Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

It's fairly unlikely you'd have made it here without ever having heard of Jason's previous incarnation. So here you go, talk away...

Moderators: sunny, runcible, MODLAB

Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby clewsr » Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:39 am

clewsr
Known user
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby sunray » Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:23 am

:lol: Class. Surely a world tour is now on the horizon!
I'm losing my edge, but I was there...
sunray
Known user
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:07 pm

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mojo filters » Tue Sep 29, 2015 2:49 pm

I've just watched the episode, and I wasn't especially impressed. I didn't go in prejudiced because I forgot Lena Dunham was the guest star. I didn't even realise her character was voiced by a star guest, I just noticed her name on the end credits. She was poor to average in it, though thankfully she didn't write it and it would be difficult to bare her lardy arse in a cartoon anyway. It's obvious she thinks she is some kind of clever writer-actor combo, in the mould of Tina Fey, Amy Poehler or Mindy Kaling, but I don't rate her acting or her writing, or the way she contrives to get her kit off as often as possible in her dreadful show "Girls", to show the world her flabby stomach, chunky thighs and so forth! Anyways I digress...

I don't know how cartoon scripts are formatted, but I'm surprised to read that Pete Kember was "psyched" by it. I guess if what he read was the cartoon equivalent to a movie treatment - that would have more effectively got the main elements of the story across. The whole episode is predicated on an absurdly convoluted and what feels like a forced plot device. The pharmacist character isn't properly developed, so her activities with Homer don't have any authenticity. The trip scene soundtracked by Big City is very short, but nevertheless the highlight of the episode. The cleverest parts of the writing are not what I'd expect would leap off the page, allowing you to visualize the story.

It's nothing like the brilliant early Simpsons episode where Homer eats a very hot chilli pepper at the chilli festival, then goes round the golf course hallucinating. In this episode you don't even really know what pharmaceuticals they are using or abusing, so it's hard to put some key scenes into context.

The whole story feels rushed and contrived. The writers have tried to cram so many different scenes and scenarios into 22 minutes, that I found it almost like hard work watching attentively to keep up with the story.

I'm not one of these Simpsons fans who thinks that over the last 10 - 15 seasons the show has become less funny and entertaining. I acknowledge that unlike South Park the show hasn't got better over the years (obviously excepting the evolution in Season Two where Homer's voice changed and the plots began to revolve around him rather than the very early Bart focussed shows).

I went into this with an open mind, if anything I had higher expectations because not only had Pete Kember talked it up (and consented to the sync rights for Big City) but it was the first show of a new season - which historically are usually very strong episodes. I think it could have been improved a lot if they'd fleshed out the pharmacist character more, and had Pete Kember on as guest like the appearances of James Taylor and Paul McCartney. The "trip" scene would have been more believable if the pharmacist had taken Homer to a Spectrum gig, as opposed to the unrealistic idea of walking into a bar in a small American town with Spacemen 3 music playing!

I hope other Simpsons fans find it on the net and post their opinions. I look forward to hearing other folks views. I think I would have probably enjoyed it more if I'd just watched it by chance, rather than having high expectations of things like the trip scene, as the previous Simpsons acid-like scenes were so impressive in terms of capturing the essence of a good LSD or magic mushroom experience!

Many thanks to clewsr for finding out about this! I don't know if it's been on TV yet in the UK, as I don't have Sky. However I had no difficulty finding it on the first streaming site I searched on. Also I do hope my feelings don't prejudice anyone else's enjoyment of this episode. I suspect if I'd just come across it by chance and decided to give it go, I might well have been impressed by it. And I'm sure if I'd been surprised by hearing Big City, it would have been a pleasant surprise - like when I hear tracks from the last Belle & Sebastian album in the background during scenes in the cafe and the Vic in Eastenders ;)
If you don't have to pay to get in, you can't be ripped off!
mojo filters
Known user
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Coming right down and doing it all over again

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby clewsr » Tue Sep 29, 2015 4:29 pm

My, that is a thorough review! I don't got the Lena Dunham hate, but then I'm not that familiar with current TV these days.

I agree the original chilli episode was wonderful. I don't think I've watched any Simpsons since my first daughter was born so it will be fun to watch when I get round to having a look - Thanks though as I didn't really realize it has already been screened.

It would be wonderful to see Pete animated in the Simpsons, but I can't really think that could ever have happened. Firstly he's not famous in a Simpsons sense and secondly he is one of the most outspoken proponents of drug use I have ever heard.
clewsr
Known user
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby sunray » Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:27 pm

Got to be honest, I couldn't give a shit if the episode is actually any good I just like the idea of Spacemen 3 on The Simpsons!
I'm losing my edge, but I was there...
sunray
Known user
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:07 pm

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mojo filters » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:18 pm

I guess I've been a bit harsh and didn't mean to sound so cruel. My ex-girlfriend loved the show Girls, and insisted I watch it with her, in return for tolerating Curb Your Enthusiasm - because she claimed inexplicably not to find Larry David funny, failing to understand my proclivity to watch each new episode several times and filling the spaces in between series by rewatching old episodes. She also thought it was excessive that I not only owned every boxset, but kept every downloaded episode on all my laptops. The latter point may be valid, but I refused to concede the issue.

However she decided to stop paying for Sky, after some promotional offer ended and the price went up. She isn't very computer literate, but knew I downloaded some shows and films via Torrent sites. Hence I dutifully agreed to get Girls and burn it to VCD for her.

My ex was a bit of a charver with a mischievous streak. Despite my kind efforts under duress, she then thanked me by telling her friends I watched the show. That information inevitably led to a sucession of folks poking fun at my expense. I was not amused. It might even have contributed to the beginning of the end.

I found the show not just uninteresting, but downright irritating. The humour was derivative and story themes around the contrived complicated love lives of the shows main protagonists makes a poor attempt to address pseudo-feminist issues, with a smug self-righteous and self-congratulatory tone.

Lena Dunham's keenness to interpose scenes where she was in some advanced degree of undress, occurred with a disturbing degree of regularity! She revels in moving around like a misguided exhibitionist - inevitably leading to her wobbly bits wobbling unnervingly; like rubberneckers passing a car crash or some extreme act of violence in a horror film, you don't want to look yet my eyes are drawn to her. To this day I can't shift those wobbly visuals. They haunt my nightmares and disturb my days.

I previously just about tolerated Sex & the City, and Desperate Housewives before that. But in my opinion Girls just sunk trashy TV to a new low. I was quite surprised at the critical acclaim the show got, from respectable broadsheet newspaper critics, plus the BAFTA and Emmy awards it won.


As for the new Simpsons episode, I think it's only just gone out in America, as the new autumn schedules will have just started on the big networks this month. I've recently been on a mission to watch every Simpsons show after I failed with a previous TV endurance challenge.

I took my cue from the last series of John Morton's brilliant comedy W1A. There was a running joke about one character having to watch every episode of Top Gear, caused by a fictional crisis caused by Clarkson - which ironically was broadcast just as the last real Clarkson blunder happened!

I found a site with every episode available to stream, going back to the very first season of the new format with Jason Dawe, before he was replaced by James May. I thought it would be a fun challenge, and the first few series were interesting as the show was very different back then. I struggled until around season 12, when I had to give up.

My Simpsons challenge is much more fun. Now I'm up to season 5, and still enjoying it. I hope to reach the end before Christmas!

I just rewatched the latest episode. It was more enjoyable this time around, but I still think they've tried to squeeze too much into one episode.
If you don't have to pay to get in, you can't be ripped off!
mojo filters
Known user
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Coming right down and doing it all over again

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby heisenberg » Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:56 pm

Didn't Lena Dunham molest her baby sister and write about it extensively in her book? That fact alone deters me from watching any of her work, which appears to me to be little more than trust fund, hipster shit. Plus I know a creepy and very unusual guy who always posts on his social media sites about his viewing binges of Girls. Fair to say all these factors ensure that I'll never warm to this woman or any of her work.

Cool for Spacemen 3 to be in the Simpsons, regardless of whether it's any good anymore (I think it's terrible now). Sadly I think it's likely more a case of the staff writers trying to be cool and squeeze all the bands they discovered on pitchfork into the show's soundtrack.

I love it when by chance I catch a Simpsons episode and it's an earlier one, mid 90s vintage. So many brilliant episodes to choose from. It's sad, because all the subtly and actual jokes are totally gone from the show now. I saw one today and must've watched about ten minutes of it before I had to turn it off. Now it's trying to be overly whacky, but is unfortunately nothing but cringeworthy. For example, I always found it funny how Milhouse's parents looked like siblings. In a recent episode, Milhous says something to the effect of 'I think my parents are brother and sister'. Just the lack of subtlety, and the whole 'here's a funny thing you might not have noticed after all these years if you happen to be stupid, but even if you did we'll just ruin it by highlighting it anyway!'. Way to piss on the legacy and further highlight how bad the show is now. Lazy, unfunny and irritating. Anyway, I'll stop.

And mojo, anyone who doesn't love curb is better not to be part of your life. Now there's a comedy I'd welcome another season of in a heartbeat. Imagine finishing curb, and being forced to follow it with Girls. You poor guy.
heisenberg
Known user
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:14 pm

spacemen 3 in the simpson

Postby The Dr » Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:19 am

Homer gets high to Spacemen 3 in new episode of 'The Simpsons'



http://www.nme.com/news/spacemen-3/88654
“You're not Dostoevsky,' said the citizeness

'Well, who knows, who knows,' he replied.

'Dostoevsky's dead,' said the citizeness, but somehow not very confidently.

'I protest!' Behemoth exclaimed hotly. 'Dostoevsky is immortal!”
The Dr
Known user
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby angelsighs » Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:07 pm

I've never watched Girls so can't really comment on the quality of the show, but a lot of these criticisms of Lena Dunham (which I've heard before) seem to have an undertow of misogyny to me. so a nude body is only okay to show if it's a supermodel? surely it's healthy to show a chubby/normal body on TV?

Curb Your Enthusiasm, now you're talking. one of my favourite comedy shows of all time (easily my favourite american comedy) from the unique mind of Larry David. The Doll episode in particular leaps out as near perfect a 30 mins of comedy as I've ever watched.
Larry is still undecided about doing any more seasons apparently.
angelsighs
Known user
 
Posts: 3889
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby clewsr » Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:19 pm

yeah I share your thoughts on Lena Durnham there Mr Sighs.
clewsr
Known user
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: spacemen 3 in the simpson

Postby spacemanrich » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:42 pm

That's funny. Would never expect that on the Simpson's.
spacemanrich
Known user
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: s.f.

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mc » Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:35 pm

clewsr wrote:yeah I share your thoughts on Lena Durnham there Mr Sighs.


Most definitely. Shame about the latent misogyny marring what should be a very entertaining thread :roll: Anyhoo, Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons - who'd've thunk it? Sure, the show is a pale shadow of its (long since past) heyday, but it's still something to celebrate. Even the official Spiritualized Facebook page posted a link :)
mc
Known user
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby Muscles » Tue Oct 06, 2015 11:37 pm

Fucking classic !
I think Family guy or American Dad are the ones people watch now.
But Simpsons and Spacemen 3 ! WOW !
Cheers ! xo
Pete send the ones you reject my way !
Is this the video where you dance !
Fantastic I will have to look it up ! :D
www.instagram.com/davidstroughter 8)
Muscles
Known user
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Hollywood,California.

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mojo filters » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:22 pm

Before folks begin to throw around accusations of offensive behaviour such as misogyny, they may want to reaquaint themselves with the definition.

My remarks were directed at one person. It was purely poking fun at someone who consistently and unnecessarily prevails upon their audience, by writing material which appears at every opportunity to shoehorn in scenarios in which they are either partially or wholly undressed.

The absurd regularity of this implies a clear exhibitionist tendency. It has been noted by TV critics, and I'm quite sure Lena Dunham has admitted as much, in this respect.

If I had been critical in a more pejorative way, or used language specifically articulated as gender offensive - that would have been different. However all I did was pass comment on one person, without ascribing any offensive character to my description. I in no way deviated from established facts or harmless subjective opinion.

As already stated I did not use gender biased language, nor did I imply my remarks referred to anyone beyond the individual mentioned. If the subject of my remarks had been of the opposite gender - the tone and content could easily be just as applicable.

I accept there is potential in my remarks for those especially sensitive to body image concerns to take offence. As the unhappy owner of an unwanted beer gut I would class myself in such terms - but that doesn't mean I can't have harmless fun with the issue. This is quite different to the mis-application of a specific term, and furthermore such mis-application can potentially dilute the strength of such terminology.

Whilst I'm sure folks made reference to potential misogyny with the best of intentions, I think it is not fair to cast around inaccurate and unpleasant aspersions. Genuine misogyny - like any form of hate directed at specific groups and categories of people - is an unpleasant and unnecessarily cruel way to behave in a civilized society. It does the cause of eliminating such no favours, if the terminology is misapplied or misunderstood. It's also unpleasant to be accused of such, when it was neither present nor intended.
If you don't have to pay to get in, you can't be ripped off!
mojo filters
Known user
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Coming right down and doing it all over again

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mojo filters » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:39 pm

angelsighs wrote:Curb Your Enthusiasm, now you're talking. one of my favourite comedy shows of all time (easily my favourite american comedy) from the unique mind of Larry David. The Doll episode in particular leaps out as near perfect a 30 mins of comedy as I've ever watched.
Larry is still undecided about doing any more seasons apparently.


The last line from that episode is probably my all time favourite Larry David scenario: Mommy Mommy, that bald man is in the bathroom and there's something hard in his pants!

Though as someone cursed with premature hair loss, the quote that comes to mind most often is: Bald asshole? That's a hate crime!

I hope if he does another season of Curb it's as good as the rest. The same team of writers/producers from the last few series were responsible for the terrible HBO film Clear History. I was genuinely shocked at how bad that film was. It's not like LD can't act - I thought he was brilliant in Woody Allen's Whatever Works, which was the best recent Woody Allen film by far in my opinion. I guess it helped that Larry David's character was originally written for Zero Mostel, and the script was originally written in the late 1970s, not long after Annie Hall and Zelig.
If you don't have to pay to get in, you can't be ripped off!
mojo filters
Known user
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Coming right down and doing it all over again

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mc » Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:45 pm

mojo filters wrote:Before folks begin to throw around accusations of offensive behaviour such as misogyny, they may want to reaquaint themselves with the definition.

My remarks were directed at one person. It was purely poking fun at someone who consistently and unnecessarily prevails upon their audience, by writing material which appears at every opportunity to shoehorn in scenarios in which they are either partially or wholly undressed.

The absurd regularity of this implies a clear exhibitionist tendency. It has been noted by TV critics, and I'm quite sure Lena Dunham has admitted as much, in this respect.

If I had been critical in a more pejorative way, or used language specifically articulated as gender offensive - that would have been different. However all I did was pass comment on one person, without ascribing any offensive character to my description. I in no way deviated from established facts or harmless subjective opinion.

As already stated I did not use gender biased language, nor did I imply my remarks referred to anyone beyond the individual mentioned. If the subject of my remarks had been of the opposite gender - the tone and content could easily be just as applicable.

I accept there is potential in my remarks for those especially sensitive to body image concerns to take offence. As the unhappy owner of an unwanted beer gut I would class myself in such terms - but that doesn't mean I can't have harmless fun with the issue. This is quite different to the mis-application of a specific term, and furthermore such mis-application can potentially dilute the strength of such terminology.

Whilst I'm sure folks made reference to potential misogyny with the best of intentions, I think it is not fair to cast around inaccurate and unpleasant aspersions. Genuine misogyny - like any form of hate directed at specific groups and categories of people - is an unpleasant and unnecessarily cruel way to behave in a civilized society. It does the cause of eliminating such no favours, if the terminology is misapplied or misunderstood. It's also unpleasant to be accused of such, when it was neither present nor intended.


You're right that you didn't say anything overtly misogynistic; for my part, I used the phrase "latent misogyny", or more broadly defined, "hidden or concealed hatred or strong prejudice against women." Why did I use this phrase? I'll attempt to explain myself.

First of all, there was your various disparaging references to Lena Dunham's body: "lardy arse"; "flabby stomach, chunky thighs"; "wobbly bits wobbling unnervingly". Now, you talk about this as being more of a body image issue, which is fair enough. Trouble is, unwittingly or not, this is gender-specific because men simply do not get this level of focus, criticism and disgust levelled at their bodies. The presence of a perfectly normal beer-belly on a man in the public eye is of little consequence to the world, but a woman with a similarly normal body (i.e. Lena Dunham-esque in build) gets scrutiny and abuse. I'm no fan of rampant exhibitionism either, but as others have pointed out, would this be an issue if Lena Dunham were tall, skinny or otherwise conventionally attractive? Perhaps sometimes one has to go over the top to drive a point home.

Then you said "to this day I can't shift those wobbly visuals. They haunt my nightmares and disturb my days." Okay, I concede this might be an attempt at humour, but I read a genuine disgust in this that ties in with what I've written above. Lena Dunham is the specific person you're discussing, but what reception would you give a similarly built woman in a similar role? My assumption was that it'd be negative, from your language.

Next up, we've got the "Despite my kind efforts under duress, she then thanked me by telling her friends I watched the show. That information inevitably led to a sucession of folks poking fun at my expense."

Folks poking fun at your expense because you watch a TV show? Again, because of the language you've used, I assumed that you're getting laughed at because it's a TV show aimed primarily at women, and you don't appreciate being accused of watching such things.

We've later got "I previously just about tolerated Sex & the City, and Desperate Housewives before that. But in my opinion Girls just sunk trashy TV to a new low."

This read to me as you dismissing SATC, DH and then Girls - all programmes written by women and primarily for women - out of hand for being as such. Of course one doesn't have to like these shows, but again the dismissive language suggested more than mere dislike but something more akin to deep mistrust and yes, prejudice or hatred.

Last of all, I squared my interpretations of your comments with your (a few months back) discussion of Laura Snapes' sexual harrassment at the hands of Mark Kozelek. Let's be honest here, what he did was humiliating sexual harassment, and your easy dismissal of her concerns as a victim, staunch defence of the perpetrator (along with your own personal ridicule aimed at the woman) had a misogynistic ring to it that left a bad taste in my mouth.

So, in summary, thanks to all of the above, I assumed "latent misogyny" on your part in the current discussion. I'm not going to speculate whether that assumption has any base in reality, whether deliberate or unwilling; I've just attempted to explain why I came to that conclusion. I'll certainly admit that all of the above is based on my own personal assumptions, and if I'm well wide of the mark I wholeheartedly apologise for jumping to unfair conclusions. At present I'll apologise for being passive-agressive about it rather than tackling this head on.

On another note, I'm a fan of CYE myself, but haven't watched it since season 4. Perhaps it's time to catch up :)
mc
Known user
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mojo filters » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:54 am

mc wrote:
mojo filters wrote:Before folks begin to throw around accusations of offensive behaviour such as misogyny, they may want to reaquaint themselves with the definition.

My remarks were directed at one person. It was purely poking fun at someone who consistently and unnecessarily prevails upon their audience, by writing material which appears at every opportunity to shoehorn in scenarios in which they are either partially or wholly undressed.

The absurd regularity of this implies a clear exhibitionist tendency. It has been noted by TV critics, and I'm quite sure Lena Dunham has admitted as much, in this respect.

If I had been critical in a more pejorative way, or used language specifically articulated as gender offensive - that would have been different. However all I did was pass comment on one person, without ascribing any offensive character to my description. I in no way deviated from established facts or harmless subjective opinion.

As already stated I did not use gender biased language, nor did I imply my remarks referred to anyone beyond the individual mentioned. If the subject of my remarks had been of the opposite gender - the tone and content could easily be just as applicable.

I accept there is potential in my remarks for those especially sensitive to body image concerns to take offence. As the unhappy owner of an unwanted beer gut I would class myself in such terms - but that doesn't mean I can't have harmless fun with the issue. This is quite different to the mis-application of a specific term, and furthermore such mis-application can potentially dilute the strength of such terminology.

Whilst I'm sure folks made reference to potential misogyny with the best of intentions, I think it is not fair to cast around inaccurate and unpleasant aspersions. Genuine misogyny - like any form of hate directed at specific groups and categories of people - is an unpleasant and unnecessarily cruel way to behave in a civilized society. It does the cause of eliminating such no favours, if the terminology is misapplied or misunderstood. It's also unpleasant to be accused of such, when it was neither present nor intended.


Fair enough; I'll explain myself.

You're right that you didn't say anything overtly misogynistic; for my part, I used the phrase "latent misogyny", or more broadly defined, "hidden or concealed hatred or strong prejudice against women." Why did I use this phrase? I'll attempt to explain myself.

First of all, there was your various disparaging references to Lena Dunham's body: "lardy arse"; "flabby stomach, chunky thighs"; "wobbly bits wobbling unnervingly". Now, you talk about this as being more of a body image issue, which is fair enough. Trouble is, unwittingly or not, this is gender-specific because men simply do not get this level of focus, criticism and disgust levelled at their bodies. The presence of a perfectly normal beer-belly on a man in the public eye is of little consequence to the world, but a woman with a similarly normal body (i.e. Lena Dunham-esque in build) gets scrutiny and abuse. I'm no fan of rampant exhibitionism either, but as others have pointed out, would this be an issue if Lena Dunham were tall, skinny or otherwise conventionally attractive? Perhaps sometimes one has to go over the top to drive a point home.

Then you said "to this day I can't shift those wobbly visuals. They haunt my nightmares and disturb my days." Okay, I concede this might be an attempt at humour, but I read a genuine disgust in this that ties in with what I've written above. Lena Dunham is the specific person you're discussing, but what reception would you give a similarly built woman in a similar role? My assumption was that it'd be negative, from your language.

Next up, we've got the "Despite my kind efforts under duress, she then thanked me by telling her friends I watched the show. That information inevitably led to a sucession of folks poking fun at my expense."

Folks poking fun at your expense because you watch a TV show? Again, because of the language you've used, I assumed that you're getting laughed at because it's a TV show aimed primarily at women, and you don't appreciate being accused of watching such things.

We've later got "I previously just about tolerated Sex & the City, and Desperate Housewives before that. But in my opinion Girls just sunk trashy TV to a new low."

This read to me as you dismissing SATC, DH and then Girls - all programmes written by women and primarily for women - out of hand for being as such. Of course one doesn't have to like these shows, but again the dismissive language suggested more than mere dislike but something more akin to deep mistrust and yes, prejudice or hatred.

Last of all, I squared my interpretations of your comments with your (a few months back) discussion of Laura Snapes' sexual harrassment at the hands of Mark Kozelek. Let's be honest here, what he did was humiliating sexual harassment, and your easy dismissal of her concerns as a victim, staunch defence of the perpetrator (along with your own personal ridicule aimed at the woman) had a misogynistic ring to it that left a bad taste in my mouth.

So, in summary, thanks to all of the above, I assumed "latent misogyny" on your part in the current discussion. I'm not going to speculate whether that assumption has any base in reality, whether deliberate or unwilling; I've just attempted to explain why I came to that conclusion. I'll certainly admit that all of the above is based on my own personal assumptions, and if I'm well wide of the mark I wholeheartedly apologise for jumping to unfair conclusions. At present I'll apologise for being passive-agressive about it rather than tackling this head on.

On another note, I'm a fan of CYE myself, but haven't watched it since season 4. Perhaps it's time to catch up :)


Let me address this point by point.

I'll concede I didn't expect such a comprehensive rebuttal. You raise some valid issues, however we need to discern the semantics from the genuine concerns, as well as disentangling certain misunderstandings.

I share your specific interest in issues regarding gender equality. Long ago in my academic studies I wrote a dissertation analysing Plato's attitude and treatment of women. I took the perceived wisdom present in academic texts and attempted (somewhat clumsily) a detailed analysis of his writing to show there was a lot of room for alternative interpretations.

Regardless of that, I think it is unfair to characterize my own position as one displaying any sympathy to actual misogyny.

mc wrote:You're right that you didn't say anything overtly misogynistic; for my part, I used the phrase "latent misogyny", or more broadly defined, "hidden or concealed hatred or strong prejudice against women." Why did I use this phrase? I'll attempt to explain myself.


Thank you for acknowledging that I made an effort to avoid anything that could be specifically construed as misogynistic. That was my intention. However to address your further point - I in no way intended to be covertly misogynistic. I tried to ensure everything I wrote on this page could not be correctly characterized as any form of misogyny.


mc wrote:First of all, there was your various disparaging references to Lena Dunham's body: "lardy arse"; "flabby stomach, chunky thighs"; "wobbly bits wobbling unnervingly". Now, you talk about this as being more of a body image issue, which is fair enough. Trouble is, unwittingly or not, this is gender-specific because men simply do not get this level of focus, criticism and disgust levelled at their bodies. The presence of a perfectly normal beer-belly on a man in the public eye is of little consequence to the world, but a woman with a similarly normal body (i.e. Lena Dunham-esque in build) gets scrutiny and abuse. I'm no fan of rampant exhibitionism either, but as others have pointed out, would this be an issue if Lena Dunham were tall, skinny or otherwise conventionally attractive? Perhaps sometimes one has to go over the top to drive a point home.

Then you said "to this day I can't shift those wobbly visuals. They haunt my nightmares and disturb my days." Okay, I concede this might be an attempt at humour, but I read a genuine disgust in this that ties in with what I've written above. Lena Dunham is the specific person you're discussing, but what reception would you give a similarly built woman in a similar role? My assumption was that it'd be negative, from your language.


The terminology was deliberately non-gender specific. I agree in general with your point that women are more frequently subjected to an unnecessary and unpleasant spotlight, that shines more brightly on issues affecting them, compared with men.

However the flip side of this is that a writer such as Lena Dunham knows exactly how the media in particular and Western society in general views this unfairness. She knew exactly how the scenes she was writing herself into could (and probably would) be received - although that has no bearing on whether such reception is fundamentally right or wrong, it implies a degree of intent to provoke a response.

My interpretation is that I dislike her work. The remarks I made in respect of that opinion were directed at her and only her. I expect I would have equal disdain for a man doing something equivalent. Obviously I can't demonstrate this as such a situation has yet to present itself to me - and I don't think I can be faulted for not having equivalent evidence to present, I'm not responsible for what's on TV.

I reiterate that I only made remarks critical of her - I think it was quite clear the remarks referred to were not aimed at women in general. To begin any attempt to discern how I might appraise a differently-built woman is beside the point, I wasn't passing judgement on women in general, just one specific person.

There was an element of humour in the tone of those descriptions your reference - I fully understood my carefully-chosen non gender-specific turns of phrase could be perversely interpreted wrongly by anyone minded to do such; I used humour to try and avoid that. I guess in this instance it didn't work!

If what I wrote gave the impression of disgust, I'll take this opportunity to quash any such notion. As per my previous post - any implication of disgust or similar would immediately leave me open to the criticism of misogyny I was attempting to avoid.

I happily admit my attempt at humour could be misinterpreted. However in writing remarks off the cuff, it's often hard to account for every possible interpretation. If I have caused offence - I'm happy to concede and/or address any issues raised.

Once again I'd draw attention to the fact I was referencing one specific individual; if every time anyone addressed a comment to a person, they were obliged to account for folks deciding to perversely interpret any such comment in an unnecessarily negative light - there'd be a lot more work out there for editors and proofreaders, with much less capacity to accommodate original content providers, due to such the complex logistical implications that would encumber every writer!


mc wrote:Next up, we've got the "Despite my kind efforts under duress, she then thanked me by telling her friends I watched the show. That information inevitably led to a sucession of folks poking fun at my expense."

Folks poking fun at your expense because you watch a TV show? Again, because of the language you've used, I assumed that you're getting laughed at because it's a TV show aimed primarily at women, and you don't appreciate being accused of watching such things.


You are correct - I did not enjoy fun made at my expense, purely based on a childish interpretation of the inherent humour in a man being forced to watch girly TV shows. Please bear in mind this was not an audience of carefully selected sociologists or anthropologists. Is it my fault that other people found this situation amusing? If this happens again, should I chastise such folks for their temerity in finding such funny?

Even if I'm not obligated to correct whatever is apparently wrong in this becoming a matter fit for teasing and making fun of, via certain folks' perception, is it wrong to report it as I did? Is it only wrong to report such if the reporter has sympathies for the cause of such teasing, or would it have also have been questionable if the subject had vehemently disagreed with the premise?

With the greatest respect - you've read and absurd level of depth into something of little substance.


mc wrote:We've later got "I previously just about tolerated Sex & the City, and Desperate Housewives before that. But in my opinion Girls just sunk trashy TV to a new low."

This read to me as you dismissing SATC, DH and then Girls - all programmes written by women and primarily for women - out of hand for being as such. Of course one doesn't have to like these shows, but again the dismissive language suggested more than mere dislike but something more akin to deep mistrust and yes, prejudice or hatred.


I did not dismiss any of these shows; I was dismissive in my attitude towards them, through explicitly expressing an opinion. There is a significant difference!

"Sex and the City" was not primarily written by women. It was created (and written) by Darren Star. It was also written, produced and directed by a mixture of men and women, including most prominently Michael Patrick King who wrote almost every season premiere and finale, as well as directing both big screen adaptations.

"Desperate Housewives" was created and produced by screen writer Marc Cherry. It subsequently featured significant creative contributions from folks of both genders.

The fact I already knew this about both these shows, and only resorted to Wikipedia to ensure my memory was correct, does little credit to the notion I have some inherent prejudice against the writing of women. It does significant credit to the notions I have too much time on my hands and I watch too much TV!

Even if you'd got your facts correct here, how can you characterize my statement that I "tolerated" watching such TV shows as suggesting a "deep mistrust", "prejudice" or "hatred"? It's an absurd and overtly perverse leap, with nothing to substantiate it.

I just spent a week looking after my neighbour's dog, after someone else let him down at the last minute. I "tolerated" the presence of the horrid little overgrown rodent, with plumbing problems so bad every time he gets excited in my house he pisses all over the fucking floor! Whilst I fed, watered, walked and cleaned up after him - I would say my tolerance was indeed tested. Yet for all the bother this horrendous hound caused, I would be rather offended if anyone implied I showed this problematic pooch anything other than the same decent care and attention I've always shown to my own pets.

...and before anyone suggests otherwise by deliberately twisting my words - I am in no way likening dogs to women or the other way round. It was simply the first thing that sprung to mind when I thought about things I didn't like but have "tolerated" recently!

How many folks are forced to "tolerate" family members they otherwise never see, at Christmas for example? I have to "tolerate" several - does that imply I hate them or have a "deep mistrust"?

How many situations are you forced to tolerate, with an undercurrent of hatred and mistrust? I'm sorry if you are encountering any unfortunate circumstances that cause you to conflate these terms, but generally ought we not stick to established definitions?


mc wrote:Last of all, I squared my interpretations of your comments with your (a few months back) discussion of Laura Snapes' sexual harrassment at the hands of Mark Kozelek. Let's be honest here, what he did was humiliating sexual harassment, and your easy dismissal of her concerns as a victim, staunch defence of the perpetrator (along with your own personal ridicule aimed at the woman) had a misogynistic ring to it that left a bad taste in my mouth.


I admit I jumped right into the Mark Kozelek/Laura Snapes issue without due care and attention. I was exceptionally enthused and under various influences, when I mis-characterized her Guardian article and the whole situation. I knew very little about him at that point, other than he'd made a few records I just discovered and was immediately drawn to. I regret causing any offence in that instance.

Kozelek referencing Laura Snapes in the impromptu few verses he muttered at the Barbican was not a very nice thing to do, I accept that now and apologise for making light of such unpleantness. As a long time Guardian reader/subscriber I mistakenly assumed Laura Snapes' article was another in the recent trend that paper/site has towards click-bait journalism. Anyone who follows these things via publications like Private Eye or the R4 Media Show will know that for a few years now the Guardian has inflated its online hit rate, via tabloid-esque click-bait journalism which falls below the usual high standards one expects of that paper. The BBC/Clarkson Top Gear fiasco earlier this year was a prime example - subject matter of little interest to the regular Guardian reader, yet a constant trickle of shitty articles with titles primed to reach as many Google search hits as possible.

I was far to hasty in wrongly defending what Mark Kozelek did. You did right to call me out on that one. Having had the opportunity to study the man and his behaviour more thoroughly, I'm still hesitant to call him an outright misogynist. Personally I think he has allowed an inflated ego and a dubious sense of humour to open his actions up to valid assessment as various acts of misogyny, whilst not thinking through his own behaviour. I have no issue with others calling him an outright misogynist - he's made it far too easy for such interpretation to be drawn; right now he seems like his own worst enemy in that regard and brings such things upon himself.

I have no desire to be characterized as an apologist for his peculiar behaviour. I'm not sure exactly how to describe it as it seems to be ever more bizarre on an almost daily basis. Any accusations of misogyny are well deserved, and virtually impossible to dispute.

I can see why you have tied the two situations together and drawn a conclusion. From my perspective they have no relation, but I can see why others may perceive matters differently.


mc wrote:So, in summary, thanks to all of the above, I assumed "latent misogyny" on your part in the current discussion. I'm not going to speculate whether that assumption has any base in reality, whether deliberate or unwilling; I've just attempted to explain why I came to that conclusion. I'll certainly admit that all of the above is based on my own personal assumptions, and if I'm well wide of the mark I wholeheartedly apologise for jumping to unfair conclusions. At present I'll apologise for being passive-agressive about it rather than tackling this head on.


No need to apologise. Everyone has the right to express their opinion. Ideally one person's opinions would never offend another person, but that could make life rather dull. I enjoy the intellectual rigour of folks picking up what may be some ill-thought-out remark on my part.

If my ex had allowed me to flex my mental muscles, I'd probably not give a toss about Lena Dunham or Girls and we might still be happily wasting away the days together, like extras in a neverending episode of Shameless. Ironically whilst I had noticed the gratuitous nudity, it was only the bitchy commentary from her and her mates about cellulite (I still don't know what that is or how to spot it, but women seem to talk about it a lot!) and so forth, that caused me to pay more attention to that character, thus leading me down the rocky road that ended here ;)


BTW do you think Mercedes will have another Singapore situation, with the soft/supersofts again at Sochi? They claim to have found out what the problems were, but to suddenly end up 1.5 secs off the pace suggests a big problem that can't necessarily be fixed. I guess keeping the Mercs off then podium again would mix things up nicely for the climax of the season, another DNF would bring HAM back within nearly 1 race's worth of points - keeping things exciting. Last year Sochi was so uneventful (except for Putin getting so much coverage) with the conservative choice of tyres (Rosberg managing 52/53 laps on one set of primes!), I just don't know what to expect. On paper it looks like an interesting circuit, especially the big turn 3, but it's a street circuit with lots of runoff - so you end up with the worst of both worlds...
If you don't have to pay to get in, you can't be ripped off!
mojo filters
Known user
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Coming right down and doing it all over again

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mc » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:15 pm

Cheers for the reply mojofilters - I've clearly let the previous Kozelek incident cloud my judgement and read too much meaning & unwarranted negativity into your words. Apologies again for that, and also for assuming your take on said incident hadn't changed. My bad on the S&TC/DH writing gaffe - definitely guilty of not checking my facts there! With the former I assumed Candace Bushnell was primarily responsible for the show as well as the original columns/book, and with the latter I was just plain lazy :oops:

BTW do you think Mercedes will have another Singapore situation, with the soft/supersofts again at Sochi? They claim to have found out what the problems were, but to suddenly end up 1.5 secs off the pace suggests a big problem that can't necessarily be fixed. I guess keeping the Mercs off then podium again would mix things up nicely for the climax of the season, another DNF would bring HAM back within nearly 1 race's worth of points - keeping things exciting. Last year Sochi was so uneventful (except for Putin getting so much coverage) with the conservative choice of tyres (Rosberg managing 52/53 laps on one set of primes!), I just don't know what to expect. On paper it looks like an interesting circuit, especially the big turn 3, but it's a street circuit with lots of runoff - so you end up with the worst of both worlds...


Hard to say, really! I can't imagine Merc will be 1.5s off the pace again, given that every other race they've had on the soft/super-soft combination went fine for them, but it does suggest the lap times will be closer than the likes of Spa & Monza. Perhaps the extra heat and extremely twisting nature of the Singapore circuit was a big part of that time deficit? I think Hamilton might've wrestled his Merc onto the podium given better luck, but Vettel was clearly out of sight - he really is a master at that track. Whatever happens, hopefully Sochi will be more interesting than last year's race; the lack of tyre deg meant Rosberg really lucked out after that atrocious attempt at an overtake at the start. Bad planning means I'm travelling whilst it's on telly, so it'll be Five Live on my car's crappy MW radio channel for me. I'm keen on a good battle for P2 on the championship, but HAM can stay nice and clear at the top as far as I'm concerned :wink:
mc
Known user
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mojo filters » Thu Oct 08, 2015 5:27 pm

mc wrote:
BTW do you think Mercedes will have another Singapore situation, with the soft/supersofts again at Sochi? They claim to have found out what the problems were, but to suddenly end up 1.5 secs off the pace suggests a big problem that can't necessarily be fixed. I guess keeping the Mercs off then podium again would mix things up nicely for the climax of the season, another DNF would bring HAM back within nearly 1 race's worth of points - keeping things exciting. Last year Sochi was so uneventful (except for Putin getting so much coverage) with the conservative choice of tyres (Rosberg managing 52/53 laps on one set of primes!), I just don't know what to expect. On paper it looks like an interesting circuit, especially the big turn 3, but it's a street circuit with lots of runoff - so you end up with the worst of both worlds...


Hard to say, really! I can't imagine Merc will be 1.5s off the pace again, given that every other race they've had on the soft/super-soft combination went fine for them, but it does suggest the lap times will be closer than the likes of Spa & Monza. Perhaps the extra heat and extremely twisting nature of the Singapore circuit was a big part of that time deficit? I think Hamilton might've wrestled his Merc onto the podium given better luck, but Vettel was clearly out of sight - he really is a master at that track. Whatever happens, hopefully Sochi will be more interesting than last year's race; the lack of tyre deg meant Rosberg really lucked out after that atrocious attempt at an overtake at the start. Bad planning means I'm travelling whilst it's on telly, so it'll be Five Live on my car's crappy MW radio channel for me. I'm keen on a good battle for P2 on the championship, but HAM can stay nice and clear at the top as far as I'm concerned :wink:


I'm a HAM fan too, but I can't deny that the daft Abu Double situation last year kept things interesting. I was all ready with righteous indignation had ROS stolen it, but we got a nice outcome.

I agree there won't be huge Singapore gaps at Sochi, but if the Mercs can't wring the last few tenths they need from the SS in Q3, I could see VET and perhaps even the Red Bulls getting near the front (KVY might lack finesse, but he's gotten really quick over the course of this season, plus home GP won't hurt).

Looking at the track again, all those tight corners look like they would suit VETs old Red Bull cornering technique, plus he really impressed in Marina Bay with that extra quali lap just to show off. I think we'll find out in FP, if the Mercs are on form then presumably Williams will be close behind, since they did well last year (unusual for them on what you'd think is a high downforce track). If Ferrari are sandbagging with close lap times in FP - then I suspect we'll see a great quali session. Personally I think quali has been as exciting as the racing this season, sometimes moreso!

If Mercedes have their usual speed in FP I agree P2 is where the excitement will be. I really enjoyed Suzuka, despite the lack of Merc coverage - those midfield battles are much more exciting than a blink-and-you-miss-it pit stop interruption. If it really is back to business as usual and the Williams are strong, I think regardless of if he's P1 or P2, HAM will fly off and ROS will probably make some error dropping him back, then spend the race trying to finish P2. I hope Williams can get some good CC points, MAS was unlucky last year.

ALO was really upbeat in the press conference today. I reckon with those grid penalties we'll be lucky if one McHonda reaches the chequered flag. New Honda engine using up the rest of their tokens probably = even less reliable than the last one. Whilst I'm happy for JB, I think VanDoorne's domination of GP2 should be rewarded with a decent drive next season. Since the second Lotus/Renault seat will either go to a Frenchman (JEV) or someone with money, I can't see Jolyon Palmer getting a seat. If I was Pascal Werlien (sp?) leading DTM I don't think I'd be so happy in a Manor next year, they could put a space rocket in that car and still trail around the grid. It's quite funny how Rossi has come in and outperformed Will Stevens - I didn't think he was particularly good beforehand, now he's looking like another Max Chiltern type, albeit without quite so much money behind him. I feel sorry for K-Mag, he was obviously promised the world by Ron Dennis and expected to be the next HAM ... now we know GUT will be announced as the other Haas driver at the Mexican GP, I don't really see any seats left. I think GRO was smart to get out, Haas is a proven model for success whereas who can tell how much real money Renault will put into their own team. The fact they won't supply their powertrain to other teams doesn't exactly inspire confidence!

Bad luck having to listen on R5 - I assume you get James Allen since he did the driver's press today? Unfortunately EJ is back on the BBC. I hope someone asks him about the VW situation - he was far to pleased with himself when he broke that particular story! I expect he'll be too busy parrotting a line from Bernie to embarrass Ferrari into giving Red Bull equivalent works powertrains next year ... but that's a whole 'nother debate ;-)
If you don't have to pay to get in, you can't be ripped off!
mojo filters
Known user
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Coming right down and doing it all over again

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby MODLAB » Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:26 pm

F1 Talk!!!


Ham will win... Vet 2nd... Ros or Iceman 3rd...


:)


M
Design.
MODLAB
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 6:52 pm
Location: Stuck in a spacetime interval.

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby Shinesalight » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:53 pm

Surely the Spiritualized forum is the ONLY place where a highbrow debate over accusations of misogyny can transform in to a petrol-head love-in :lol: :wink:
www.dronerockrecords.com
The Home of Drone
Shinesalight
Known user
 
Posts: 2310
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Brighton, U.K.

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mc » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:43 pm

Quali has indeed been great entertainment this year; I'm still annoyed Suzuka was red-flagged before the last flying laps. I thought RAI might've been a bit closer to VET in general this season, but then VET has gone up in my estimations considerably since last year. It's a shame MAG probably won't end up with a seat next year, but I rate JEV quite highly so I'm happy he's in contention for a Renault seat. If only they had the cash flow to oust Crashtor, a decent seat would be available for the likes of MAG, PAL etc. It'll be interesting to see how Manor do with the latest Merc powertrain under the bonnet; they'll certainly need to invest a ton of labour, design and $$$ on their chassis to get close to competitiveness, but it'd be nice to see a real battle between the scrag-end of the midfield and the backmarkers. God alone knows where McHonda will be next year; how on earth can they get that malfunctioning hairdryer of an engine up to speed in time next March? Maybe ALO's current good mood is a case of demob-happy, despite his current claims to the contrary ;) More seriously, he really is an enigma; one of the greatest drivers of his generation spending much of his career pinballing from constructor to constructor in a desperate attempt to find a winning seat. Frankly, with Flavio Briatore managing his affairs, anything could happen...
mc
Known user
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mojo filters » Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:05 pm

I agree Kimi should have been quicker this year, especially since Arrivabene told James Allison to make the car suit him when he arrived at the end of last season. Quali in Monza was cool with Vettel giving him the tow, long time since I can recall seeing teammates make that work! I know it's a cliche but I don't think Kimi's that bothered now, though he has had some bad luck this year. I think he thrived on the challenge when he came back for those two years at Lotus, but even when he lucked into the WDC he wasn't as consistently quick as he had been in the previous three years at McLaren, in my estimation.

VET has been great this year. He was a bit petulant last year, criticizing the new regs, this year he's just gone out and proven he doesn't need a Newey car to qualify well and take typical lights-to-flag wins when the opportunity presents. I suspect next season he'll be battling right at the front with HAM, leaving ROS slightly further behind - assuming James Allison continues his good work over the winter.

The Suzuka red flag was a pain. They really ought to have some mechanism that allows enough additional time for every car that was either on or preparing for a flying lap when the session stops, to be able to all put in another out lap and flying one, when the session is restarted. If I'd paid good money to see a race weekend, I'd be mighty pissed off if one error spoiled and effectively cut short any of the quali sessions!

I hope JEV gets the Renault seat, as he was pretty close to Ricciardo during their years at Torro Rosso. Crashtor really is a log jam preventing new talent coming through. I wonder if he hadn't lucked that one (admittedly well driven) win in Spain, whether he'd have still been on the grid. We know just from Sauber how there are other better drivers with money out there looking for a seat. It makes GP2 less relevant when the winner can't even be sure of a reserve or test position.

I guess Manor could produce a reasonable car next year. They've got some talented technical staff now so potentially they could make the most of the Mercedes power train, but even if they manage that, will they be able to put sufficient talent in the car to extract that performance potential? I certainly can't see Will Stevens managing that, Rossi looks more promising but unfortunately he's handed his seat back to Mehri this weekend, who is as unimpressive as STE. I guess the Mercedes power plant will help attract better drivers, or decent non-pay-drivers will get a seat in return for engine discounts - then they could be mixing it up with the midfield, with the potential to grab some old Jordan type podiums in bad weather - which would be cool.

If McHonda don't improve significantly, I expect they'll be fighting with Manor and the new Renault works team at the back of the field next season. I expect Haas should be able to fight in the midfield from the off, unless they make some significant errors, but their strategy seems designed to avoid just that.

Torro Rosso might end up worse than this year, if they don't get a decent engine, and end up at the back of the grid. I suspect the best Red Bull outcome will be a competitive engine for RB but not for TR. However I think the rumour they may both stick with Renault would be a decent outcome - their behaviour means they don't deserve better.

ALO continuing his association with Briatore post crashgate seems dodgy. He's been unlucky over the years, but it's hard to feel sorry for him. I do hope for the team's sake McHonda get their act together, although JB's radio has been funny recently - not whining, just sarcasm. I don't think he's really considered quitting, he just makes a big deal of his (justified) frustrations.

Apparently the new Honda that was in ALO this morning has been removed, with an old engine going back in. Not sure if this eliminates his grid penalties, as they normally notify the stewards as early as possible because if another person subsequently notifies the stewards they will take grid place penalties of the same number, then the first driver who notified them gets the better grid position. I've never heard of a driver having grid place penalties redacted - though that would seem the fair thing, since that driver inherently is disadvantaged by the older engine they're using.

Well the race weekend couldn't have gotten off to a worse start, oil spill on the track! Limited running has left us no wiser...

Now it's raining so nothing happening so far in FP2. However just found out both Tony Dodgins and Frank Williams are from my home town, Tony Dodgins thinks he can predict weather because he was brought up by the coast?!? I struggle to follow a weather forecast - they're just soooo boring.

Apparently Christian Horner and Bernie have been in an important meeting this morning. Bernie's saying the issue is fixed, Spice Boy says not. Weather not expected to improve significantly, so even less running anticipated in FP2, unfortunately.

With an hour to go, just VET and ALO have ventured out to literally test the waters ... looks like we're gonna get another 2 day race weekend. It stopped raining a while ago, but apparently the water isn't draining fast partly due to the type of asphalt at Sochi.

Finally ALO sets the first lap time in FP2 of over 2 mins! Bottas now on track too with full wets but no lap time. ALO out again but I think it's just installation to fettle his engine bother.

ROS just gone out. He did a load of practice starts in FP1, which makes sense as he seems like the biggest casualty of the new start/radio restrictions. He's just started a flying lap, those wets are impressive displacing 65litres/sec! ROS sector times poor vs ALO, he just got understeer at the last turn before the pit entry, went off, boxed. Now HAM done practice start and followed on to a flying lap (again on full wets) but just got sector delta over 2 secs MORE than ALO!!!!

SAI now out on full wets and a flying lap. Better sector deltas than HAM! ALO still top, SAI and VES flying ... starting to get interesting.....
If you don't have to pay to get in, you can't be ripped off!
mojo filters
Known user
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Coming right down and doing it all over again

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby angelsighs » Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:31 am

mojo filters wrote: The last line from that episode is probably my all time favourite Larry David scenario: Mommy Mommy, that bald man is in the bathroom and there's something hard in his pants!

Though as someone cursed with premature hair loss, the quote that comes to mind most often is: Bald asshole? That's a hate crime!

I hope if he does another season of Curb it's as good as the rest. The same team of writers/producers from the last few series were responsible for the terrible HBO film Clear History. I was genuinely shocked at how bad that film was. It's not like LD can't act - I thought he was brilliant in Woody Allen's Whatever Works, which was the best recent Woody Allen film by far in my opinion. I guess it helped that Larry David's character was originally written for Zero Mostel, and the script was originally written in the late 1970s, not long after Annie Hall and Zelig.



amen to that.. Larry is a unique talent and I think the success of the show is down to him basically being an auteur (if I can use that word) and the whole thing is shown through his worldview. it also means that it's something of an acquired taste (some people think it's just jews shouting at each other and getting into embarrassing situations.. which I guess it technically true!)
being similarly afflicted the bald jokes hit home for me too :)

Agree that Whatever Works was Woody Allen's best movie in a long time- I had no idea that the script was an old one so that explains a lot. Larry was good in that but again basically playing a version of himself!

apologies if I jumped to conclusions about the Lena Dunham comments, it's just that I do think a lot of people saying similar stuff have a misogynistic undertone- if it was a thin or glamorous body, people wouldn't be crying 'exhibitionist' in the same way or saying giving faux disgusted comments. believe it or not, chubby people get naked sometimes too. girls get judged so much on their bodies.
angelsighs
Known user
 
Posts: 3889
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby plastic37 » Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:08 pm

Shinesalight wrote:Surely the Spiritualized forum is the ONLY place where a highbrow debate over accusations of misogyny can transform in to a petrol-head love-in :lol: :wink:


LATENT MISOGYNY

Skimmed through the above, focused on the second MoJo Filters contribution, and agree that it displayed latent misogyny.

Never seen Girls.
haven't watched The Simpsons since 2005 or so.
I do remember the chilli episode.

Glad Spacemen 3 have made it on there.
https://crossroadsofsabbath.wordpress.com/ozzy-zig-the-witch-the-warpig/

Einstellung still rock though.

http://www.homeofmetal.com
West Midlands music heritage project - Godflesh fans will enjoy visiting this site
plastic37
Known user
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:48 pm

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mojo filters » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:44 pm

I really feel there is a risk of devaluing the meaning of a strong word here. The article below has some interesting observations on how the definition of that word has evolved, as well as giving an insight into what is generally regarded as genuine behaviour characterized correctly as misogyny.

As with any linguistic terminology - casual misuse of a word can be to the detriment of both its effect, as well as the cause towards eliminating something that most people think of in negative terms, and which I certainly do.

The article below illustrates how the semantics have been both blurred and clarified. Even through the loosest interpretation of the dictionary definition of misogyny - I do not believe what I wrote can be characterized in such terms. Obviously even mistaken perceptions are important - I want to make it perfectly clear that my intention was not to write anything cruel or nasty, but merely poke fun at one person whose exhibitionist tendencies leave them open to comment regarding their behaviour.

Not only does it give a good insight into the correct definition of misogyny and proper usage of the term, but also highlights how interpretations of this have changed. As the English language evolves, dictionary definitions have evolved as well. Here it shows how the boundaries of the definition have broadened; it also gives an insight into correct usage that some folks might want to take note of.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/o ... dictionary
If you don't have to pay to get in, you can't be ripped off!
mojo filters
Known user
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Coming right down and doing it all over again

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mc » Fri Oct 23, 2015 10:44 pm

Seeing breaking news on the Beeb that Jolyon Palmer has the Lotus drive for 2016. No linkage yet, but...
mc
Known user
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby olan » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:34 pm

Mods, can we please move the exhaust fumes of Bernie's F1 Empire to another Forum. The petrol fumes are spoiling the Spacemen 3 vibe just here...

:lol: :lol:
olan
Known user
 
Posts: 1555
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Liverpool

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby mc » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:46 pm

olan wrote:Mods, can we please move the exhaust fumes of Bernie's F1 Empire to another Forum. The petrol fumes are spoiling the Spacemen 3 vibe just here...

:lol: :lol:


They're petrol-electric hybrid engines, ACTUALLY. So as well as inhaling petrol fumes, you might get to "taste the ozone" too. See, that's (sorta) Sp3 relevant :lol:
mc
Known user
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!

Postby plastic37 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:49 am

As a result of Spacemen 3 appearing on The Simpsons i have watched some Girls clips and and interview with the writer. I can only hope that one Girls fan has had a night in with a bottle of wine and a copy of The Perfect Prescription.

I'd put Girls in what i have come to call The Greatful Dead Pile. By which i mean, i am glad it exists, can understand why people like (and dislike) it, and have a great respect for the way they engage with it.

I also noted a comment up thread about hipster trust fund TV ...
We might want to have a think about that re Kember's own biog.
https://crossroadsofsabbath.wordpress.com/ozzy-zig-the-witch-the-warpig/

Einstellung still rock though.

http://www.homeofmetal.com
West Midlands music heritage project - Godflesh fans will enjoy visiting this site
plastic37
Known user
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:48 pm


Return to Spacemen3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest