--- In [email protected], azgrey <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], Tom Pall <thomas.pall@> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I turned off Ken Burns' Prohibition. His sthick has been
> > > copied so many times, it's no longer novel and exciting.
> > > Plus, his handling of Prohibition is just so polemic.
> > > Don't bother going into the history. Just slant it your
> > > own way.
> >
> > That's what it sounded like to me just watching the trailer.
> > He apparently thinks Prohibition was a ridiculous idea. Did
> > he relate that in any way to the prohibition of marijuana
> > and other potentially highly useful and largely benign
> > psychedelics, or did he ignore that as you say he ignores
> > the history of the temperance movement?
>
> Here we see, gentle readers of FFL, another example
> of of
Oops...you're stammering, az. Are you nervous?
> the censorious editor living up to the stereotypes often used
> to characterize her behavior. That and her being, once again,
> really really stupid. Note that she is criticizing a movie
> she has never ever seen.
I think it's a television documentary, actually.
> Had she seen it she would realize that not only does it not
> ignore the temperance movement,
Ooops again. First, you need to get someone to explain
to you what a *question mark* is. Maybe even what a
*question* is. Often it's a request for information, as
here, when one doesn't know something but would like to
find out.
Actually, perhaps you should learn to read first, because
you seem to have missed the words "history of" in what I
wrote. It wouldn't be possible to do a documentary about
Prohibition if you ignored the temperance movement itself
(and of course the movement is even mentioned in the
trailer). So you got that pretty well fouled up.
You also appear either not to have read Tom's post on
which I was commenting, or to be indirectly asserting that
he is stupid (or lying), since he wrote:
"The monotone of Prohibition, the lack of going into the
temperance movement's historical roots in English and
American history was very disappointing."
> it explores it in great depth and show the many linkages
> to the suffrage movement.
That's good to know. But does it explore the temperance
movement's historical roots in English and American history
(which is what I asked about)?
> Had she viewed the film she would realize that relating
> prohibition of booze to prohibition of marijuana, in the
> context {one of her favorite words and one she often misuses}
I'd ask for examples of my misuse of "context," but that
would be futile, since you can't supply any.
> of the historical nature of the film, would be highly
> inappropriate.
Oh, I don't think so. And here you appear to be suggesting
that *Curtis* is stupid, because he thinks it's important
too:
"The parallels to today's drug war is important. How can a
government be so clear about the impossibility of banning
alcohol which must be fermented and or distilled then
believe that it can ban a plant that grows like a weed?"
> Namely, alcohol was already legal, used extremely widely, and
> an already an integral aspect of the wider culture, and
> continued to be legally readily during Prohibition by
> prescription.
Actually, marijuana has been widely used probably as long
as alcohol. But it began to be regulated in the U.S. in
1860 and was banned in 1937; the ban remains in effect on
the federal level 70-some years later--whereas Prohibition
lasted only about 24 years. So that discrepancy is
noteworthy.
> If that angle is explored, it would be most appropriately
> done in the final segment which has not yet aired.
Well, maybe. It might well have been mentioned earlier.
> But no, dear readers, she could not know this because she
> criticizes before viewing and is, thus, really really stupid.
We're back to your problem understanding what a question
is again. Pay attention, now: "Does it ignore the parallel
with marijuana?" is not a criticism. A criticism would be,
"It ignores the parallel with marijuana."
See the difference? Let me know if you need further
explanation, 'kay?
>
> Perhaps this conclusion is harshly drawn and she is simply in need of another
> cigarette or still combating her anxiety over encountering Mr. Doughney once
> again.
>
