>>59
Does anyone else here find it rather telling that the only counter-responses to any substantial criticisms I make of the alleged "new content" that appears on this board consists of obscene inarticulate personal abuse that does not even make any attempt to address the issues raised?
But OK, then. Since nobody else is willing or able to actually DEFEND this thread against my attack on it, let me play Devil's Advocate - or rather Devil's Prosecutor, since I don't think anyone is in any doubt that I'm the devil - and say, myself, that I probably wasn't entirely fair, in my remarks last night, to the "author" of the "Crackavad Gita". (As I say, I'd just been seriously hindered, by the vermin springing around my ears, in the application to my aged and withered body of a second coating of ill-smelling lotion intended to combat the depredations of a second species of vermin contracted at a previous address, while the fucking Parisians were sipping wine and listening to a performance of Monteverdi in the 18th-century palace across the road.)
On the textual level, I was entirely right, of course. What the guy has done to the text of the Bhagavad Gita constitutes no sort of creativity, just silly vandalism. But my utter dismissal of his work was, I have to admit, down to my undeniable nigh-total ignorance of VISUAL culture, and of the visual culture of Cracky in particular. There IS a sort of wit and a sort of labour of thought and effort - as I now see on closer examination - in the way he has matched up several dozen images from the Crackyverse repertory with the verses of the Gita, planets to the mention of planets, flowers to the mention of flowers etc.
It's still no work of undying genius. But OK, it isn't the worthless, silly, facile piece of crap I suggested it was either.
Can I be your friend now?
And does any one know a good exterminator in the Ile-de-France area?