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 January 8th, 2015, 4:12 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: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Postby fbenario on January 9th, 2015, 2:28 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: 2199
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Postby simonshack on January 9th, 2015, 2:46 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: 6524
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Strange stories of The Beatles

Postby lux on January 9th, 2015, 4:42 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: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby edgewaters on January 19th, 2015, 11:35 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: January 22nd, 2013, 4:49 am

Previous

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron