http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlsr08A6sns&feature=endscreen
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlsr08A6sns&feature=endscreen>
of course the Duke is in music too here only interrupted by a too
long speech by Paul McCartney as always...... ok
let it be [:D]
--- In [email protected], merudanda <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> As it pass'd me flying by
>
>
>
> These two icons are compared quite a bit without given them a proper
> duel. Well here's how you may decide your layer of onion.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkkYHH7oYp4
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkkYHH7oYp4>
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wd99TRgYgA&feature=related
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wd99TRgYgA&feature=related>
>
>
>
> one layer
>
> Clint Eastwood is the better total filmmaker, a well rounded filmmaker
> who is a great actor, director, and film music composer. Everyone
knows
> him to be a good actor, many know him as a great director, but few
> people realize how great his music compositions to his films are.
>
>
> second layer (or vice versa)
>
> Duke- John Wayne was a great actor no matter how many bad movies he
was
> in, and it was a lot. Still the man was a natural in front of the
camera
> and had an ease the few other actors have. Many of the mannerisms he
> used in his acting, the facial expressions and body language were
> perfect that few other actors could pull off so naturally.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYNuwxKC02A
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYNuwxKC02A>
>
>
>
> Yeah the trouble with opinion-op-onion is if you do not want -
> challenge -one and you peel one layer off your/his/our op-onion with
the
> remaining layer
>
> you still are crying
>
> so watch-decide-and-always- weep seems be the only choice
>
> until you get rid off the last one
>
> no need of subtitle
>
>
>
> Clint Eastwood vs. John Wayne - interview fragment is from the series
> "Inside the Actors Studio" in 2003(you should see the whole sequel)
> Clint Eastwood tells how his characters differ from the ones from John
> Wayne and Clint even imitates him : )
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_ncnL0iejo
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_ncnL0iejo>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > One of the things that constantly amazes me about FFL -- and, to be
> > fair, about most other "spiritual" discussion groups as well -- is
> that
> > many of the participants seem to be reading a set of imaginary
> subtitles
> > to the posts they reply to.
> >
> > Judging from their replies, they seem to believe that the posts that
> > they are responding to have a set of subtitles that say things like
> > "This is why my ideas on this subject are RIGHT and yours are
WRONG,"
> or
> > "My opinion on this matter is correct and yours is STOOOPID" or "I
> > 'know' the 'Truth' about this subject and you do not" or "There is
> > something WRONG with you if you don't believe what I believe."
> >
> > I propose this theory because that's what their replies sound like.
> They
> > almost MUST be seeing this set of imaginary subtitles, to respond to
> > simple statements of opinion as they do.
> >
> > I don't see the subtitles. I see posters on this and other forums
> often
> > merely presenting their opinions on a matter AS OPINION. There is
> often
> > NO attempt to suggest the "supremacy" of their opinion, or the
> > "rightness" of it, let alone the "wrongness" or "stupidity" of
someone
> > else's. Yet the respondents react as if such implications were, in
> fact,
> > there.
> >
> > WHY? Well, I think it's because of identification to one's own self
or
> > Ego. Some people are just SO identified with the ideas that go
through
> > their heads that they simply *cannot conceive* of there being
another
> > way of seeing an issue. These over-identified-with-their-Egos seem
to
> > believe that if anyone DOES see an issue differently, they "must" be
> > "wrong," or there "must" be something "wrong" with them. It's like
the
> > subtext of every post they write in angry response to an opinion
that
> > differs from theirs is, "You HAVE to be wrong because you're
> disagreeing
> > with ME, and I am RIGHT."
> >
> > I just don't get this. I don't feel that I am "right" about much of
> > anything. I just have opinions. I try to present them AS opinions,
> > liberally sprinkled with a garnish of "IMO's" and other such
> qualifying
> > remarks. And yet people react to them often as if I had slapped them
> > across the face with a glove and challenged them to a duel.
> >
> > I haven't. I have merely stated an opinion. Such as, for example, my
> > opinion that Robin Carlsen is a shitty writer. It's NOT as if I'm
the
> > only person here who thinks so, but IMO that doesn't matter a damn.
I
> > never set out to convince other people that Robin was a shitty
writer,
> > merely express my own OPINION that he is. And yet some -- who, I
> guess,
> > feel that he is a good writer -- have reacted to this as if I were
> > challenging them to some kind of Ego Duel, and that this "slur" on
my
> > part against Robin's good name MUST be answered, by them, and often.
> >
> > So they set out to do EXACTLY the thing that I do not. They set out
to
> > "prove" their opinion "right" and anyone who disagrees with that
> opinion
> > "wrong." Go figure. The only explanation I can come up with this is
> that
> > they are seeing subtitles that I am not.
> >
> > The whole "I am RIGHT and you are WRONG" thang seems like an
enormous
> > waste of time and energy to me. I find it difficult to understand
how
> > after 30 or 40 years of meditation anyone can still be so attached
to
> > one's self and its silly ideas as to feel as if they have to either
> > defend them or argue their supremacy over other silly ideas. It just
> > does not compute for me.
> >
> > For others, this seems to be their whole life. My *opinion* is that
> > Robin was like that, constantly feeling the need to assert his
opinion
> > as some kind of Truth. My *opinion* is that many of the people who
now
> > seem compelled to defend him and diss people who weren't much
> impressed
> > by him is that they feel exactly the same way about their own
opinions
> > and ideas. The very fact that another person has an opinion that
> differs
> > from theirs is perceived (in the imaginary subtitles) as an "attack"
> of
> > some kind on their self. And everyone knows that "attacks" have to
be
> > answered.
> >
> > Boring. Why can't people just have simple opinions, present them as
> > simple opinions, and not get their panties in a twist when someone
has
> > an opinion other than theirs? This approach just seems so much more
> > sensible than "reading the subtitles" and starting a battle to "win"
> > something that was never a battle to begin with. It was just someone
> > stating an opinion. The subtitles you read under the real post that
> > convinced you it was an invitation to an Ego Duel didn't exist. Your
> Ego
> > just imagined them there.
> >
>
