Kevin's Watch

Fist and Faith wrote:

sgt.null wrote:He did nothing of the kind. It came whence ALL impulses, good or bad, come--from OUTSIDE. If that timid man had lived all his life in a community of human rabbits, had never read of brave deeds, had never heard speak of them, had never heard any one praise them nor express envy of the heroes that had done them, he would have had no more idea of bravery than Adam had of modesty, and it could never by any possibility have occurred to him to RESOLVE to become brave. He COULD NOT ORIGINATE THE IDEA--it had to come to him from the OUTSIDE. And so, when he heard bravery extolled and cowardice derided, it woke him up. He was ashamed. Perhaps his sweetheart turned up her nose and said, "I am told that you are a coward!" It was not HE that turned over the new leaf--she did it for him. HE must not strut around in the merit of it--it is not his. twain

I think I disagree. Bravery comes from overcoming fear. You don't even have to know that the feeling you're having is fear, like if you'd never heard or read about fear. Perhaps a child of a tribe of cavemen whose language isn't even developed enough to have a word for it. But he sees some beast attacking, and, though he knows it might kill him if he tries to do X to kill it or drive it away, and this gives him a feeling that he has not learned about from anyone, he does X to save everybody.

I think these quotes tug at the very nature of what I requested from this topic. What is a man; how many times must he regret the choices taken?

I believe every point each of you are making but find the conclusions misguided. Bravery or "heart" is a sampling only of the inner processes of wisdom of the mind, not the brain. I don't believe for a second that your caveman example would hold up in a philosophical debate, as you assume the act of bravery is innate. I believe it is innately a component of man's ability to overcome the brain and enter the mind realms. The mind is a transcendently damaging area to try and explore; it holds so much knowledge of processes that the spiritual decided to bestow us with. However, it is not innate because of how important it is to "dig deep" and find out the difference between the ghost and the meat of man. Meat cannot feel anger or lust because it is meat. Look at gorillas for instance; they don't care about anything in the world because they do not have a mind. Can you imagine being a gorilla? Of course not! Gorilla's lack a mind, which makes it impossible to put your imaginary mind in theirs. You can imagine yourself as a gorilla, which is not AT ALL the same thing. Man is man and only man, bestowed with gifts worked out long ago, to be able to over come other men. Bravery is one of these gifts but it is neither innate or learned. It is not both nor is it a mixture. By its very involvement with the mind and not the brain, it is beyond the capacity for humans who are only using their lower logical mind to understand the higher realms. I believe we can unlock every mystery in the universe if we just collectively think hard enough and remember that we already have the answer locked in our minds. Imagine the mind like the internet cloud.

babybottomfeeder wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

sgt.null wrote:He did nothing of the kind. It came whence ALL impulses, good or bad, come--from OUTSIDE. If that timid man had lived all his life in a community of human rabbits, had never read of brave deeds, had never heard speak of them, had never heard any one praise them nor express envy of the heroes that had done them, he would have had no more idea of bravery than Adam had of modesty, and it could never by any possibility have occurred to him to RESOLVE to become brave. He COULD NOT ORIGINATE THE IDEA--it had to come to him from the OUTSIDE. And so, when he heard bravery extolled and cowardice derided, it woke him up. He was ashamed. Perhaps his sweetheart turned up her nose and said, "I am told that you are a coward!" It was not HE that turned over the new leaf--she did it for him. HE must not strut around in the merit of it--it is not his. twain

I think I disagree. Bravery comes from overcoming fear. You don't even have to know that the feeling you're having is fear, like if you'd never heard or read about fear. Perhaps a child of a tribe of cavemen whose language isn't even developed enough to have a word for it. But he sees some beast attacking, and, though he knows it might kill him if he tries to do X to kill it or drive it away, and this gives him a feeling that he has not learned about from anyone, he does X to save everybody.

I think these quotes tug at the very nature of what I requested from this topic. What is a man; how many times must he regret the choices taken?

I believe every point each of you are making but find the conclusions misguided. Bravery or "heart" is a sampling only of the inner processes of wisdom of the mind, not the brain. I don't believe for a second that your caveman example would hold up in a philosophical debate, as you assume the act of bravery is innate. I believe it is innately a component of man's ability to overcome the brain and enter the mind realms. The mind is a transcendently damaging area to try and explore; it holds so much knowledge of processes that the spiritual decided to bestow us with. However, it is not innate because of how important it is to "dig deep" and find out the difference between the ghost and the meat of man. Meat cannot feel anger or lust because it is meat. Look at gorillas for instance; they don't care about anything in the world because they do not have a mind. Can you imagine being a gorilla? Of course not! Gorilla's lack a mind, which makes it impossible to put your imaginary mind in theirs. You can imagine yourself as a gorilla, which is not AT ALL the same thing. Man is man and only man, bestowed with gifts worked out long ago, to be able to over come other men. Bravery is one of these gifts but it is neither innate or learned. It is not both nor is it a mixture. By its very involvement with the mind and not the brain, it is beyond the capacity for humans who are only using their lower logical mind to understand the higher realms. I believe we can unlock every mystery in the universe if we just collectively think hard enough and remember that we already have the answer locked in our minds. Imagine the mind like the internet cloud.

Charles Nelson Reilly

"When I die, it's going to read, 'Game Show Fixture Passes Away'. Nothing about the theater, or Tony Awards, or Emmys. But it doesn't bother me."

Charles Nelson Reilly (b. January 11, 1931) is indeed a cult figure best known as the wisecracking celebrity panelist on 1970s game show series Match Game. He was the guy on the upper right, the one smoking a hornpipe and wearing a captain's hat, breezy ascot, and oversize coke-bottle glasses.

Reilly grew up in the Bronx. His mother was a belligerent Swede who rarely left the house without a baseball bat. She had ethnic slurs for nearly every race, and she'd shout them regularly from the safety of her apartment window. His father was a henpecked Irish Catholic, a brush artist for movie posters at Paramount studios. When the studio started hiring photographers to design their posters, brush artists fell out of favor. Charles' father lost his job and became an alcoholic.

Charles was, admittedly, a weak child in a tough neighborhood. A sickly, nearsighted boy, he'd climb into his mother's sewing basket and create puppet shows. He had no interest in sports, and he wasn't always able to hide the mannerisms and persona which marked him unmistakably as homosexual -- earning him the nickname of "Mary" from his immediate peer group.

At age nine, he got the lead in a school play about Christopher Columbus. His teacher told his mother that Charles was the only true actor she'd ever known. When he was eleven, he and a friend went to the circus in Hartford, Connecticut and a fire started under the circus tent. Reilly and his friend escaped, but 168 people, including many children, died in the stampede to evacuate. For this reason, Charles hasn't sat in an audience for anything -- including a movie -- since July 6, 1944. He decided to work backstage instead, and by the time he was 18, he was studying with Uta Hagen. His classmates included Jack Lemmon, Charles Grodin, Gene Hackman, Shelley Berman and Jason Robards.

"They couldn't act for shit!" Reilly remembers. "They stunk! If we had to watch Hal Holbrook and Steve McQueen do the brothers scene from Death of a Salesman once more, we'd go out of our minds!'"

Between 1950 and 1960, he landed parts in twenty-two off-Broadway shows, including minor roles in Bye Bye Birdie, serving as the understudy for Dick Van Dyke and Paul Lynde. As Bud Frump in the Pulitzer Prize-winning musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, he earned a Tony Award -- and in 1964, he received the New York Critic's Circle award for his work as juvenile lead Cornelius Hackel in Hello, Dolly. Herald Tribune critic Walter Kerr wrote, "If I see Mr. Reilly's young, energetic face in one more opening number, I'm going to be sick."

When Dick Van Dyke left Bye Bye Birdie, he was replaced by Gene Rayburn, later the host of Match Game and long-time friend of Charles. As Match Game grew in popularity, Reilly was invited onto TattleTales and Hollywood Squares -- and somehow he ended up on every game show in town. He became a bigger personality than an actor. One night in the early 1970s, he realized that he was going to be appearing on game shows 27 times that week. "I was told years ago that I would never be allowed on television," he recalls. "Now I had to try to find out who you have to fuck to get off."

When the BIC ballpoint pen manufacturer decided to roll out their new product, the BIC Banana Pen, they singled out Reilly as the only man who could possibly deliver their urgent message to consumers. As chief spokesman, Mr. Reilly dressed up in an bright yellow banana costume and pranced about the neighborhood, singing and shouting maniacally about BIC Banana Ink Crayons.

Oh we've gone bananas / for BIC Banana ink crayons / You'll learn to write a lot of ways: "Today I'm going to teach you how to draw with BIC Banana Ink Crayons. See what smooth lines the BIC Banana Ink Crayons make! Oh ho ho! They also make fat lines! See what bright colors BIC Banana Ink Crayons make! [Snorts and huffs] Haw haw haw haw hee hee [fart sounds] hoo hoo hoo hee hee hee! There's so much to learn about coloring and drawing with BIC Banana Ink Crayons at school! After all, I should know! I'm the BIC Banana!" [excitable pansy laughter, fade to black].

Inspired by Reilly's bravura performance, Sid and Marty Kroft (creators of Sigmund and the Sea Monsters, Land of the Lost, Bugaloos and H.R. Pufnstuf) secured him to play the role of the evil villain Horatio J. Hoodoo The Magnificent in their lesser-known creation, Lidsville. Any one of these shows alone is interminable, but somehow Charles Nelson's presence made it palatable. "Doing that show was shit," Reilly recalls. "They were all a bunch of shits."

Charles is now performing a one-man play, Save it for the Stage: The Life of Reilly, which is ranked by critics among the all-time-greatest single-actor evenings of hilarious, intimate theater. In his show, which approaches three hours in length, he talks about the perception many Americans seem to have that he is no longer among the living.

"They call the box office here at the Irish Repertory Theater," Mr. Reilly says onstage. "We have a lovely treasurer named Jeffrey, and they say, 'Who's playing the part of Reilly in The Life of Reilly?' And he says, 'Charles Nelson Reilly.' And they say, 'He's dead! The tall one with the wig and the big glasses is dead.' So Jeffrey says, 'Yes, madam, he is dead. But he still manages to come in every night at eight.'"

Reilly's partner from 1980, Patrick Hughes III, worked as the dresser in the art department on Witch Hunt, a made-for-TV zombie movie in 1994 featuring Julian Sands, Eric Bogosian, and Dennis Hopper as H.P. Lovecraft. Charles has lived at the Wyndham Hotel on West 58th street in New York for over two decades. His most recent television cameo of note was the character of Josie Chung on an episode of The X-Files.

A complete and sufficient answer to your question is doomed, I'm afraid... but that doesn't mean the pursuit of one is pointless. (!)

babybottomfeeder wrote:What is a man; how many times must he regret the choices taken?

Not just how many times.. a mere number, but also how deeply?
And why should the people who are willing to become most aware of what there is to regret seem to experience the most pain?
And worse yet, what about the actions not taken, good choices and paths left unexplored... too innumerable to count?

Mad or sane?
Some days, I start to come to the conclusion that the people whom I trust the most have had some the closest brushes with insanity.
And I'm finally coming around to the conclusion that the idea that one day, after extensive growth and progress, everything will "fall in to place"... is an illusion based on the fictions people are willing to put forward about themselves and their lives.
Like that whole metaphor of "surviving as a leper" from the Chronicles, keeping sane and preserving some semblance of oneself requires vigilance, day after day.

Cold or passionate?
Well, this one gives me hope for the people who I just want to judge as vapid, foolish, hopelessly blinded by their comfortable, illusory bubbles...
Hope for myself many days, too.

But then when we get to "Save or damn?" it's all a bit too much... as I believe a certain protagonist protested.

I believe we can unlock every mystery in the universe if we just collectively think hard enough and remember that we already have the answer locked in our minds. Imagine the mind like the internet cloud.

Is that even a goal we want? Does that even have meaning? Is there any point?

Also, we humans are so locked off from each-other... the information that makes the transit from one soul to another.. miniscule.

Though it is amazing how much of our minds we may have "locked up," at any given moment, due to the most unexpected causes.
I want lots of my mind back; it seems possible to "get back" more than I knew was there; much more.

I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for ...or if what you're looking for right now is even something that you should even get.

sgt.null wrote:Charles Nelson Reilly

"When I die, it's going to read, 'Game Show Fixture Passes Away'. Nothing about the theater, or Tony Awards, or Emmys. But it doesn't bother me."

Charles Nelson Reilly (b. January 11, 1931) is indeed a cult figure best known as the wisecracking celebrity panelist on 1970s game show series Match Game. He was the guy on the upper right, the one smoking a hornpipe and wearing a captain's hat, breezy ascot, and oversize coke-bottle glasses.

Reilly grew up in the Bronx. His mother was a belligerent Swede who rarely left the house without a baseball bat. She had ethnic slurs for nearly every race, and she'd shout them regularly from the safety of her apartment window. His father was a henpecked Irish Catholic, a brush artist for movie posters at Paramount studios. When the studio started hiring photographers to design their posters, brush artists fell out of favor. Charles' father lost his job and became an alcoholic.

Charles was, admittedly, a weak child in a tough neighborhood. A sickly, nearsighted boy, he'd climb into his mother's sewing basket and create puppet shows. He had no interest in sports, and he wasn't always able to hide the mannerisms and persona which marked him unmistakably as homosexual -- earning him the nickname of "Mary" from his immediate peer group.

At age nine, he got the lead in a school play about Christopher Columbus. His teacher told his mother that Charles was the only true actor she'd ever known. When he was eleven, he and a friend went to the circus in Hartford, Connecticut and a fire started under the circus tent. Reilly and his friend escaped, but 168 people, including many children, died in the stampede to evacuate. For this reason, Charles hasn't sat in an audience for anything -- including a movie -- since July 6, 1944. He decided to work backstage instead, and by the time he was 18, he was studying with Uta Hagen. His classmates included Jack Lemmon, Charles Grodin, Gene Hackman, Shelley Berman and Jason Robards.

"They couldn't act for shit!" Reilly remembers. "They stunk! If we had to watch Hal Holbrook and Steve McQueen do the brothers scene from Death of a Salesman once more, we'd go out of our minds!'"

Between 1950 and 1960, he landed parts in twenty-two off-Broadway shows, including minor roles in Bye Bye Birdie, serving as the understudy for Dick Van Dyke and Paul Lynde. As Bud Frump in the Pulitzer Prize-winning musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, he earned a Tony Award -- and in 1964, he received the New York Critic's Circle award for his work as juvenile lead Cornelius Hackel in Hello, Dolly. Herald Tribune critic Walter Kerr wrote, "If I see Mr. Reilly's young, energetic face in one more opening number, I'm going to be sick."

When Dick Van Dyke left Bye Bye Birdie, he was replaced by Gene Rayburn, later the host of Match Game and long-time friend of Charles. As Match Game grew in popularity, Reilly was invited onto TattleTales and Hollywood Squares -- and somehow he ended up on every game show in town. He became a bigger personality than an actor. One night in the early 1970s, he realized that he was going to be appearing on game shows 27 times that week. "I was told years ago that I would never be allowed on television," he recalls. "Now I had to try to find out who you have to fuck to get off."

When the BIC ballpoint pen manufacturer decided to roll out their new product, the BIC Banana Pen, they singled out Reilly as the only man who could possibly deliver their urgent message to consumers. As chief spokesman, Mr. Reilly dressed up in an bright yellow banana costume and pranced about the neighborhood, singing and shouting maniacally about BIC Banana Ink Crayons.

Oh we've gone bananas / for BIC Banana ink crayons / You'll learn to write a lot of ways: "Today I'm going to teach you how to draw with BIC Banana Ink Crayons. See what smooth lines the BIC Banana Ink Crayons make! Oh ho ho! They also make fat lines! See what bright colors BIC Banana Ink Crayons make! [Snorts and huffs] Haw haw haw haw hee hee [fart sounds] hoo hoo hoo hee hee hee! There's so much to learn about coloring and drawing with BIC Banana Ink Crayons at school! After all, I should know! I'm the BIC Banana!" [excitable pansy laughter, fade to black].

Inspired by Reilly's bravura performance, Sid and Marty Kroft (creators of Sigmund and the Sea Monsters, Land of the Lost, Bugaloos and H.R. Pufnstuf) secured him to play the role of the evil villain Horatio J. Hoodoo The Magnificent in their lesser-known creation, Lidsville. Any one of these shows alone is interminable, but somehow Charles Nelson's presence made it palatable. "Doing that show was shit," Reilly recalls. "They were all a bunch of shits."

Charles is now performing a one-man play, Save it for the Stage: The Life of Reilly, which is ranked by critics among the all-time-greatest single-actor evenings of hilarious, intimate theater. In his show, which approaches three hours in length, he talks about the perception many Americans seem to have that he is no longer among the living.

"They call the box office here at the Irish Repertory Theater," Mr. Reilly says onstage. "We have a lovely treasurer named Jeffrey, and they say, 'Who's playing the part of Reilly in The Life of Reilly?' And he says, 'Charles Nelson Reilly.' And they say, 'He's dead! The tall one with the wig and the big glasses is dead.' So Jeffrey says, 'Yes, madam, he is dead. But he still manages to come in every night at eight.'"

Reilly's partner from 1980, Patrick Hughes III, worked as the dresser in the art department on Witch Hunt, a made-for-TV zombie movie in 1994 featuring Julian Sands, Eric Bogosian, and Dennis Hopper as H.P. Lovecraft. Charles has lived at the Wyndham Hotel on West 58th street in New York for over two decades. His most recent television cameo of note was the character of Josie Chung on an episode of The X-Files.

What does this have to do with anything? This is the wikipedia entry to some guy from somewhere? What does this have to do with what a man is? Please, if you are going to take other people's words and repurpose them for your personal usage, make the statements relevant.

Are you name dropping?

babybottomfeeder ... >sigh< Charles Nelson Reilly is the epitome of man. I have based all my poetry, the fable and every song I have ever written on the ideal of him.

by studying Charles we may find ourselves.

He really was great. He was the best part of Match Game. Loved his frequent three-cards answers, though they rarely matched. And I watched Lidsville every week. Also The Ghost and Mrs. Muir.

sgt.null wrote:babybottomfeeder ... >sigh< Charles Nelson Reilly is the epitome of man. I have based all my poetry, the fable and every song I have ever written on the ideal of him.

by studying Charles we may find ourselves.

This is some type of thinly veiled parody, satire or "spoof". I understand your unwillingness to participate, due to the heart sleeving effects it will have.

Maybe Sarge actually DID mean something by that?
Or ...maybe it was a little of both at the same time!!!

Linna Heartlistener wrote:And I'm finally coming around to the conclusion that MY IDEA THAT one day, after extensive growth and progress, everything will somehow "fall in to place" and the problems will go away; or at least be... not really hard... IS JUST AN ILLUSION.

Oh... I said the exact OPPOSITE of what I meant to say at first... that would make the whole paragraph irritating for any trying to understand what I meant.

I meant to say that that the hope that "eventually everything will fall into place" and that "things will stop being so hard" is an illusion...

I'm thinking you almost have something specific on your mind, and you're trying to dabble your toes in the water and figure out if this is gonna work, but sadly... being a bottomfeeder, you're just getting a bunch of muck flushed into your direction.

Btw, if you want, I can start posting relevant quotes on the nature of humanity from my book written by someone who counsels abuse victims.
The guy is interesting, but sadly the book still scares me a lot, and I've only read a little of it:

i am more serious about Charles Nelson Reilly than babybottomfeeder is about anything.



the man, the myth, the legend talking about Lidsville

My stomach says 'popcorn' but my mind is thinking of a certain joust from Game of Thrones and says 'wine.'

Seems like someone bored with showing restraint.

And, despites Murins explanation, I am still not sure about what happed at winterfell at the end of the last episode, speaking of them.

sgt.null wrote:i am more serious about Charles Nelson Reilly than babybottomfeeder is about anything.



the man, the myth, the legend talking about Lidsville

Then start a thread about him or relate him back to the topic. Don't go hard handing off "spoofs" as some non-"spoof". You meant it to be a parody and although you may have strong feelings about this comedian, you meant the post as a "spoof", a mocking slight.

You are more serious about Charles Nelson Reilly than I about anything? This is totally a subjective statement that cannot be backed up in any way with fact or provable data. I could posit that I am the biggest 3-D Man fan in the world and no one can prove me wrong. I conozco him, this 3-D Man. I conozco him more than you.

Linna Heartlistener wrote:Maybe Sarge actually DID mean something by that?
Or ...maybe it was a little of both at the same time!!!

Linna Heartlistener wrote:And I'm finally coming around to the conclusion that MY IDEA THAT one day, after extensive growth and progress, everything will somehow "fall in to place" and the problems will go away; or at least be... not really hard... IS JUST AN ILLUSION.

Oh... I said the exact OPPOSITE of what I meant to say at first... that would make the whole paragraph irritating for any trying to understand what I meant.

I meant to say that that the hope that "eventually everything will fall into place" and that "things will stop being so hard" is an illusion...

I'm thinking you almost have something specific on your mind, and you're trying to dabble your toes in the water and figure out if this is gonna work, but sadly... being a bottomfeeder, you're just getting a bunch of muck flushed into your direction.

Btw, if you want, I can start posting relevant quotes on the nature of humanity from my book written by someone who counsels abuse victims.
The guy is interesting, but sadly the book still scares me a lot, and I've only read a little of it:

I would very much like to see the author's views on love, as it is one of the corner stones of the human experience. Please post some quotes you feel reflect the author's main intent.

As far as things not working out in the end however, I disagree. Things happen in sequence much like a clocks gears clicking to the hour or minute. Sometimes it clicks to the "witching hour" but then it continues rolling along. You look back on the journey and you see the gears and the springs and realize that although you may not know the outcome, the clock continues to tick. I can't come to believe that this is not the very definition of working out. The hand of fate clicks the gears and we act.

babybottomfeeder wrote:I conozco him, this 3-D Man. I conozco him more than you.

Gee, I dunno...this sounds a little...like...Juan Valdez...

aliantha wrote:

babybottomfeeder wrote:I conozco him, this 3-D Man. I conozco him more than you.

Gee, I dunno...this sounds a little...like...Juan Valdez...

And my bets were on Nihilio!

Mod deletions.

Everybody else please try to be cool.

bbf, I think sarge really was serious. (Other than his last post.) It just wasn't presented very well. CNR was great. Was he a man? Some would say his... flamboyant personality means he was not. Which is rubbish.

Mod edit

babybottomfeeder wrote:Someone just removed this heated debate from my topic discussion. Hats off for helping us through our problems, however I believe this argument ILLUSTRATES what a man is. A man is a mind conflicted with the body. The "heart" or mind of the man is in constant struggle with the nature of the body. There are overriding biological urges at work that cause greed, lust and anger. The mind can win out in the end! I just spoke with LF on the phone and we are cool.

No disrespect to the moderators but I believe the spice of life develops through the conflicts. Though Foul and I are not really speaking right now doesn't mean we got to whitewash the past.

The mind tells us what the brain cannot know. Forgiveness is a hard and craggy path.

Hey. Fist and Faith here. I removed that, and I've done so again. It wasn't a debate; it was personal Attack & Response. I won't have it here, even if the ones involved don't doesn't mind being attacked. Attack ideas, if you want. Please don't repost it. I won't let it stay up.

Fist and Faith wrote:Mod deletions.

Everybody else please try to be cool.

bbf, I think sarge really was serious. (Other than his last post.) It just wasn't presented very well. CNR was great. Was he a man? Some would say his... flamboyant personality means he was not. Which is rubbish.

Hmm, Sarge being serious? Okay, I guess you know him better than I do. I just saw him referencing a comedian and I got heated.

Sarge, will you elaborate on your point because I do not understand.

Thanks,

bbf