not logged in
| re: Rory With Bonnie | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 03:42 am UTC 06/02/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Rory With Bonnie - The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 01:43 pm UTC 06/01/07 |
> > I believe that your point is clear to me. Let me however take line by line and give specific comment. None of us hate Jim Susan. I feel that some do, and many do not. I think that some people have ulterior motives for being here. >We just go with the facts. Yes, we have each the resolve to go with the facts. You believe so far based on your barometer of fact in your thinking, which you begin to describe: >And > I think your quite silly suggesting Jim wrote Rocky Horror > picture show. Which he has commented on how he dislikes > the film. Let me break out these two sentences you wrote for clarification if that is okay: you believe that because Jim dissed the film, that he could not have written it? What if he wrote it and also dissed it? What about the film did he diss? I know, he is quoted as something something in the site someplace. I read it....but alongside it he also says something else. "Tim Curry spent alot of time telling me what was missing". You not knowing Jim like I do, could not have picked up on the subtlety which is Jim's staple of communication. Jim says on one hand that he saw it after something or other, and then says that Tim spent alot of time on it with him. It did not really say that Jim saw the film with Tim, did it? So, what if both things were true, and both things had their places in other contexts to make it look like he was detached from the project. To me, the statement that Tim had lots to say about what was missing, says that it was during the writing, when developing the character that Tim was playing. And would I just get that out of the blue without anything else? Of course I could not. I got it in conjunction with the other things that Jim had said, and things that I had thought, in the past on the subject, that were communicated between us. At that point, I did not make any assumptions. But I did do research. And after the research did concur with Jim's private statements to me on several occasions to the effect that he wrote and starred in it, before the release of the film, and after. Jim is an insparation to me. I would not want to harm or tarnish that special feeling of inspiration. I am glad of it. But I wont be made > to feel guilty for going with the facts. We only have your > word that you talked to JIm. Jim once told me that there are words and there are perceptions, and he has a saying, "Seeing is believing", which is a cliche of course, but one that he relies upon. He does not want to just TELL you. He wants you to see it for yourself. I went through so much like that with him, including pointed discussion about the difference between his telling me something and my experiencing something. He feels one way is more durably reliable than the other. He does not want to tell. Of course, he did tell, but then he only told so that I would have a basis for seeing. >And the other stuff you claim > went on with him. Without comment from Jim to confirm your > outlandish claims. Which outlandish claims are you referring to, and what is outlandish about them? Are you able to get specific? >I am adament about sticking to the > facts. So am I. In an amicable way, let us work out what they are. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Rory With Bonnie - The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 01:43 pm UTC 06/01/07 |
| Next: | re: Rory With Bonnie - The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 04:45 pm UTC 06/03/07 |
| Thread: |
|