Strange stories of The Beatles

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Unread post by lux »

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).
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Unread post by fbenario »

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).
Does that invalidate the rest of Mathis' research/analysis?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Unread post by simonshack »

fbenario wrote: Does that invalidate the rest of Mathis' research/analysis?
No - I guess not, fbenario. But we really need to keep an eye on that Mathis character - imho.

He may be geared to become the "Stephen Hawking" of ...ahem... conspiracy theorists.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Unread post by lux »

fbenario wrote:
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).
Does that invalidate the rest of Mathis' research/analysis?
No, not necessarily. I mostly liked his OJ Simpson article.
edgewaters
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by edgewaters »

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?
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.

But others would have elicited zero interest. Bernard Shaw, for instance.
Post Reply