On 12/17/2012 12:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

    My point is that there is no such a thing as an objective account
    of history.

Of course. Oliver Stone pretty much says that too.

    Any account of the history of the world, where many people and
    things are involved in many processes at many diverse levels, will
    be biased because one can only take a point of view that generates
    an integrates "sense". The universe is not simple and we should
    never expect that any simple narative of it is "the whole story".

        Oliver Stone is an artist, not a divine teller of truths. Stop
    the idolatry, please.

Who is idolazing? I'd give the show a B+ to B most of the time. It's not perfect, but it's got a lot of things in there that I had vaguely swimming around in my mind put into a timeline-episode context that makes it easier to think about. For the record, I's say that Stone's stuff is merely adequate a lot of the time. He's no Kubrick, but he tries hard and I believe he thinks he's being honest.

    Ah, j/k.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to