Strange stories of The Beatles

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Postby lux on Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:12 am

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).
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Postby fbenario on Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:28 am

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?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2209
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Postby simonshack on Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:46 am

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.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6593
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Postby lux on Fri Jan 09, 2015 3:42 am

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.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby edgewaters on Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:35 am

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.
edgewaters
Member
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 am

Previous

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests