Strange stories of The Beatles
Re: Strange stories of The Beatles
I actually didn't care much for Mathis' John Lennon article. I don't see that Mark Staycer is anybody but Mark Staycer (though he does a great impression of what's-his-name).
Re: Strange stories of The Beatles
Does that invalidate the rest of Mathis' research/analysis?lux wrote:I actually didn't care much for Mathis' John Lennon article. I don't see that Mark Staycer is anybody but Mark Staycer (though he does a great impression of what's-his-name).
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: Strange stories of The Beatles
No - I guess not, fbenario. But we really need to keep an eye on that Mathis character - imho.fbenario wrote: Does that invalidate the rest of Mathis' research/analysis?
He may be geared to become the "Stephen Hawking" of ...ahem... conspiracy theorists.
Re: Strange stories of The Beatles
No, not necessarily. I mostly liked his OJ Simpson article.fbenario wrote:Does that invalidate the rest of Mathis' research/analysis?lux wrote:I actually didn't care much for Mathis' John Lennon article. I don't see that Mark Staycer is anybody but Mark Staycer (though he does a great impression of what's-his-name).
-
- Member
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 am
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
Those were big names in the youth/drug culture. I can't think of any of my friends back in high school or my 20s who wouldn't be familiar with them, and we all came from blue collar families. Huxley gave an intellectual veneer to dropping acid and staring at wallpaper for 6 hours; he made it seem important (popular then for the same reason Frank McKenna got popular with youth in the 90s). Crowley got interest for being weird and creepy. We knew all about Dadaism, Timothy Leary, Andy Warhol, the Situationist movement, etc. This was how we distinguished ourselves from our cattle-like parents, kidding ourselves with that kind of thing.nonhocapito wrote:Why would kids in their twenties, rich and powerful beyond their dreams, sure, but also of proletarian extraction, waste their time with such dreary subjects as Crowley or Huxley? Who really was calling the shots here?
But others would have elicited zero interest. Bernard Shaw, for instance.