Comments on EvC Forum: A Play

What is EJ?

You know there has been talk of EvC the Movie in the past.http://EvC Forum: Hey, I think I'll write a book! -->EvC Forum: Hey, I think I'll write a book!I think it would be a fabulous idea, and I'm not just saying that because they have approached Angelina to play moi.

Well, sister, you ain't seen nothing yet.

WOW! I really miss a lot of those people in that thread! What happened to them all? Where's Dan? MrHambre?BTW, good choice, Angelina is HOT!

I hope it gets better. I'm all for satire, but this seems a little too forced. I don't mind what kind of character you made for me but there doesn't seem to be an actual point for anyone to be saying what they are saying. Perhaps there should be more action they are relating to? Something to actually provoke the discussion?My only disagreement with my character is you have me saying something about haeckel's drawings. In fact I have no position about them. Not knowing anything about them to begin with, it seemed that Wells had some legitimate criticism of them. Apparently even Gould ended up agreeing.It seems they are useful for something, but what I have no idea, and maybe they should be abandoned. Biologists can sort that out. I never showed up in the haeckel thread, or in haeckel discussions, and never would because I avoid them like the plague.Perhaps you should just have me trying to change the subject, or note some sexual characteristics within the haeckel drawing.FYI, I'm also not big into drag. I've CD'd a few times for laughs, but its not a thing for me. You might want to stick with disco like clothes, since that's what everyone thought I was wearing in the avatar I used of myself.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

EditThis message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-21-2005 06:02 PM

Asgara, I always pictured you as a wise woman played by Tyne Daly.(Judging Amy)
I could see Nosy Ned played by Bob Newhart.
Percy would be well played by actor Wallace Shawn.
Crashfrog? I dunno...how about Bill Mahrer?
If only the Duke were still alive, Jar might fit the bill for Big John to handle.
Rrhain could be played by David Spade.
Now WHO could play the part of Adminnemooseus? That is a big role to fill!
I have no clue who you would pick to play me...perhaps Jared of the Subway commercials could fill in.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-21-2005 05:43 PM

You mean you haven`t read Brian`s 'What Qualifications' thread?

About Wallace Shawn playing me, the movies I would mention are My Dinner with Andre (big part) and Manhattan (tiny part). Even though Shawn is far handsomer than me: I suppose Hollywood's standard dramatic licence makes this okay. --Percy

Do not under any circumstances listen to Holmes! Continue to follow your creative muse.--Percy

Ha! This is terrific, Robin! Are we allowed to join in? Hope I'm not interfering with any future "episodes" here but I've always wanted to do this...-----------------------------------------------------------------Debating continues unabated until a sudden hush falls over the group. A supreme, euphoric presence can be felt approaching as the door swings open and in walks Almighty God Himself... aka Brad McFall. He advances to the bar and pulls up a stool as the bartender comes over to take his order.Bartender: "What'll it be, mate?"Brad: "Hmm... Well, being as typically emanated dispositions relay such things - as mere desires and not NECESSITIES - sufficed shall such be as is that the (selected) preference based on and deriving from specific multitudes of qualities such balanced equilibrium herein exhibits ~REQUIRED~ sustenance, while NOT applied Feynman's electrodynamic model still owing to LESS MACROTHERMODYNAMICALLY SPECIFIC stylization as Gould may have yet been argued...but such *rarely* (detracted) from ^NEEDS^ in social conditions, or rather, by deduction OF LOGICALLY SEQUENCED CONSTRUCTS, and deflecting any PRACTICAL consequence of either the Wolfram or Mandelbrot "schools of thought" despite some arguing other specified qualities (though I doubt that Gladyshev nor Schneider would agree...thus would {more likely} RESULT, both as ^is^ and as ^would be^, of such structures which proceed both on and after non-sequential {and in cases of legitimacy [though *RARITY*] sequential} structures). Still, as would by all necessitated observation be that which APPEARS to current interlocutors, at least those (though clearly a redundant superfluity) IN PRESENT COMPANY - while parenthetically maintaining both possibility and probability of all abstract systems divisible within that relating to YET NOT DEPENDENT ON floating-point operations and recognizing conceivability of the internally external vs. the externally internal (Humphreys' model notwithstanding of course) - the "NEEDING" of certain reversal ~*either partial or absolute*~ within such self-referential assemblages ~REAL OR ARTIFICIAL~ may facilitate SANCTIONING...to what *ultimate* end isn't known of course or even any ACTUAL BEING as perhaps Kant INITIALLY suspected...but through expression of nothing IMMEDIATE in disagreeability could conceivably subsist in *~temporary~* juxtaposition which MAY lead away depending on corollary happenings but be parsimoniously redirected amid respective catalyzing methodologies intervening to realize synchronicity between Cantor and Penrose, whereby interactive phenomena reign unremittingly presenting perhaps an *"END"*...at least BY SOME *^RELATIVELY^* CURRENT, *INTER-RELATEDLY ("~^SOCIAL^~")* DEFINITIONS of the word."Bartender: *stares blankly*Brad: *reaches into his pocket and slaps a twenty down on the bar*Bartender: *grabs the twenty* "Yes, Sir!"The bartender goes off to get Brad (and himself) a drink, while the rest of the group sits quietly staring at Brad. Finally, the silence is broken...Rrhain: *blink* "You did not just say that, did you?"-----------------------------------------------------------------If you're reading this, Brad, no offense intended... meant in good humour and all that. You know we love ya!And, Robin, my apologies if I stepped on any script plans there but I've wanted to do that for ages.Great work, by the way. I've been enjoying the thread.

I agree. Sorry.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 08-13-2005 09:31 AM

It's easy to say "yeah, yeah" when one is not the "butt" of the satire.I was satirizing some of Holmes' comments, but actually I have a great respect for his intellect. That's why I had Nosyned say this:

I didn't mean to sound like I was wholly rejecting what you were doing, and I don't mind being satirized. I fear my comments have come off as damning rather than simply constructive criticism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Now there's something I had not thought of! That's funny.