--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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?
No he's just coming, he's after all the dumb-az, the minute-man - shallow
retard who can't hold on to anything for too long.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
