How boring are those curling stones matches at the winter olympic ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

I've heard of them. Didn't know they were a tribute act though, mostly original stuff.

---

Nice guys. They did a few of their own songs as well.

Later that evening some woman started doing acoustic versions of Tiffany songs. Turned out it was Tiffany :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

lol. Harsh but fair. It is Americans, after all.

---

They dont get enough credit for it. It is a majestic read :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Nice guys. They did a few of their own songs as well.

Later that evening some woman started doing acoustic versions of Tiffany songs. Turned out it was Tiffany :-)

---

:-| That must've come as a bit of an unwelcome surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

:-| That must've come as a bit of an unwelcome surprise.

---

It was of little importance to me (I'd had a few, like) but my friends seemed quite excited. There were selfies etc.

I was hanging with the Maiden guys, hearing about their plans for an acoustic reworking of The Trooper :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

They dont get enough credit for it. It is a majestic read :-)

---

Trouble is they don't want war, anyway not on their own turf and between their own peoples. Whereas everyone in the Old World knows this sort of thing is both inevitable and desirable and it's silly, pointless and naive trying to avoid it. It's how a nation refreshes itself. As dear old Fat Pete Clemenza explains, every once in a while you need a war, to get rid of the bad blood.

"Bad blood" here having the meaning bad vibes, bad feelings and bad people with bad genes; degenerates. My wife clarified that last bit to me. German, see. I had had no idea :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

It just doesn't move in me.

The declaration of independence is the better read. Now that is romantic :-)

---

Good God, I'd forgotten you're into Yank history.

Strangely enough, it's not. For some reason {and ask the pwoppa experts, not me} the Yank revolution is seen as the last bit of full on Enlightenment while it's the Fr Rev that starts the changeover to Romanticism.

Thus I'd prefer the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man or, two years later, Olympes de Gourges Declaration of the Rights of women. {Mary Shelly's mum doing the UK one the following year, from memory.}

Oh, thinking about it, why is the US Revolution Enlightenment and the Fr Rev the start of the changeover to Romanticism? Slavery, imo.

1783, or whenever, Yanks have a constitution which allows slavery and says each one is 3/5th of a white man.

Fr Rev initially, abolishes slavery. Yes, Boney brings it back because of the economic warfare with us. But that's why Romanticism starts with the Fr Rev, and Wilberforce and Wedgewood's anti-slave pottery in the 1780s but not the US Rev from the 1770s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Trouble is they don't want war, anyway not on their own turf and between their own peoples. Whereas everyone in the Old World knows this sort of thing is both inevitable and desirable and it's silly, pointless and naive trying to avoid it. It's how a nation refreshes itself. As dear old Fat Pete Clemenza explains, every once in a while you need a war, to get rid of the bad blood.

"Bad blood" here having the meaning bad vibes, bad feelings and bad people with bad genes; degenerates. My wife clarified that last bit to me. German, see. I had had no idea :-\

---

Dear old Clemenza was also a harsh critic of appeasement. Values of the old world. A great man :-)

Home advantage in war can be both an advantage and a burden. Mass civilian death being one of the burdens. Maybe they have a point.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Good God, I'd forgotten you're into Yank history.

Strangely enough, it's not. For some reason {and ask the pwoppa experts, not me} the Yank revolution is seen as the last bit of full on Enlightenment while it's the Fr Rev that starts the changeover to Romanticism.

Thus I'd prefer the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man or, two years later, Olympes de Gourges Declaration of the Rights of women. {Mary Shelly's mum doing the UK one the following year, from memory.}

Oh, thinking about it, why is the US Revolution Enlightenment and the Fr Rev the start of the changeover to Romanticism? Slavery, imo.

1783, or whenever, Yanks have a constitution which allows slavery and says each one is 3/5th of a white man.

Fr Rev initially, abolishes slavery. Yes, Boney brings it back because of the economic warfare with us. But that's why Romanticism starts with the Fr Rev, and Wilberforce and Wedgewood's anti-slave pottery in the 1780s but not the US Rev from the 1770s.

---

The French ruthlessly plagiarised the Americans, who effectively paraphrased Locke. But with considerable style and flourish.

It stands today as the measure of American society, and a measure of their failures. It may borrow from Enlightenment philosophy but there is NOTHING more romantic than failure....

Maybe i spent too much time watching Woody Allen films as a youth :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Dear old Clemenza was also a harsh critic of appeasement. Values of the old world. A great man :-)

Home advantage in war can be both an advantage and a burden. Mass civilian death being one of the burdens. Maybe they have a point.....

---

Yeah, you spill too much good blood as well.

Captain Darling again, despite him having been a stumper :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Yeah, you spill too much good blood as well.

Captain Darling again, despite him having been a stumper :-\

---

As Sollozzo says, blood is a big expense. He may have been useful with a knife but only in matters of business, and with a legitimate grievance. Old school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

As Sollozzo says, blood is a big expense. He may have been useful with a knife but only in matters of business, and with a legitimate grievance. Old school.

---

That's why no-one cried for Santino; he enjoyed the bloodshed too much. A truly depraved degenerate, he needed to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

That's why no-one cried for Santino; he enjoyed the bloodshed too much. A truly depraved degenerate, he needed to go.

---

Absolutely. A bad Don. Careless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

The French ruthlessly plagiarised the Americans, who effectively paraphrased Locke. But with considerable style and flourish.

It stands today as the measure of American society, and a measure of their failures. It may borrow from Enlightenment philosophy but there is NOTHING more romantic than failure....

Maybe i spent too much time watching Woody Allen films as a youth :-)

---

Please don't confuse romantic and Romanticism. Romeo and Juliet was Romantic. It was not part of Romanticism.

As I say, don't ask me when I'm 2-3 cans of tramp cider in on a midweek night, but my whole course made clear US Rev = Enlightenment, Fr Rev = start of move to Romanticism. {Franklin is an Enlightenment figure par excellence. But there is not an ounce of romanticism in his slave owning body.}

It all made sense when I did the course. It all made sense when i watched Scharma half a decade later. It all made sense every other book I've read.

Email Scharma or some other boffin.

I could answer you tomorrow, but only if I spend all day researching it and you're prepared to spend your Tuesday night reading a 1-2k word essay by a crusty, Hindu mad-man.

The difference, and this is the essence of the change over 1780-1830, is the Yank revolution just took power for their own elite. Paupers and slaves stayed where they were.

The Fr Rev saw the elites of the 1st and 2nd estates {clergy and aristos} replaced by the third estate middle classes, with power for the sans-coulottes plebs, and freedom for slaves in the colonies.

Trust me on this.

Or if you don't, argue with the experts cos I'm too pissed atm.

But the whole academic consensus is that it's the 1780s with Wilberforce and the French rev, not the 1770s with the US Rev.

It's just the way it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Please don't confuse romantic and Romanticism. Romeo and Juliet was Romantic. It was not part of Romanticism.

As I say, don't ask me when I'm 2-3 cans of tramp cider in on a midweek night, but my whole course made clear US Rev = Enlightenment, Fr Rev = start of move to Romanticism. {Franklin is an Enlightenment figure par excellence. But there is not an ounce of romanticism in his slave owning body.}

It all made sense when I did the course. It all made sense when i watched Scharma half a decade later. It all made sense every other book I've read.

Email Scharma or some other boffin.

I could answer you tomorrow, but only if I spend all day researching it and you're prepared to spend your Tuesday night reading a 1-2k word essay by a crusty, Hindu mad-man.

The difference, and this is the essence of the change over 1780-1830, is the Yank revolution just took power for their own elite. Paupers and slaves stayed where they were.

The Fr Rev saw the elites of the 1st and 2nd estates {clergy and aristos} replaced by the third estate middle classes, with power for the sans-coulottes plebs, and freedom for slaves in the colonies.

Trust me on this.

Or if you don't, argue with the experts cos I'm too pissed atm.

But the whole academic consensus is that it's the 1780s with Wilberforce and the French rev, not the 1770s with the US Rev.

It's just the way it is.

---

I was deliberately confusing romantic with romanticism. Sorry, thought that was obvious:-)

Hence the Woody Allen reference.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Please don't confuse romantic and Romanticism. Romeo and Juliet was Romantic. It was not part of Romanticism.

As I say, don't ask me when I'm 2-3 cans of tramp cider in on a midweek night, but my whole course made clear US Rev = Enlightenment, Fr Rev = start of move to Romanticism. {Franklin is an Enlightenment figure par excellence. But there is not an ounce of romanticism in his slave owning body.}

It all made sense when I did the course. It all made sense when i watched Scharma half a decade later. It all made sense every other book I've read.

Email Scharma or some other boffin.

I could answer you tomorrow, but only if I spend all day researching it and you're prepared to spend your Tuesday night reading a 1-2k word essay by a crusty, Hindu mad-man.

The difference, and this is the essence of the change over 1780-1830, is the Yank revolution just took power for their own elite. Paupers and slaves stayed where they were.

The Fr Rev saw the elites of the 1st and 2nd estates {clergy and aristos} replaced by the third estate middle classes, with power for the sans-coulottes plebs, and freedom for slaves in the colonies.

Trust me on this.

Or if you don't, argue with the experts cos I'm too pissed atm.

But the whole academic consensus is that it's the 1780s with Wilberforce and the French rev, not the 1770s with the US Rev.

It's just the way it is.

---

Nobody trusts academia anymore; it's too obviously for sale to the highest bidder.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but they swear blind they're not when they rather obviously are.

Cider is an excellent call actually, haven't had any in years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Nobody trusts academia anymore; it's too obviously for sale to the highest bidder.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but they swear blind they're not when they rather obviously are.

Cider is an excellent call actually, haven't had any in years.

---

Very few people ever trusted academia. It is worse now, people dont even trust 'experts'

Until they get ill.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Very few people ever trusted academia. It is worse now, people dont even trust 'experts'

Until they get ill.....

---

My (female) in-laws is all witches, the sort "experts" used to drown or burn or both.

I trust them :-)