Edgy MD wrote: I had Steve J. Rogers shoot my sex tape. NOT a good time to have gone the cheap route, in retrospect. It's cause you were wearing that Mets hat through the whole thing. He was much more in his element when he produced his earlier hits "Bang the Bum Slowly" and "Damn, Yank Me!".

batmagadanleadoff Feb 09 2015 01:02 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Centerfield wrote: Marathon makes no sense. There is nothing quite as American as a good old-fashioned exploitation. I don't see why he has his panties in a bunch. I know whatchoo mean. The only way to get ahead in life is by exploiting somebody else. Hell, you gotta find someone to exploit just to break even ... just to make up for all the people exploiting you.

metsmarathon Feb 09 2015 01:05 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Well, alright, you've convinced me. Harper lee is clearly not infirm in any way, and despite any evidence for or against it, she is in full control of her mental faculties, therefore cats are people too, but it's okay to eat them as long as there's no laws forbidding it in your local jurisdiction and nobody tells the cats otherwise. Just so we're clear.

Ceetar Feb 09 2015 01:07 PM Re: Unexpected news...

metsmarathon wrote: Well, alright, you've convinced me. Harper lee is clearly not infirm in any way, and despite any evidence for or against it, she is in full control of her mental faculties, therefore cats are people too, but it's okay to eat them as long as there's no laws forbidding it in your local jurisdiction and nobody tells the cats otherwise. Just so we're clear. Don't forget filming you eating the cat while having sex and disseminating it on the internet.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 09 2015 01:09 PM Re: Unexpected news...

metsmarathon wrote: Well, alright, you've convinced me. Harper lee is clearly not infirm in any way, and despite any evidence for or against it, she is in full control of her mental faculties, therefore cats are people too, but it's okay to eat them as long as there's no laws forbidding it in your local jurisdiction and nobody tells the cats otherwise. Just so we're clear. Cats are people? Next thing, you'll be telling me that cats are corporations, too.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 09 2015 01:15 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Ceetar wrote: metsmarathon wrote: Well, alright, you've convinced me. Harper lee is clearly not infirm in any way, and despite any evidence for or against it, she is in full control of her mental faculties, therefore cats are people too, but it's okay to eat them as long as there's no laws forbidding it in your local jurisdiction and nobody tells the cats otherwise. Just so we're clear. Don't forget filming you eating the cat while having sex and disseminating it on the internet. Well, that's just plain wrong. Unless it's in 35 mm, on the big screen, cat pornography is just jury-rigged backroom filth.

cooby Feb 09 2015 02:34 PM Re: Unexpected news...

metsmarathon wrote: no, no. when fman directs a sex tape, you get a quality product. good lighting, believeable dialogue, expert cinematography, and only the finest bow-chica-wow-wow soundtrack money can buy. he's hard to work with, and very demanding, and even the simplest scene requires =#FF4000]doezens of takes "to get it right" he says, but it's totally worth it for an heirloom-quality recording you'll be proud to hand down to coming generations. (Snort, hahahahahah, Snort!)

Fman99 Feb 09 2015 08:05 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Wait, so, did I direct a sex tape with Harper Lee in it? I need to lay off the Vodka and Frescas.

themetfairy Feb 09 2015 08:55 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Gin mixes better with Fresca, IMO.

d'Kong76 Feb 09 2015 08:58 PM Re: Unexpected news...

This is gonna be one of those threads that goes on for months.

Ceetar Feb 10 2015 05:41 AM Re: Unexpected news...

d'Kong76 wrote: This is gonna be one of those threads that goes on for months. if it lasts longer than 4 hours consult a doctor, everyone knows that.

MFS62 Feb 10 2015 07:43 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Wow! This thread has gotten off the track faster than a Mercedes SUV. Later

cooby Sep 04 2015 06:49 PM Re: Unexpected news...

I'm reading this now. I like it. I don't understand all the hate by some critics. It's well written. I don't like the absence of Jem but otherwise it's so far so good.

cooby Sep 08 2015 08:46 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Finished this the other day. Some of the dialogue was very confusing (Uncle Jack) and it's hard to see this as the original concept for TKAM, but I liked it quite a lot. Surprising ending.

Centerfield Sep 08 2015 10:25 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Both in February and today, I saw this thread title and thought that Ben Grimm might be pregnant.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 09 2015 04:40 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Only my OB/GYN knows for sure!

metsmarathon Sep 09 2015 08:49 AM Re: Unexpected news...

it's all there on the videotape.

Rockin' Doc Sep 09 2015 04:17 PM Re: Unexpected news...

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Only my OB/GYN knows for sure! metsmarathon wrote: it's all there on the videotape. Ben Grimm's ob/gyn is videotaping his visits? I don't think such a practice would be in compliance with HIPAA. I recommend Ben hire Centerfield to get an injunction blocking the release of such tapes before he finds them posted on some shady internet site.

cooby Sep 10 2015 09:40 AM Re: Unexpected news...

Like this one, lol