I haven't been following this fracas in detail, so I don't claim to know
the rights and wrongs involved. But given the occasion, that is imminently
Christmas Day, can the protagonists and antagonist call an amnesty until
after the holiday? My inbox is groaning with invectives and it feels wrong
somehow...

Best wishes to all...

Richard

On Fri, December 24, 2010 21:13, Nina Costanza wrote:
> But Bill, it seems to me you attack before you have a chance  to say what
>  you want to say in total and to hear what others may want to say in
> response. That seems like pointless anger to me; whereas you could offer
> your productive input and insights in a much more persuasive way in a
> different  tone, and still be strong and provocative. You may find you
> have more supporters or at least those who want to hear the full evocation
> of your thoughts or engage  with you in a  discourse. I get the feeling
> you assume  antagonistic response before anyone has a chance to absorb
> your comments and  respond. Why? Your tone tends to end all discussion.
>
>
> NC
>
>
>
> In a message dated 12/24/2010 3:45:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> --_aeb5aa1b-b327-412b-9ee4-a5cbd1e92863_
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding:  quoted-printable
>
>
>
>
> No=2C I'm not angry. When discussing  Showgirls=2C I become rather
> sarcasti= c because of the vicious way that  the film and Ms Berkley were
> attacked. Fo=
> r example: 'a meatball on a  stick'...(!?). Well=2C it seems to still be
> the= case that those who attack  the film do so with a high degree of
> fanaticism= =2C to say the  least!=20
> =20
> My having posted a short version of a long-ago article was  at the bequest
>  o= f another board member. Whatever comes up in Google is  besides the
> point=2C= since I posted it here at FP Salon. So Chuckie=2C et  al=2C
> might simply lo= ok into the history of this board if he's interested  in
> reading it. =20
> In any case=2C our poor Chuckie has absolutely  nothing to say of value
> abou= t what I did post=2C yesterday. He just wants  to gotthip. =20
> Regarding lookups=2C it would seem as if certain board  members are far
> more= interested in personae than content. I'm likewise  flattered that
> some woul= d actually want to know who I am beyond what I  write=2C even
> if the 'catfis=
> h' appellation stands as a poor  secound-cousin to 'nom de plume'. =20
> As for the Moses thing=2C nothing  I've said of him would be contradicted
> by= a simple reading of either the  OT BIble or The Torah. I might
> furthermore = say that the material is so  clear that even a person drunk
> or stoned could =
> understand. Then again=2C  Mohammid was a murderer=2C too=2C if that makes
>  J=
> ews feel any  better.=20 =20
> My own social psychology of religion is based somewhat on  the studies of
> We=
> ber=2C Glock=2C and Dyne. These indicate how and why  'religion' is
> understo= od with varying degrees of intensity and  understanding with
> respect to soci= al class. To each his/her own=2C texts  are interpreted
> and given priority a= s to how statements fit into a  pre-concieved world
> view. =20
> For example=2C upper-class Indians  conveniently ignore The Gita's explict
>  c= reation of four castes (4:13)  as an ostensible cause of misery and
> racism. For them=2C it's a spir= itual  quest=2C as is Jihad for the
> Islamic elite=2C Israselite genocide in
> =
> Cannan for Jews=2C The Inquisition for Christians=2C etc.
> And of  course=2C let's not forget the athiests withtheir Stalinist
> 'acciden=
> t'.... =20
> For the masses=2C it's different. They take  these writings seriously=2C
> lit= erally=2C and murder accordingly. Books  also tell people what not to
> eat=2C= or they=2C too=2C will go under the  axe. =20
> BH
> =20
>
>
>
>
> Date: Fri=2C 24 Dec 2010 18:50:57  +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Harris's imaginary  criticism
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> I wonder that  too Nina.=20
> peace and Merry Christmas! Hiu
>
>
>
>
>
> From:  Nina Costanza=20
> Sent: Friday=2C December 24=2C 2010 6:39 PM
> To:  [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Harris's imaginary  criticism
>
>
>
> I just always wonder why Bill Harris always sounds so  angry. He has
> things =
> to offer=2C but the why angry  tone? =20
> NC
>
>
> In a message dated 12/24/2010 1:28:56 P.M. Eastern  Standard Time=2C
> chuckkl= [log in to unmask] writes: Asked to provide a  citation for his
> "article" Harris avoids doing so.  I =
> =3D
> must  conclude that this is a fictional article.  In his deluded mind=2C
> he =
> =3D
> has published things he hasn't written=2C just as he pretends he  can read
> =
> =3D
> the minds of others.
>
>
>> A decade ago I wrote  an article entitled "Is Liz Berkley The Body =3D
>>
> without  Organs"?
>> =3D20
>> =3D20
>> =3D20
>> Notice how Harris  avoids actually giving a citation for this =3D
>>
> "article"...where did it  appear? Doesn't come up on a google =3D
> search....hmmm.  More  imaginary stuff?
>> =3D20
>> =3D20
>> =3D20
>> =3D20
>> I  was motivated to do so by the noxiously conformist gang-rape =3D
>>
> attitude  of Amerikan film criticism=3D20
>> towards both the film and Ms  Berkley.=3D20 =3D20
>> Now I might mention that only those  deprived of vision--such as Mr  =3D
>>
> Kleinhaus
>
>> =3D20
>> =3D20
>> [sic=2C can't even get my  name right]
>> =3D20
>> =3D20
>> -- personally attack 21-year old  women in their first film role. OTH
>> =3D
>>
> I=2C being of the elitist preening  genre=2C choose to defend the =3D
> minoritarian  and the un-accepted as  evocative of a marginalist
> event.=3D20= =3D
>
>
>
> The attempt to bluff  his way out of a lie by using metaphors of violent
> =3D
> sexuality says  everything about Harris's pathetic lack.  Sokrkry Bill=2C
> =
> =3D
> losers are losers.
>
> Chuck  Kleinhans
>
>
> --
> Film-Philosophy
> After hitting 'reply' please always  delete the text of the message you
> are =
> replying to To leave=2C send  the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask] c.uk Or  visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical  help email: [log in to unmask] not the list
> --
> Film-Philosophy  journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8  July 2011):
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/=
> conference/ Contact:  [log in to unmask]
> --
> -- Film-Philosophy After hitting 'reply'  please always delete the text of
>  t= he message you are replying to To  leave=2C send the message: leave
> film-phi= losophy to:  [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lis=
> ts/film-philosophy.html For technical help  email:
> [log in to unmask] =2C not the list -- Film-Philosophy  journal:
> http://www.film-philosophy.com=
> / Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8  July 2011):
> http://www.film-philosophy.co=
> m/conference/ Contact:  [log in to unmask] -- -- Film-Philosophy
> Aft=
> er hitting 'reply'  please always delete the text of the message you are
> rep= lying to To  leave=2C send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> jiscmail@j= iscmail.ac.uk Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.htm=
> l For technical help  email: [log in to unmask] not the list --
> Film=
> -Philosophy  journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy
> Confer=
> ence (6-8  July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ Contact:
>  e= [log in to unmask] --             =
>
> --
> Film-Philosophy
> After  hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying  to To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help  email: [log in to unmask], not the list
> --
> Film-Philosophy journal:  http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011):
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact:  [log in to unmask]
> --
>
>
> --_aeb5aa1b-b327-412b-9ee4-a5cbd1e92863_
> Content-Type:  text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding:  quoted-printable
>
>
>
> <head>
> <style><!--
> .hmmessage  P
> {
> margin:0px=3B
> padding:0px
> }
> body.hmmessage {
> font-size:  10pt=3B
> font-family:Tahoma
> }
> --></style>
> </head>
>
>
>
> &nbsp=3BNo=2C  I'm not angry. When discussing Showgirls=2C I become rath=
>  er sarcastic  because of the vicious way that the film and Ms Berkley
> were a= ttacked.  For example: 'a meatball on a stick'...(!?). Well=2C it
> seems to s= till be  the case that those who attack the film do so with a
> high degree of= fanaticism=2C to say the least!
>
> &nbsp=3B
>
>
> My having  posted a short version of a long-ago article was at the
> bequest o= f  another board member. Whatever comes up in Google is besides
> the point=2C= since I posted it here at FP Salon. So Chuckie=2C et al=2C
> might  simply lo= ok into the history of this board if he's interested in
> reading  it.
>
> &nbsp=3B
>
>
> In any case=2C our poor Chuckie has absolutely  nothing to say of value
> abou= t what I did post=2C yesterday. He just wants  to gotthip.
>
> &nbsp=3B
>
>
> Regarding lookups=2C it would seem as  if certain board members are far
> more= interested in personae than content.  I'm likewise flattered that
> some woul= d actually want to know who I am  beyond what I write=2C even
> if the 'catfis=
> h' appellation stands as a poor  secound-cousin to 'nom de plume'.
>
> &nbsp=3B
>
>
> As for the Moses  thing=2C nothing I've said of him would be contradicted
>  by= a simple  reading of either the OT BIble or The Torah. I might
> furthermore = say that  the material is so clear that <EM>even</EM> a
> person drunk or ston= ed could understand. Then again=2C Mohammid was a
> murderer=2C too=2C  if tha= t makes Jews feel any better.
>
> &nbsp=3B
>
>
> My own  social psychology of religion is based somewhat on the studies of
>  We=
> ber=2C Glock=2C and Dyne. These indicate how and why 'religion' is
> understo= od with varying degrees of intensity and understanding with
> respect to soci= al class. To each his/her own=2C texts are interpreted and
> given priority a= s to how statements fit into a pre-concieved world  view.
>
>
> &nbsp=3B
>
>
> For example=2C upper-class Indians  conveniently ignore The Gita's
> explict c= reation of four  castes
>
> (4:13) as an ostensible cause of misery and racism. For them=2C  it's a
> spir= itual quest=2C as is Jihad for the Islamic elite=2C Israselite
> genocide in =
> Cannan for Jews=2C The Inquisition for Christians=2C  etc.
>
>
> And of course=2C let's not forget the athiests withtheir Stalinist
> 'acciden=
> t'....
>
> &nbsp=3B
>
>
> For the masses=2C it's  different. They take these writings seriously=2C
> lit= erally=2C and murder  accordingly. Books also tell people what not to
> eat=2C= or they=2C too=2C  will go under the  axe.
>
> &nbsp=3B
>
>
> BH
>
>
> &nbsp=3B
>
>
>
> <HR  id=3DstopSpelling>
>
>
>
> Date: Fri=2C 24 Dec 2010 18:50:57  +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Sub=
> ject: Re: Harris's imaginary  criticism
> To: [log in to unmask]
> K
>
>
>
>
> <META  name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft SafeHTML">
> <DIV>I wonder that too Nina. </DIV>
> <DIV>peace and Merry  Christmas!</DIV>
> <DIV>Hiu</DIV>
> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt  Tahoma">
> <DIV>
> </DIV>
> <DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND:  #f5f5f5">
> <DIV style=3D"font-color: black">From:
> ref=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">Nina
> Costanza </DIV>
> <DIV>Sent: Friday=2C December 24=2C  2010 6:39 PM</DIV>
> <DIV>To: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
> (mip://04a61808/3D"mailto:FI=<BR)   </DIV>
> <DIV>Subject: Re: Harris's imaginary  criticism</DIV></DIV></DIV>
> <DIV>
> </DIV>"Times New  Roman">
> <DIV><STRONG>I just always wonder why Bill Harris  always sounds so angry.
>  H=
> e has things to offer=2C but the why angry  tone?</STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp=3B</DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG>NC</STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV>
> <DIV>In  a message dated 12/24/2010 1:28:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time=2C
> <A=
> href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
>
>
> wr= ites:</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px  solid=3B PADDING-LEFT: 5px=3B
> MA=
> RGIN-LEFT: 5px">00 size=3D2 face=3DArial>Asked to provide a citation for
> his  "article" Harr= is avoids doing so.&nbsp=3B I =3D must conclude that
> this is a fictional= article.&nbsp=3B In his deluded mind=2C he  =3D has
> published things he = hasn't written=2C just as he pretends he  can read
> =3D
> the minds of other= s.
>
>
> &gt=3B A decade ago I  wrote an article entitled "Is Liz Berkl=
> ey The Body =3D without  Organs"? &gt=3B=3D20
> &gt=3B=3D20
> &gt=3B=
> =3D20
> &gt=3B  Notice how Harris avoids actually giving a citation for thi=
> s  =3D "article"...where did it appear? Doesn't come up on a google  =3D<B=
>  R>search....hmmm.&nbsp=3B More imaginary  stuff?
> &gt=3B=3D20
> &gt=3B=3D=
> 20
> &gt=3B=3D20
> &gt=3B=3D20
> &gt=3B  I was motivated to do so by the =
> noxiously conformist gang-rape  =3D attitude of Amerikan film criticism=
> =3D20
> &gt=3B towards  both the film and Ms Berkley.=3D20
> &gt=3B=3D20<B=
> R>&gt=3B  Now I might mention that only those deprived of vision--such as
> Mr=
> =3D
> Kleinhaus
> &gt=3B=3D20
> &gt=3B=3D20
> &gt=3B  [sic=2C can't eve=
> n get my name  right] &gt=3B=3D20
> &gt=3B=3D20
> &gt=3B -- personally  =
> attack 21-year old women in their first film role. OTH =3D I=2C being  of=
> the elitist preening genre=2C choose to defend the  =3D minoritarian&nbs=
> p=3B and the un-accepted as evocative of a  marginalist event.=3D20=3D <B=
>  R>
> The attempt to bluff his way  out of a lie by using metaphors of viole=
> nt =3D sexuality says  everything about Harris's pathetic lack.&nbsp=3B S=
> okrkry Bill=2C  =3D losers are losers.
>
> Chuck  Kleinhans
>
>
> --<B=
> R>Film-Philosophy
> After hitting 'reply'  please always delete the text of=
> the message you are replying to To  leave=2C send the message: leave fil=
> m-philosophy to:  [log in to unmask] Or visit:  http://www.jiscmail.a=
>  c.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical  help email:
> helpline@jiscm= ail.ac.uk=2C not the  list --
> Film-Philosophy journal:  http://www.film=
> -philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July  2011): http://www.=
> film-philosophy.com/conference/ Contact:  [log in to unmask]
> -=
> -
> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>--  Film-Philosophy After hitting 'rep=
> ly' please always delete the text of  the message you are replying to To
> lea= ve=2C send the message: leave  film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask] O=
> r visit:  http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For
> technical= help  email: [log in to unmask] not the list --
> Film-Philosophy
> jou= rnal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8
> July
> =
> 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ Contact:
> editor@film-phil= osophy.com -- -- Film-Philosophy After hitting 'reply'
> please always delete= the text of the message you are replying to To
> leave=2C send the message: = leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask] Or visit: http://www.jisc=
> mail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help  email:
> helpline@ji= scmail.ac.uk=2C not the list -- Film-Philosophy  journal:
> http://www.film-ph=
> ilosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8  July 2011):
> http://www.film-p=
> hilosophy.com/conference/ Contact:  [log in to unmask] -- =
>
>
> =
> --
> Film-Philosophy
> After  hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying  to To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help  email: [log in to unmask], not the list
> --
> Film-Philosophy journal:  http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011):
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact:  [log in to unmask]
> --
>
>
> --_aeb5aa1b-b327-412b-9ee4-a5cbd1e92863_--
>
>
> --
> Film-Philosophy
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
> replying to To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
> --
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011):
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> --
>
>

--
Film-Philosophy
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
--
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
Contact: [log in to unmask]
--