Wmcmanus

^ My point in using Steve in the above example isn't that he is gay, but that it would be a fact (whatever that fact might be about someone, that Clyde Barrow was a bank robber, or that Tiger Woods was a cheater) that she as an interviewer would be well aware of and thus well prepared for in advance. Obviously, she was expecting Gene to give a "normal" interview by showing some sort of remorse or reticence about the way he had lived his life because it didn't measure up to widely accepted societal standards.

^ I guess what I'm saying is that I wasn't impressed with either of them. He's obviously a turd. But it wasn't terribly good journalism on her part, and I've heard her do a lot of great interviews. It would be like if she interviewed Steve, and had read a book about his life, and then suddenly was all shocked and horrified that he was gay and had slept with a lot of men, and even more shocked and horrified that he wasn't ashamed to admit it, or that he even felt proud about it in certain ways, or found satisfaction in it, etc. Now, mind you, the analogy breaks down quickly when considering that Gene was being and out and out ass, and was way over the top in his efforts to get her goat; he didn't give the listener anything to like about him other than his brutal (albeit offensive and self-indulgent) honesty; whereas Steve would undoubtedly show other aspects of his personality, which would offer the listener something more, something that they could like about him even if they weren't able to identify with certain particulars about his personality and lifestyle. So it's not that I disagree about Gene. He failed miserably in giving the listener anything to like about him, but I think he did so intentionally. That she got sucked into it and became defensive took away from the opportunity she had to actually get to the bottom of what was driving these behaviors and attitudes, and to see if there was anything else inside of the shell of a person she was speaking to. In other words, I think she was complicit in the failure of the interview in the sense that she helped to feed the audience with contempt based on her (and their) standards. Instead of delving deeper into his psyche when it started to turn in that direction, she instead choose to ask him about inane bullshit like how he paints his face and if/how he breathes fire.

I don't agree with his views on manhood either (not in the least) and certainly didn't mean to imply that I did. Although I love women, I've never felt the need to sleep with 4,600 of them to prove something to myself or anyone else, and don't think that would have changed in any significant way had I been rich and famous. But I do think there are a lot of men who have these sorts of base instincts and attitudes, yet they're afraid to be honest about it because it's not politically correct to be a self-absorbed prick. That's exactly what he is and he doesn't attempt represent himself any differently. Why is she so shocked and horrified by this? She had read his book, no?

Very wise, grasshopper.

Glad she's Ok. That look wicked.

Screamin' Sugar Lee reporting in. Oh, and I'm pretty sure Gene was just being an intentional ass and having fun playing her. Where's your sense of humor? Like her, you all seme to be taking him too seriously. Her defensiveness spoiled the interview as much as did his offensiveness. In many ways, it became about her, and she's supposed to be bright enough (and is certainly experienced enough as interviewer) not to let that happen. So he's a horny, rich capitalist pig and makes no bones about it. Get over it. He's kind of like Ted Nugent except that he's acting all wacko about his loin as opposed to his guns, but it was political incorrectness just for the sake of the chain yanking effects... and she totally fell for it. He's expressing what many men would love to but simply don't have the nerve to because it has been coached out of them by society in their desire to maintain a sense of decorum to fit in and be respected. He's rich enough that he really doesn't have to care what anyone thinks of him. That he also comes across as an empty headed loveless type is likewise no big surprise. That's probably two parts schtick and one part truth. Seriously, is he just supposed to follow her lead and give her a nicey nicey interview, or is he supposed to defend his own beliefs and views on life no matter how repugnant they might sound to others?

When I said. "Exactly" what I was really trying to say was this:

Why didn't I think of that!?!? Seriously. Actually, I didn't expect it to last more than a minute or so. That same ice cream truck drives down my street to the cul-de-sac and back almost every single afternoon. Must be some ice cream junkie living on my block, or else the ice cream guy just likes burning gas. So it was really strange. I kept figuring that it would end any minute...

Exactly.

Just in case anybody wants to play tonight:

The people next door were having some kind of party for kids, apparently. An ice cream truck showed up and parked on the road right in front of my house. Then for about 30 minutes, all I heard was, "Da da - da da da, da da - da da dum, Da da, da da dada, da dada - da dum." Over and over and over again...

I thought that Monster put an end to that argument.

You should have whipped it out. They would have said, "Welcome Mr. Hiolmes... but I thought you were dead!?!?" No, wait. I'm confusing you with Steve again.

Ya, baby! You make laugh, Al. Let's fry that fucker! Perhaps what I should have said is that it was a shame that he used such poor judgment on such an important matter, thereby allowing himself to become complicit in an absolutely terrible thing, and all for the sake of upholding reputations (his, the program's, the university's); that by doing so, he effectively tarnished his own reputation as well as that of the program and the university (completely opposite of the desired effects); that even though he wasn't the perpetrator, this incident will unfortunately be a big part of what he'll be rightfully remembered for by far too many people (most especially by the young victims and their families who deserved better from him); and that, even with this lapse of good judgment and the pridefulness that allowed it to occur, he still led an admirable life and accomplished many great things that he ought to be remembered for as well. My initial post was meant to be a shorthand version of this dissertation; not a denial of his inaction, but simply an acknowledgment that seems to get lost at times, that he wasn't the guy who did these terrible things.

Ok, so don't RIP Joe Paterno. Burn in hell.

RIP Joe Paterno. It's a shame that your legacy will forever be tainted by the crimes of another human being.

This might be a repost. Will have to check with Steve to be sure.

That's what the HD700's look like to me, Peter. Like something I wouldn't want to own regardless of how good they sounded, at least not at that price point. Ok, not completely regardless. If they were SR-009 good sounding, then I'd bite at $1k, despite their cheesy looks.

Have a great one, Mike!

I'm trying to figure out how he threw all of those cups in the air at the same time and still managed to capture the image before they hit the ground. He's not bad at all...

Just saying... it can get kind of annoying in here, not to mention boring, if we want to make it about politics.