not logged in
| re: Rory With Bonnie | |
Posted by:  |
The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 04:45 pm UTC 06/03/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Rory With Bonnie - pidunk 03:42 am UTC 06/02/07 |
Look. RHPS is just TOO random to be written by Jim. The lyrics dont sound like Jims. ITs not JIms work. > > > > > > > > > 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 - pidunk 03:42 am UTC 06/02/07 |
| Next: | re: Rory With Bonnie - pidunk 11:49 am UTC 06/04/07 |
| Thread: |
|