[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: hey, what's new in RATdom?
Hi Jonathon:
Let's not start a thread on this. I appreciate your postings and your
frequent brilliance on the RAT list. Perhaps 'politic' was a bad choice of
words on my part.
I do however want to defend the right of any RAT person to say whatever the
hell they want, without being told how to conduct themselves: "settle down
and hit the delete button." I realize of course that this bit of advice
contradicts my original posting to you, and I think this is a good place to
leave it.
Now let's talk shop.
See you in Iowa.
ChrisMac
----------
>From: jonoh1@juno.com
>To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
>Subject: Re: hey, what's new in RATdom?
>Date: Thu, Dec 16, 1999, 1:08 PM
>
> Thanks for the tip, Chris. But here's the thing. I tend to be a bit of a
> purist (believe me, this does not make living easy at times) and when
> someone, anyone posts a notice that says we "never, ever" do this or
> "constantly, incessantly" do that, it bothers me. I've found (and been
> told) that my writing style has a tendency at times to sound more flip
> than I actually intend because of my phraseology. (Not to say I don't
> often intend to be flip.) My parents taught English (as a foreign
> language if you listen to them) and a lot of their structure and style
> rubbed off on me. (Yet, I can't diagram a sentence. Figure <that> out.)
> I've also been told it can sound elitist, snotty, know-it-all-ish (yet I
> <never> intend for that to happen) But I <do> always try to match the
> 'tude originally posted. He was, I believe, incorrect in saying we "only"
> talk about ourselves", etc.
> I certainly didn't meant to "jump all over Bobby". And I don't really
> think I did. I merely wanted to post a response to what I thought was an
> ill informed opinion. But, more politic? I hope that's not what this list
> is about now. Someone advise. And, please notice, I signed off with
> "respectfully". This was not meant as sarcasm. And, while I agree that
> his post was interesting and informative, I didn't appreciate his
> completely discounting the last 3-4 years as nothing other than
> self-indulgent yammering. Also, I try to use words very carefully, so if
> you read my response you'll see that I wrote "if " (he) thinks that
> theatre is "simply" (read: only) about gushing over a show "then" he
> needs to learn more about theatre. I stand by that statement. So,
> Bobby, if you feel "jumped all over" do accept my kindest apologies. (I
> tend to forget how thin-skinned many in today's theatre are - or,
> perhaps, how thick-skinned I am). But if, instead, you got my point,
> hazzah.
> Oh, and, um...go see The Cradle Will Rock. It's about the power theatre
> used to have.
> Mucho respectfully and gratefully,
> Jonathan
>
> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:53:19 -0800 "chris mac" <cmacdona@adobe.com>
> writes:
>>Hey Jonathon:
>>
>>Don't jump all over Bobby. He/she has a valid point, and the
>>information
>>about "INFRARED" was really good.
>>
>>Rather than tell Bobby off in a public forum, perhaps you should have
>>been
>>more politic.
>>
>>This discussion list is for everyone, and if Bobby wants more earnest
>>conversation about theater, or specific productions, who are you to
>>say "you
>>have a great deal to learn about theater." Give me a break. Besides,
>>anyone
>>who can use panegyrical in a sentence can't be all bad.
>>
>>RAT brethren, let's not shoot from the hip just because someone
>>disagrees
>>with our point of view. This list can be tiresome, brilliant,
>>frustrating,
>>and enlightening (often in the same e-mail). For instance: I never
>>would
>>have heard about Sarah Kane had it not been or the RAT list.
>>
>>Let's keep our attitudes in check.
>>
>>Respectfully...ChrisMac
>>----------
>>>From: jonoh1@juno.com
>>>To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
>>>Subject: Re: hey, what's new in RATdom?
>>>Date: Thu, Dec 16, 1999, 10:11 AM
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Theatre. May I suggest that this list could be of some use for
>>>>discussion of theatre. I've been on for 3-4 years, and we never,
>>ever
>>>>
>>>>talk about theatre.
>>>
>>> I don't think you've been paying attention. What an impressive
>>waste of
>>> time.
>>>
>>>
>>> We only talk about ourselves, with a vague reason
>>>>
>>>>that it has something to do with theatre, because, we also have an
>>>>ancillary interested in theatre, but obviously not as profound and
>>>>insightfull as our interest in ourselves, our sophmoric politics
>>and
>>>>our
>>>>stunning realization of our own self-brilliance, which no one else
>>can
>>>>
>>>>possibly understand...
>>>
>>> Speaking "ourselves" only, of course?
>>>
>>> This is bogus. I suggest that if someone doesn't like what they've
>>been
>>> reading for the last 3-4 years they might have the good sense to get
>>off
>>> the list. And I totally disagree. The people on this list, IMHO,
>>devour
>>> the theatre in wonderfully, dangerous, sometimes self-indulgent and
>>> ocassionally stupid ways. Not to mention baffling. But it can also
>>> inspire brilliance. And if you think that "talking about theatre"
>>is
>>> simply gushing over a particular production or artist you've met,
>>you
>>> have a great deal to learn about the theatre. Life issues apply.
>>Settle
>>> down and find the delete button.
>>> Respectfully,
>>> Jonathan Harris
>>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>> Why pay more to get Web access?
>>> Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
>>> Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>>>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Why pay more to get Web access?
> Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
> Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>