It's adorable how tsundere for me you are

>>2

If that makes you feel better about looking like a tranny.

>>3
What if looking like a tranny turns me on?

>>4

Then you're lucky you have that much testosterone.

>>5
Are you coming on to me

>>6

If you're F5ing this much, it must be working.

>>7
I can't fuck you if you don't have a vagina my bad bro

>>8

Do you think if you get the last word your chin will magically shrink to just significantly larger than average?

>>9
Dear god I hope so; every night I pray to my lord and savior Jesus Christ that my chin will shrink so that strangers will no longer shriek out in terror at the sight of me and I can at last be a normal human girl. The good Lord has yet to answer my prayers.

This thread is golden

>>10
roll a new character, problem fixed

Her chin is what makes her ugly.

>>13

Her weight gain hasn't helped either.

bump for awesome

I gotta say, daughter, I'm proud of you. Don't be ashamed of what sets you apart genetically.

Why so bump?

Baaaaaw

Poor LC not wanting this to be seen.

>>19
Implying she gives a fuck about this.

>>20

Well somebody gives enough of a fuck to constantly bump other threads.

I give enough of a fuck to constantly bump other threads because this is a house of worship, not some back alley for you to hiss at passing whores. Take this unrelated garbage to CH, heathen.

>>20
She likes to wear the "oh so tough independent strong women" personality, but deep down, everyone listens to what others say about them.

>>23
She wanted to have cyber-sex with me! I know she did, cos she let me write an essay for her!
Yea, even 'twixt the pillars of the house of worship shall I proclaim it!!
Even 'neath the beams of the holy temple shall the sins of this woman be proclaimed!!!

>>23
Not everyone is so insecure as to actually be affected by the opinions of a single anonymous poster on the internet.

>>25
Well, my own expectation - or at least hope - would be NO ONE would be so FUCKING OBTUSE as to be affected (other than humorously) by an obviously not-seriously-held opinion of a poster who isn't even effectively anonymous.

But just in case, I'll say: LC is, in my experience, a nice girl who happens also, probably, to have the healthiest and most humanly promising sexual make-up of all the girls whom we keep dragging in to "defile the temple". I just wish my own tastes went in such a healthy, human direction.
As to the jaw, I dunno, I'm not a physiognomic statistician. I've always been a huuuuge Reese Witherspoon fan, though. "Election"! "Freeway"! Oh no, strike the latter. NOT the best occasion to start me on the subject of "coal-burners"...

>>25

>single

This isn't the first or the last time her appearance has/will be criticized by a long shot.

>>27
I rest my case.

maybe lolichan is of habsburgian decent.
Charles V was known for his large chin.
from wiki:
Charles suffered from an enlarged lower jaw, a deformity which got considerably worse in later Habsburg generations, giving rise to the term Habsburg jaw. This deformity was caused by the family line's multiple years of inbreeding, which was very common in royal families of that era and was practiced in order to maintain dynastic control of territory. He struggled to chew his food properly and consequently experienced bad indigestion for much of his life. As a result, he usually ate alone.

>>26

>all the girls whom we keep dragging in to "defile the temple"

There you go, ruining it for every body again. You're not supposed to say it explicitly, you're just supposed to do it.

Now the religious fanatics will finally get it.

"Leopards break into the temple and drink to the dregs what is in the sacrificial pitchers. This happens again and again. Finally, it can be calculated in advance, and it becomes part of the ceremony."

When and to whom did Cracky say this, and does the board feel that she was serious in instructing her friend Maxine to delete all her LiveJournal blog entries after her death?

Actually Kafka wrote this.

>>32
I hope you're not implying that the hitherto universally-accepted assumption that all the works published during the middle decades of the last century under the name of "Franz Kafka" were actually authored by Cracky is WRONG!?
Go back and spread your heretical lies in that steaming shithole of cam-whoring iniquity Crackyhouse, heathen!!

The poster had a point with the image, she has a huge jaw. LC obviously can't help but notice this when she looks in the mirror.

>>33

>>35
Actually, I suspect that, on the contrary, it's coming a little too EASILY to me for your liking.
I would guess I've once again trodden on the toes of someone who's invested rather too much of their fragile ego in the idea that THEY are the only one who is allowed to be intelligent or witty or articulate in this sad little playground you've created for yourselves here.

>>36
Nah think he means you're just trying to hard.

>>37
Oh yu thinnk thatt is wat hee meens, doo yu? Wel I cann tel fromm yur speling thatt yu hav extensive training in hermeneutics, so Il deffer to yur soopiryorr nollege in thies maters.

Obviously the old "We hate this fucker, he's making us look like the idiots we are" storm is brewing AGAIN here, so I'll retire before the pseudo-religious fanatics start rattling their sad little sabres once again.

Good luck deluding yourselves that you have anything to say about anything.

jusr take the oppoortunity to slam the door like you always do

you'll be back when you'll need to feed your flamewar addiction

>>38
I'm not seeing any spelling errors there. Maybe a grammar error but...?
Some deep ironic purposefully mistaken joke sort of deal is probably going over my head right now though, knowing old Reynolds.

>>40
Well eff me in the bee, I just noticed "to".
Oh well

>>39
Last word (promise). Take a look - it might be interesting, quite aside from any "point-scoring" at the course of this last little exchange:

Post No. 24: Good-natured, rather affectionate little swipe at Loli-Chan on my part - or rather at myself, since clearly the joke here was primarily on me, although secondarily (just a little) at the pseudo-religious fanatics.

Post no. 25: Depressingly serious and po-faced response - God, I hope it wasn't Dolores herself responding - to an obviously un-seriously meant remark.

Post no. 26: An attempt to clarify "for idiots" my actual joking and affectionate intentions with post no. 24, unfortunately supplemented - OK, my bad here! - by a rather more genuinely bitter and resentful sideswipe at Camel (God, that is one attractive girl, and one that, no, one DOESN'T like being taken up and then dropped by) which, fortunately, didn't produce any long-term echoes or repercussions in THIS thread (some other rejected suitor briefly took up the "coal-burner" thing in the thread above, but PLEASE, let's let that sleeping dog lie).

Post no. 30: a friendly, witty spinning-out of a jokey idea I'd raised in post no. 26, i.e. a post of the sort that it would be nice to see more of here.

Post no. 31: an intendedly witty and friendly spinning-on of the theme already developed, the Kafka quotation having occurred me to quite spontaneously in the context and being, I think, maybe of more than just "jokey" significance for the ethos of a board like this.

Post no. 32: A keen-witted (but maybe a little over-serious) correct identification of the source of the quotation

Post no. 33: An attempt to dispel the slight atmosphere of over-seriousness with an obviously ridiculous proposition about Cracky and Kafka (and another playful swipe at the "keepers of the temple")

All pretty friendly - and, I think, amusing up to that point (with the exception, as I've admitted, of my own single snide and bitter reference to Camel - God, I hate that bitch - which fortunately sunk quickly into oblivion.)

With post no. 35, though, the usual resentment against wit and intelligence just BECAUSE it's wit and intelligence - the assumption that it's "done to show off" and has to be consistently pissed on by boring image macros - raised its ugly head - and THAT, I think, is the point at which the "flaming" can be said to have begun.

In other, not MY choice - vicious as I DID, in passing, once or twice show myself to be in another connection - and not the "feeding" of any addiction of MINE.

>>42
Oh and I see that the last post does actually include two or three little grammatical mix-ups and ommissions, since I really just banged it down very quickly to "retreat with honour" and put an end to this.
Leap all over them screaming gleefully "The hypocrite fucker can't spell" if you wish. I really won't be pursuing this any more.

I have it on good authority that the person obsessing over Kashii's chin in none other than Olivia.

ZOMG, HAI LIA!

>>43
By the way, don't "you guise" feel that threads like this one that consist entirely of "hissing at passing camwhores" - I DO admire that phrase by the way (no sarcasm) - are SO much more interesting than threads about Cracky.

That's not entirely a spitting in the face of the whole purpose of the board.

I'm a huge admirer of Wagner, and of "The Ring" in particular, and it would never occur to me to suggest that the tetralogy would have been better, or could even have got by, without the lengthy scenes set among the gods in Valhalla.

But I also concur in the sentiments of many opera fans that one tends to heave a sigh of relief when the tip of Wotan's spear or the last of the rams that draw Fricka's chariot finally vanish off-stage and one knows that one is going to be permitted to spend an hour or two in the company of Siegmund and Sieglinde, Hunding and Hagen, mortal beings with flaws and shortcomings whom one can love and hate in ways that one cannot love or hate the inhabitants of the skies above.

>>45

Cracky threads have lost their luster over the years.

...And I appreciate your contributions to the cracky community, Mr. Reynolds. For precisely this most recent of descriptive reasons.

The point still stands that her chin is huge.

>>47
Point proven, now what?

Here it is Alex, after all the contempt you have thrown around you, I dont see how you can still pretend to have a right to anything else than contempt.

This thread is the perfect illustration why: at the slightest insult, real or imaginary, you fly off the handle, out of all proportion with the perceived slight, let alone the actual intent.

I regret ever having been nice to you. I should have known better.

BTW >>30
(a post of the sort that it would be nice to see more of here)
and >>35
(pissing on by boring image macros)
were both mine, you jerk.

>>49
Yeah, I suppose it could be that I just don't understand this "image macro" language that you people speak.

I DO find it odd that you managed to move so quickly from (30) to (35). I've seen the "You're trying too hard" thing with the little black kid and the pencil used a hundred times, and I always interpreted it to represent the same kind of cowardly, facile "cheap shot" as "tl;dr" or "you don't belong here".

That is to say, I interpreted it as... sorry, yes, an expression of contemptuouus condescension - the equivalent of saying "oh you really are straining to say something amusing and interestng aren't you, but you're not as cool and clever as the rest of us, so you really aren't managing to pull it off" - which, I think you'll have to agree, DOES deserve nothing else but a contemptuous response.

Did it NOT mean that? If it didn't, perhaps you'll explain what it DID mean.

I suppose I AM inclined to be very quick, these days, in putting the most negative construction on comments made on my posts. But the train of "reasoning" that I assumed to be behind post no 35 is one I HAVE encountered on the Cracky boards year after year after year. Something like: "Kafka? Who the fuck is Kafka? Some guy people talk about at university? Why is this guy dragging him into a discussion on a Cracky board? He can't possibly have any reason for doing it except trying to impress people with big, difficult names. I'll call this guy out on his bullshit and tell him 'he's trying too hard'".

Now, if you're as intelligent as you seem to be, you'll have recognized already how far off the mark that "reasoning" is in this case. The Kafka quotation is actually EXTREMELY and DIRECTLY relevant to the whole discussion about "temples" and so on that recurs here on a regular basis (as, incidentally, is the remark later in the thread about Wagner's way of dealing with the "divine" and the "mortal" spheres). It's not "showing off" at all, and it's "trying" just exactly as hard as people ought to be "trying" on a board like this.

I can certainly understand the anger toward me that is felt by the doubtless numerous users of this board who have no fucking idea who Kafka was, or who Wagner was, and have absolutely no aptitude for or interest in the discussion of religious questions. But if you are not one among such users - and mean by having been "nice to me" having held views, for example, similar to those expressed by the poster of no. 46 in this thread - then I would suggest that you stop using this clumsy crude language of image macros altogether.

But frankly, you seem to me very confused about WHAT views you hold.

>>50
Again you over-analyse everything.

It meant: you're trying too hard to be the caricature of a religious fanatic, in that specific post.

Funny that you should then conduct my trial based on your own disconnected views of what I could possibly have meant and condemn me on the weight of all the assumptions you hold as evident truth, before I even posted any form of explanation (I didnt post anything between 35 and 49).

In my opinion, the confusion you imagine actually comes from your "truth" not fitting reality, my suggestion to you is to lay off the black meat and stop having fights with your keyboard.

NO MY POSTS ARE BETTER

Every Alex thread ever:

>Alex makes a joke
>said joke is misunderstood or taken negatively
>the next 10-50 posts are debate on whether or not it was funny/whether or not anon reacted correctly to the joke

So the question becomes, is Alex just unfunny or are we all to plebeian to understand his sense of humor?
Don't answer that.

>>50
no need to spin another web of innocence with long stories about what this thread is all about, you told us already

you're here to defile the temple

sure, you'll say it's a jokey idea, but really, that is exactly what you are doing

in fact saying it's a jokey idea negates any sanctity this board may have had, defiling it further by trivializing it

doesnt matter much, the idea of the temple being somewhat of a joke already, but still

it shows intent

loli is pretty all in all and every single one of you sad fucks could never get a girl as pretty, funny, and smart as her.

>>55

If you're into men.

>>55
Funny?

You know she'll come back.

>>58
If not, I'll find her.

most overrated camwhore. She wans't even hot.

>>60

Hush, child.

>>59

>find her

if you followed her on tumblr, you would know shes going to UF. just walk in there and ask for kathleen larraz.

>>62
I'll tell them her grandma died and wait outside, ferris bueller style in a trenchoat and hat.

>>63

Bah, John Bender was the single cool character from Shermer, IL.

>>64
John Bender isn't even the coolest character in his own movie, the weird chick was.

>>65

You're not a real man!

>Bah, John Bender was the single cool character from Shermer, IL.

Oh look it's Kathy pretending people want to chase after her ugly face. How cute.

>>68
Someone who's really done with her shit.

Actually, Wagner's ring is all about the fallibility and even mortality of the gods.

And hearing Wodan sing "Die alte Sturm, die alte Mueh" when he hears his wife calling knowing he's in trouble is hilarious. As is much of the ring actually, if one takes the time to actually listen to it, instead of pretending to have done so online.

So yeah, "many opera fans" :P

>>70
In this case because envy and furious humiliation has led you to post things that you cannot possibly know, and know that you cannot possibly know.

I'd mention that I have attended performances of "The Ring" in three countries, and have loved and listened to it for thirty years, but you would doubtless then reveal to the board yet MORE of these details about what I do and do not know, and what I have and have not done, which you are miraculously privy to, and - to everyone's gleeful satisfaction - "prove me wrong".

I think you know yourself - if you're not even more vain and deluded than I believe you to be - that I would run absolute "Rings" around you - if you'll excuse the awful pun - if we ever actually began a discussion of "what the Ring is all about" (a question to which there is no answer anyway, since we are talking about a work which was composed over a space of thirty years and the basic philosophical conception of which was altered about halfway through, with no real attempt to revise the earlier strata).

I'm sure that such a discussion would interest nobody anyway. Still if anyone WERE interested in just how laughably uneven a contest such a discussion would be, they would only have to note that you get the accepted designation of one of the best-known sequences of Sprechgesang in "Die Walkuere" wrong due to the fact that you haven't mastered the gender of one of the words that are usually prominently included in the vocabulary lists of first-year German language primers (i.e. what Wotan sings - since Wagner assumed that this Germanic god, unlike you, COULD speak German - is "DER alte Sturm, die alte Mühe")

You have not "taken the time" to listen to "The Ring" and would not have been equipped to understand or appreciate even a fraction of it if you had.

You're a lying, bluffing bullshitter, puffed up with your own petty vanity and self-regard, like just about everyone involved in this sad, notoriously hollowly pretentious "community".

>>71

>You're a lying, bluffing bullshitter, puffed up with your own petty vanity and self-regard, like just about everyone involved in this sad, notoriously hollowly pretentious "community".

so tell us, why are you here again?

>>71
So, for you a discussion is a contest? To what object? Showing everyone else who is the "cleverest" in this sad, notoriously hollowly pretentious "community"?

I see...

>>71
Alex is...

...

Lord of the Rings

...
TEHEHE

>>73
Pretty typical of the hypocrisy of you people.

Or do you just have no memories capable of retaining things for more than 24 hours?

I introduced the topic of Wagner's "Ring" into this thread with no intention of "proving" or "winning" anything. It just seemed to me to be an apposite analogy that might be used to throw light on people's feelings about how threads, like this one, discussing "random cam-whores" ("the mortal world") relate to threads discussing Cracky ("the world of the gods").

You're either fucking blind or so prejudiced against me that you can't think straight if you can't see and acknowledge that it's entirely the poster of no. 70 who has made this into a "contest".

I'd have been perfectly happy to discuss "The Ring" with you all. No "discussion" begins, though, with one party to it confidently asserting, before anything else is even said, that his interlocutor is only "pretending online" to be familiar with the thing they're about to discuss (while HE, of course - such is the other part of the assertion - is genuinely and profoundly familiar with it).

I'll discuss if people want to discuss - that is to say, if people want to exchange views and opinions with each other on the basis of the respectful reciprocal assumption that people are contributing, honestly and to the best of their ability, what they know, or at least sincerely believe they know, to the board.

But if someone opens an exchange with the sneering, contemptuous - not to mention ludicrously false - charge that I've just "pretended" to know something about a topic I actually know nothing about, I'll treat the exchange as what it obviously is: an attempt to "own" me and humiliate me.

Unfortunately for the would-be "owner" and humiliator, this is an attempt that is bound to fail, since - while he has managed to cram two signs of the crassest ignorance into just the thirty or forty words of his one post - I do actually happen to know "The Ring" extremely well.

But then again, it's true that there is pretty much NO topic that he could have chosen to bait me on and try to humiliate me with that I couldn't turn around on him and prove that HE is the hollow, pretentious idiot he would like to present ME as.

>>75

>But if someone opens an exchange with the sneering, contemptuous - not to mention ludicrously false - charge that I've just "pretended" to know something about a topic I actually know nothing about,

I dont see that at all, I just see someone expressing his opinion, and no mention of contest whatsoever.

But of course, someone who disagrees with you cant exist, it must have been someone who was attempting to "own" you and humiliate you, not to mention show how much cleverer than everyone else he is.

What is clear is that you are bored with CH and are now going to play your games on .71, since there still is some wit here, and it makes for a more interesting flamewar.

Your last sentence makes it clear: the only reason you are here is to feel better about yourself. You come here to have contests with people who couldnt possibly bring up something you could not turn around to own and humiliate them with.

>>76
Well, if you "don't see it" you obviously have a problem with logical thinking or something or are, as I say, too prejudiced against me to start with to think clearly.

My first mention of Wagner's "Ring" was not confrontational or competitive. That is clear and undeniable.

Obviously, though, it got this guy's back up because ANY mention of anything that implies familiarity with so-called "elite culture" - particularly when it's ME that's doing the mentioning - gets his back up. He becomes desperate to prove - although he doesn't have even the flimsiest grounds on which to prove it, as he knows little or nothing about me and there is no demonstrable fallacy in anything I have said - that I'm "just pretending", that nobody REALLY possesses any culture or knowledge about anything except HIM.

That's the way it is, sorry.

But contrary to my previous post, maybe you're right, maybe it's only my anger and disgust that are prompting me to post here and it would be better (for myself most of all) if I didn't.

This has happened so many times before in the course of my "activity" in the Cracky "community". I try to raise the level of discussion a little and am immediately spewed over from a dozen directions by every imaginable spirit of envy and furious offended vanity.

CH, as I've said, is indeed finished. It is now a permanent standing insult to Cracky rather than the hommage Jeff intended it to be.

I think that, rather than bother you, it is better that I make this the finish of my "activity" as well.

Linger but a moment, Dolores!! I come, I come!! Together we shall fly, like Siegmund and Sieglinde, out of "des Feindes Haus" into the glorious, terrible valley of the burgeoning springtime world!! The embrace which you so stubbornly and humbly sued for shall at last be thine!!!

>>77
Oh bliss!

Wait'll I stick this cunningly-disguised mini-dagger through this spotty dork's jugular and I'll be right with you, MY ONE TRUE LOVE!!

>>77

>My first mention of Wagner's "Ring" was not confrontational or competitive. That is clear and undeniable.

I see no one saying the contrary.

>Obviously, though, it got this guy's back up because ANY mention of anything that implies familiarity with so-called "elite culture" - particularly when it's ME that's doing the mentioning - gets his back up. He becomes desperate to prove - although he doesn't have even the flimsiest grounds on which to prove it, as he knows little or nothing about me and there is no demonstrable fallacy in anything I have said - that I'm "just pretending", that nobody REALLY possesses any culture or knowledge about anything except HIM.

That is not the least bit obvious, or clear and is quite deniable. I see no way for you to know who you are responding to, and even less of a way to know what he actually means, if it isnt exactly what he wrote. I'd even go as far as saying that all of it is speculation fueled by your prejudice.

Now, that prejudice you made quite clear, and undeniable. And frankly, after reading you for a couple of years, I rather observe that you frequently claim that nobody in the Crackyverse really possesses any culture or knowledge about anything except you. You certainly are knowledgeable, and cultured, but have shown numerous times that you are desperate to prove you are the most knowledgeable, and cultured in the Crackyverse.

All I see is someone who disagrees with you, and you, flying off the handle once again. That's the way it is, sorry.

>>79

"All I see is....", "All I see is..."

Look, I know it's stupid to ask for a straight answer on the Internet, but JUST ONCE can you tell me: do you have an EYESIGHT problem or are you just FUCKING STUPID:

"And hearing Wodan sing "Die alte Sturm, die alte Mueh" when he hears his wife calling knowing he's in trouble is hilarious. As is much of the ring actually, if one takes the time to actually listen to it, instead of pretending to have done so online."

What exactly do you take this guy to have meant by the last twenty words of the passage I just quoted?

Is he just mentioning, casually and randomly, in passing that there ARE these people who pretend, online, to have listened to 'The Ring' but haven't really listened to it at all - without IN THE LEAST implying that I am one of these people (even though I've just claimed, online, to have listened to 'The Ring')?

Or is he taking up a constructive and friendly contribution and trying to make a "who's-got-the-bigger-cultural-dick" contest and flame-war out of it?

But no, you "just can't see that at all", can you, you honestly, honestly can't.

As I say, there are two choices for people who come into contact with this "community":

become as stupid and/or wilfully dishonest as everyone else involved in it

or fuck off

>>80
No, I dont see that it's necessarily aimed at you.

I'm not saying it wasnt, but the only thing that is really clear is that anything that you perceive as a slight is going to throw you in uncontrollable fits where you will end up insulting everybody, their mother, and the dog crossing the street.

I hope you arent wondering where all this "prejudice" towards you is coming from (Hint: it's not your age, your acquired culture or long sentences).

And this was your shortest "quitting the Crackyverse" yet. It would be wrong of me to say it was willful dishonesty for you to say you were fucking off, but really, you keep hammering it, and obviously, you havent left...

Maybe you should educate me on the logical intricacies of those choices, because, as all Crackyfags, I'm obviously just fucking stupid...

>>81

here it is: most people would get away from all this constant bickering, so it stands to reason that the ones that do stay actually want to bicker, and that if they dont initiate the bickering, they at least fuel it one way or the other

>>82
But why not:

Here it is: If I have appended to several recent posts on this board the public-service announcement that they consist in a load of ignorant pretentious shit, why would people possible feel impelled to respond to that with criticisms of my intentions, character, qualifiedness to make such judgments etc.?

If follows LOGICALLY AND NECESSARILY; doesn't it, that if people ARGUE with me this MUST be because the desire to argue, and to argue specifically WITH ME, is the ONLY reason they visit this board?

I mean, that IS strictly logically the case, no?

Or was the post you just made just a lot of specious illogical bullshit?

Oh, I see, you are here to issue public service annoucements, and clean up the Crackyverse of all stupidity, while we came here to resist your effort and torment you in any way our malevolent little petty minds can think of.

Kick the money changer's table while you're at it, why dont you?

>>83
mhh, lemme see...

you made a great deal of saying that the only witty people in the Crackyverse hung out on .71, proclaimed CH finished and then proceeded in doing on .71 what you used to do on CH, which is arguing non-stop about how you are the only one that can say what is pretentious bullshit and what is not

I think it's clear you're not here to discuss Wagner, Elliot or Beaudelaire with what you consider ignorants quarter educated morons but rather to bolster your ailing ego by standing on the heads of people you despize

the irony is that even though you were told so thousands of times, your ailment precludes you from seeing it

you have a narcissitic personality disorder

>>84
You're hardly dishonouring my Father's House, and even less so my Mother's House (I believe SHE lives in Roseville, Northern California - and she AIN'T Boxxy).

It is the case, however, that my kingdom is evidently not of this world.

But my spelling is deteriorating so I shall quit you with a glance that summons you, with its pathetic senile appeal, to examine, each of you, your own individual soul in light of the question of whether you maybe "know not what you do".

posts 1-86

what has any of this got to do with the fact that Camel allows black cock to be inserted inside her daily though?

?

>>87
Typical ignorant Crackyfag question. I would have thought that the answer was obvious.

If Camel hadn't done so - well, not so much Camel herself as Maureen Monaghan in London in 1978, Sophie Herxheimer in Oxford in 1983, Sandrine Beaulieu in Paris in 1987 and a couple of dozen others in the course of the past forty years - then I would be, today, a sweet-natured, even-tempered, self-effacing old chap who would only ever show up here occasionally to wish someone a happy birthday or compliment him on a particularly well-turned phrase.

"Had she not done so, who can say
What would have shaken from the sieve?
I might have thrown poor words away
And been content to live."

It's always somebody else's fault...

sure, except that
"I'm a huge admirer of Wagner, and of "The Ring" in particular, and it would never occur to me to suggest that the tetralogy would have been better, or could even have got by, without the lengthy scenes set among the gods in Valhalla.

But I also concur in the sentiments of many opera fans that one tends to heave a sigh of relief when the tip of Wotan's spear or the last of the rams that draw Fricka's chariot finally vanish off-stage and one knows that one is going to be permitted to spend an hour or two in the company of Siegmund and Sieglinde, Hunding and Hagen, mortal beings with flaws and shortcomings whom one can love and hate in ways that one cannot love or hate the inhabitants of the skies above."

which is obviously and patently WRONG, which anyone having can discern at first hearing it, or even reading the booklet (provided they actually speak German, which you do not. Poor googling skills are no substitute unfortunately).

So no, your empty hollow attempt at elitism didn't work out, and you "got caugh buttering", because someone happened to be present who actually knows what your talking about. Story of your life really. Time to look for a new board ?

So, Alex, it seems that you were right about this guy saying you were bullshitting your way through your knowledge of the cycle of the Ring.

It doesnt alter the fact that you called us all a sad and notoriously hollowly pretentious community on account of that one person, just like you did countless times before, for equally insignificant slights, real or imagined.

I hope you're not wondering why I wouldnt fly to your defense, or why I would allow the benefit of the doubt to somebody else first.

You call it prejudice, I call it exasperation.

With the obvious lack of talent for making friends and your propensity to alienate everybody around you, you should be used to it by now...

Either way, reap the harvest you have sown, and enjoy it's bitter fruits, you've worked hard enough to have them thrown in your face, might as well pretend it's what you wanted all along, for your dignity's sake.

I like culture. Fuckin' hate snobs, though.

Reminds of the typical little brightspark at school that tried his/her hardest to patronise everyone then wonders why they constantly have a bust lip or black eye after classes.

>>91
Oh God....I don't know if this is boring everyone else as much as it is me. But I suppose there is a sort of interest in seeing just how LAUGHABLY GARGANTUAN the next wave of lies and desperate bluffs that you people come up with next are going to be.

I apologize if I'm "tarring you all with the same brush" but I honestly almost NEVER hear ANYONE here or on Crackyhouse speak out in my favour - even in the face of a post like, say, post no 90 above which is one of the most absurd and groundless things I have read in my life.

I have no idea what evidence this guy believes he is offering for his claim that my remarks on "The Ring" are "patently and obviously" wrong. None at all, as far as I can see. Can anyone else see any? There really is none there. It's just an assertion: "You're patently wrong".

In fact, he doesn't even seem to have grasped what I was saying about that cycle of operas, even though he quotes me verbatim. I was talking about "the sentiments of many opera fans", not any hard-and-fast feature of the libretto, which is what you'll find in the "booklet" he talks about.

Most absurdly of all, however, he then goes to pull randomly out of the air the further assertion that ALL THE GERMAN I KNOW I MUST HAVE GOOGLED!!

Again, there's absolutely nothing that I've written in any of the posts in this or any other thread that would justify such a claim in the least. All the German I've cited is perfecly correct. The guy is obviously just letting fly wildly in the dark hoping that the person he is arguing with here will turn out, by chance, to be as much of a bluffer and a bullshitter as he is.

I don't think it makes me a "cultural snob" if I mention that there are few people IN THE WORLD that these random shots go more completely and ludicrously wide of me than me. I certainly haven't made a great success of my life, by any generally accepted standard of judgment, nor do I occupy a position within any sort of powerful or influential cultural institution. But I think a fair percentage of the people who visit CH and .71 are aware that

(a) translating from German, among other languages, is how I've been making my living for about ten years now

and

(b) during most of these ten years I've been practicing this profession from an apartment in the middle of Berlin.

Merovin, at least, can confirm the latter circumstance, as he's phoned me up here, at a central Berlin number, several times to annoy me.

I'm afraid that one post of such STAGGERING cheek and dishonesty tends to colour my perception of the whole "community" - especially when no one bothers to remark: "Yes, Alex, you're right. That is a really incredible pile of horseshit."

>>94
I can vouch for the fact that these things are all lies developed over time on CH.

>>93
And round and round it goes, as always.

Look, you stupid fucker, this has got nothing to do with PATRONIZING anybody. As I've just demonstrated, a poster like the poster of 90 above is doing nothing but stringing together a chain of totally made-up random lies and insults about me: I don't know anything about an opera that I've been listening to over and over for thirty years; I can't speak the language of a country that I've lived in for nearly a quarter of my life etc.
Saying "Oh come on, get serious" to a guy who jabbers on nonsensically like this is not TALKING DOWN TO HIM. Talking to him AT ALL is giving him much more respect than he has earned.

I got The Ring for £4.99 from Superdrug, all 15 CDs. Umad, Alex?!?

>>95
Is this your idea of wry absurdist humour?
If it is, I have to say it's a little weak.

But I fear you might actually be serious.

If so, ask yourself: if someone is going to invent an online fantasy identity for themselves, is it likely that they'll opt for that of a lonely, unmarried, sexually-frustrated failed academic living in a rather cold and unromantic city that has few advantages beyond unusually cheap rents and scraping by as a freelance translator of tedious contracts and business letters that don't even provide him with the security of a regular predictable income?

>>97
Jesus. Which recording? The 1911 recording on baked yak-shit made by the Ulan Bator Philharmonic under Fatty Arbuckle?

>>99

>under Fatty Arbuckle

Leave your sexual fantasies out of this.

>>98
Yes, because its more believable than Joe Hunk, male supermodel sex machine.

uhm, you wrote about how the the gods are boring and the mortals interesting, whereas the gods are human, fallible and fun (pawn your sister-in-law, to have a new crib build. Good thinking Wodan! Your wife's going to love it) and the humans just a bunch of relatiovely boring archetypes thrown together.

As for evicence offered, it's pretty obvious to just about anybody if you've actually heard it once meaning that you either never did, or you actually heard multiple performances and are too stupid to figure out what's going on on stage, so you just repeat what you hear from the other phonies who don't have a clue either.

Also, most of the acts featuring gods are short, whereas the ones with the humans are long and drawn out. Next time you visit a performance, try staying awake. It helps not to not be talking out of your ass when you don't want to be perceived as a phoney.

This is actually a good point to say "Well, I wasn't completely truthful when talking about Wagner's ring, but some of the other things I've mentioned aren't complete baloney." To at least try and save some face. Insisting otherwise is just going to be painful, since people might actually start checking the things you say and discover you for the pseudo intellectual fraud you are.

The more you know*

>>94
Apology not accepted, as it was nothing but a preamble to the "why is everybody picking on me" Charlie Brown routine and another round of your latest flamewar.

You have been repeatedly insulting to ALL of the Crackyverse, every time one person, maybe the same, as said something you've equated to an insult, rightly or wrongly.

I dont care anymore, and there is no way I'm ever going to be supportive to someone who has gratuitously insulted all of us so many times that even a smile from him would now seem absolutely phoney.

I might have been supportive before you did start adressing the Crackyverse blanket insults but I never knew you doing otherwise. You actually started right on me the first time we corresponded, as I was trying to calm you down from your furor of the day. You then were incredibly rude and dismissive, coloring me ten shades of stupid, without the benefit of ever having talked to me, just because I was telling you that whoever you were arguing with at the time was actually pulling your leg.

So take it like a man or shut the fuck up. This social train wreck, just like the one in your real life, no doubt, is all all of your making and absolutely no one else's. Blaming this guy or that guy now is nothing but another cop-out in a long line of cop-out.