Yes, I listened to both clips before I wrote. I am aware of everything you say. The Raja and Lynch eventually "got it". I would have expected Lynch and Co. to do better, to be more professional, in a period of time when the movement is apparently in some decline.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "aztjbailey" <aztjbailey@> > wrote: > > > > If I was in the audience and understood english and german, I would > > say to David Lynch the following: > > > > "David, I will explain to you what is going on. This audience is > > descended from a group of people who endured one of the most > horrific > > events in human history, led by a madman that promised them 1000 > > years of ruling the world. Now you bring out this buffoon, this > > blithering idiot, who droned on and on and on the > > word "invincibility", having absolutely no sensitivity to who his > > audience was or whether he meant invicibility in a military sense > > or some other point of view. In the same way that you drone on > > with your "waves of bliss" monologue, he brought back with his > > droning the memories of an earlier "leader" who promised world > > domination. Can you come off your magical mystery bliss cloud to > > see the pain he caused? And you actually buy the idea this man is > > suitable for regional leadership in your bliss soaked world order?" > > You know, Lynch *did* see the pain the raja caused. > He said so explicitly, and he apologized for it on > the raja's behalf. Somebody had explained to him at > some point the problem with the term "invincibility" > and its connection to Hitler, so he understood > exactly what was going on. > > Even the raja eventually got it and pointed out > that the idea was to make *every nation* invincible > and to destroy enmity between nations. Obviously it > should have occurred to him long before he ever > spoke that the term would be inflammatory to a > German audience; and that he didn't realize it > immediately when the audience started objecting is > just beyond belief. One would love to have been a > fly on the wall at the TMers' post-mortem. > > The audience too appeared to have at least figured > out toward the end that the way they had taken the > term wasn't what had been intended, even if they > weren't clear on what it *did* mean in the TMO > context. They certainly listened to Lynch pretty > respectfully, and they applauded him when he was > through. > > I wonder whether some of the people commenting here > watched *both* video clips. Most of what I described > above happened during the second one. > > Part 1: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k357ErdUQyk > > Part 2: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_5VPd93Ytk >
