Ian McKellen - Page 2

Eruviel Greenleaf · 03-19-2002, 01:53 AM

Close it? Well, I guess since you started it, Cirdan. . .

But it could turn into an Ian McKellan fan's thread. Of course, that is not what you intended it to be, so maybe I'll start my own Ian McKellan appreciation thread. . .

Cirdan · 03-19-2002, 01:39 PM

As long as it doesn't become a non-LotR thread. I think he makes a great Gandalf and is an excellent actor. I wonder, are the actors under contract not to do any parodies? I fell asleep and I don't remember as skits on snl about LotR.

Comic Book Guy · 03-19-2002, 03:47 PM

When did anything relative to the Lord of the Rings get posted here? This forum is about the Lord of the Rings movies, Ian Mc Kellan, Cate Blanchett etc is a part of those movies, so it is ok to post about them here.

Eruviel Greenleaf · 03-19-2002, 11:39 PM

I'm glad to hear I can post about Ian McKellan here, CMG. Now, to start that thread. . .or maybe not. I'm too lazy

maelyn · 03-20-2002, 03:39 PM

I applaud those who have stood up for basic human rights here --eruviel, darth, comic, markedel --and I'm glad to see that bigotry isn't tolerated on this board.

maelyn · 03-20-2002, 03:44 PM

So i'll start:
I think Ian McKellan played an outstanding Gandalf--noble and gentle. I'm crossing my fingers until Academy night--he deserves the BSA award!

Pailan · 03-20-2002, 03:58 PM

A bit late but I finally watched my tape of SNL. I thought Sir Ian was one of the best guests to host SNL in some time. I agree with Dart Tater, I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. I really enjoyed him goofing on Tom Baker. And he does great work in smashing bigotry.

bropous · 03-20-2002, 07:20 PM

You know, what Sir Ian does with his "naughty bits" matters not a whit to me. He did a fantastic job as Gandalf, and for purposes of discussion regarding the film, his personal, real-life sexual preferences are totally non-sequitur.

HOWEVER.

I love how now if you express ANY misgivings about homosexuality, you are automatically labelled a "bigot". Second you state ANY variation from their "human rights" agenda, and the epithets start flying thick and fast. "Bigot". "Homophobe." "Nazi."

Well, folks, I for one think a person can do what the heck they want with their private life as long as only consenting adults are involved. It ain't MY business whom Sir Ian, for whom I have immense respect, spends his private time with. But there IS a very long-standing cultural tradition which holds that sexual relations between individuals of the same sex is wrong. This tradition, like it or not, is what John Roald Ruel Tolkien held to as well, the Roman Catholic traditional view of marital relations. JRR was a devout Catholic, and held to the traditions of the Church all of his long life. By degrading an anti-homosexual opinion by calling it "bigoted" is to call JRR Tolkien himself a bigot. And THAT junk ain't gonna hold water. Tolkien a bigot?

Just because someone disagrees with homosexuality does not mean that individual wants to send homosexuals into work camps or rehabilitation or even before the altar of the church for prosecution. Some folks just find man-man or woman-woman relations completely out of keeping with the religious traditions with which they were raised.

Again, for clarification: Sir Ian's private life is his private life, and it makes me no less respectful of this fantastic actor. However, if another person has a problem with him being gay, it ain't all right for the PC crowd to huddle up and sling the "bigot" label about.

Maybe "he disagrees with us" is a more appropriate way to oppose religiously-held distaste for homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Love how some people are "open minded" til they hear something they disagree with. Then they want to shut down free speech for the opposing side.

Oh, and before you start slinging the "god" stuff around, I'm atheist. I have no dog in that fight. I support heterosexuality for preservation of the species. Period. To each his/her own.
[previous version re-edited]

Darth Tater · 03-20-2002, 07:40 PM

bropous I wasn't saying it was a bigotted view (I myself am not sure of my opinions on homosexuality), I was speaking to the way it was addressed and the words people chose. We don't tolerate that kind of thing here.

bropous · 03-20-2002, 08:05 PM

Darth, I certainly didn't think of you with the last post. I jsut get a burr under me saddle the second someone starts screaming "human rights" on an issue where folks aren't being marched off to the camps. Sort of crying "Wolf!" which lessens the import of the warning when REAL evil is afoot.

I understand about the way some folks express themselves on the issue, and I certainly do appreciate that the Moot just ain't about that. I think folks can believe as they wish on the subject, and as long as either sides ain't erecting stakes to burn the unbelievers, a bit of difference of opinion can exist in peace.

bropous · 03-20-2002, 08:09 PM

And, finding out that Sir Ian McKellem may or may not be gay [I really don't give a flip either way] in no way affected my opinion of him as one of the best actors I have ever seen. It did not extole him more in my eyes, nor was he diminished. It is a non-issue in his portrayal of Gandalf. He is still Sir Ian, and he is a man for whom I have immense respect.

Tanoliel · 03-20-2002, 10:22 PM

Oh...darn...I always seem to miss LOTR related TV stuff. Maybe cause I don't watch TV. *sigh* oh well....
btw, Bropous (and I'm not attacking you here, please don't think I am, I thought that was an eloquent post)...with the population going up as fast as it is...isn't it sort of a good thing that EVERYONE isn't involved in preservation of the species?

-tano

markedel · 03-20-2002, 10:29 PM

I didn't intend to crusade for human rights. I just think such things have no bearing on the discussion. Discussing sexual orientation tends to lead to flames.

maelyn · 03-20-2002, 11:00 PM

well, i know this thread will probably be closed since it is no longer strictly about Sir Ian, but i just can't sit and say nothing (actually, it is about him, since he is such an advocate for equal rights for gays).

I realize that no one is "attacking" the gay "lifestyle", because by throwing in those "hey - to each his own" automatically clears you of being a homophobe. Not really, actually. Gay rights are human rights. (And to use the term "lifestyle" when speaking of gay people is about as archane as calling african-americans negroes.) This is really simple; maybe an example will elucidate why equal rights for gay people is ONE AND THE SAME as human rights: I can't get married, which means that I can't see my partner if she's dying in the hospital, OR if something happens to her, i could lose the house we bought together, and all kinds of other legal things (i am deprived of 1,049 federal priveledges that marraige allows, to be exact).

Also, gay rights are human rights because it isn't okay for people to be beat up/killed because of their sexuality. It happens all the time all over the world (Russia, China, the Middle East, the United States). bropous, you obviously have lots of anger about gay people, for all of your "i'm okay with its" you sure seem pissed off to me. You have your issues that you are passionate about, and I have mine. Everyone needs to have their passionate ideals, that way the world will one day become a more accepting and gracious place for everyone.

When women and blacks were fighting for simple human rights in decades past these same conversations were going on - their issues were never important enough to those who didn't support their civil rights - there was always something MORE important to be upset about somewhere else in the world. WRONG! This is not a question of what is more worthy of attention - bigotry, racism, sexism are stems of the same diseased plant. And, Ian McKellan is a shining example of a star using his media power to draw attention to the persuction of today's most regularly marginalized group - of which he is a member.

Eruviel Greenleaf · 03-20-2002, 11:17 PM

*applause* for maelyn's post. Very well said, and eloquent! bropous, I'm not trying to attack your belief, or your post (also stated eloquently) but I am afraid I don't agree with everything you are saying. Without getting into it too much, (maelyn already did a wonderful job expressing many things that I was thinking) I would like to point out one small thing:

Quote:

since the Nazis were leftist liberals].

Actually, that's what they called themselves, what their name stood for, but that was not actually what they were. They used their name (and I could go dig out my notes from last year to find their exact name, but I don't really want to attack the file cabinet) to get votes. But they were fascists, the extreme right-wing, just as Mussolini (sp?) was. They were NOT leftists, and far from liberal. But I'm just being nit-picky.

Oh, and Tano, I couldn't agree more. What with population problems and all.

bropous · 03-21-2002, 12:32 AM

maelyn, frankly, I'll simply bite my tongue. Too much information.

May the Valar see us back to the essence of the thread and away from the minefield of deeply held personal beliefs. Fighting about whether Balrogs gots wings is so much more interesting.

[version 2.0]

bropous · 03-21-2002, 12:40 AM

maelyn, Euviel, I am interested, though, on what you think of Tolkien's opinions on the subject. I am sure, as a devout Catholic who did not approve of homosexuality but did not support drubbing them out of their homes to be burnt in the public square, you would also find JRR to be of the same variety of troglodyte you appear to classify me, since his views and mine are pretty darn close, except for being Catholic.

And, maelyn, you can't get married to another woman because marriage is a union between man and woman, with ZERO exception in the historical record. Again, taking centuries-old traditions and re-writing them for twenty-first century mores does not buy your side credibility. Have your partnerships, live as you bloody well want, and if you want to make sure the partner inherits your estate, WRITE A BLOODY WILL!!!!!!!!

Oh, and "lifestyle" is exactly what it is. Black folks didn't choose to be black, white folks didn't choose to be white, and (aside from surgical intervention), women didn't choose to be women. Hijacking the honorable and esteemed work that womens' rights and civil rights leaders put in to make sure people weren't discriminated against because of immutable physical characteristics to make excuses for people who simply CHOOSE to ACT a certain way (contrary to homoerotophobe brainwashing propaganda) is despicable.

Nibs · 03-21-2002, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by maelyn
When women and blacks were fighting for simple human rights in decades past these same conversations were going on - their issues were never important enough to those who didn't support their civil rights.

Okay, I may venture to say that's different... because it is. I mean, come on... they were born like that. You weren't. Don't try telling me otherwise.

Why should it be an inherent right for gay couples to marry? I can totally understand the women's and negro rights, but that is a totally illogical comparison.

bropous · 03-21-2002, 01:05 AM

Eruviel, the definitions you have given are incorrect. I am sure with a bit of research into political science you will see which end of the political spectrum "fascism" falls on. "Left" means using the government to interfere in the life of the individual or in the conduct of commerce. "Right" stands for limited intrusion of government into private life or commerce. Fascism is the use of the government's force to control the individual and commerce. Ergo, Left. Its mirror opposite, anarchy, totally opposes the involvement of government in private life or commerce, again by use of force.

Refer to the writings of Hobbes and Locke and you will understand political science more clearly. Your school is not giving you a balanced definition, and this makes me think the school system is staffed with folks who have an agenda. I think you were given incorrect data by people you trusted to tell you the truth. That is a failure of the teacher, and not of the student. Just wish revisionists didn't use new generations as fodder for their repainting of the past as they wish to view it.

Just ask yourself this question of your teacher, Eruviel: In the sixties, was he/she involved in the anti-war movement? If they were, you can bet your elven boots that everything they teach regarding history is slanted to their agenda.
[original post re-edited]

**crickhollow** · 03-21-2002, 01:32 AM

:ahem: *delicately clears throat in an attempt to discretely (or else not so discretely) chang the subject*

Speaking of Ian McKellan, has anyone seen The Scarlett Pimpernell? The Jane Seymore version, I mean. I get a kick out of seeing Sir Ian play a sheriff of nottingham-type role. That's also the only thing I had seen him play in before LotR (not having seen XMen until after Christmas).

Great family film, but hard to get ahold of.

03-19-2002, 01:53 AM	#21
Eruviel Greenleaf Alcoholic Villain-Fancying Elf Pirate Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Lyonesse Posts: 4,547	Close it? Well, I guess since you started it, Cirdan. . . But it could turn into an Ian McKellan fan's thread. Of course, that is not what you intended it to be, so maybe I'll start my own Ian McKellan appreciation thread. . . __________________ Eruviel Greenleaf in a past life. "Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world." -The Gospel of Thomas SQUAWK!

03-19-2002, 01:39 PM	#22
Cirdan Elf Lord of the Grey Havens Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: somewhere else Posts: 2,381	As long as it doesn't become a non-LotR thread. I think he makes a great Gandalf and is an excellent actor. I wonder, are the actors under contract not to do any parodies? I fell asleep and I don't remember as skits on snl about LotR. __________________ There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary

03-19-2002, 11:39 PM	#24
Eruviel Greenleaf Alcoholic Villain-Fancying Elf Pirate Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Lyonesse Posts: 4,547	I'm glad to hear I can post about Ian McKellan here, CMG. Now, to start that thread. . .or maybe not. I'm too lazy __________________ Eruviel Greenleaf in a past life. "Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world." -The Gospel of Thomas SQUAWK!

03-20-2002, 03:58 PM	#27
Pailan Elven Warrior Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: aisle 12, seat#2 Posts: 449	A bit late but I finally watched my tape of SNL. I thought Sir Ian was one of the best guests to host SNL in some time. I agree with Dart Tater, I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. I really enjoyed him goofing on Tom Baker. And he does great work in smashing bigotry. __________________ "Holy Entmoot, Batman!" "Who knows, Robin? This strange mixing of minds may be the greatest single sevice ever performed for humanity! Let's go, but, inconspicuosly, through the window. We'll use our Batropes. Our job is finished." Oh, btw, Frodo lives.

03-20-2002, 07:20 PM	#28
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	You know, what Sir Ian does with his "naughty bits" matters not a whit to me. He did a fantastic job as Gandalf, and for purposes of discussion regarding the film, his personal, real-life sexual preferences are totally non-sequitur. HOWEVER. I love how now if you express ANY misgivings about homosexuality, you are automatically labelled a "bigot". Second you state ANY variation from their "human rights" agenda, and the epithets start flying thick and fast. "Bigot". "Homophobe." "Nazi." Well, folks, I for one think a person can do what the heck they want with their private life as long as only consenting adults are involved. It ain't MY business whom Sir Ian, for whom I have immense respect, spends his private time with. But there IS a very long-standing cultural tradition which holds that sexual relations between individuals of the same sex is wrong. This tradition, like it or not, is what John Roald Ruel Tolkien held to as well, the Roman Catholic traditional view of marital relations. JRR was a devout Catholic, and held to the traditions of the Church all of his long life. By degrading an anti-homosexual opinion by calling it "bigoted" is to call JRR Tolkien himself a bigot. And THAT junk ain't gonna hold water. Tolkien a bigot? Just because someone disagrees with homosexuality does not mean that individual wants to send homosexuals into work camps or rehabilitation or even before the altar of the church for prosecution. Some folks just find man-man or woman-woman relations completely out of keeping with the religious traditions with which they were raised. Again, for clarification: Sir Ian's private life is his private life, and it makes me no less respectful of this fantastic actor. However, if another person has a problem with him being gay, it ain't all right for the PC crowd to huddle up and sling the "bigot" label about. Maybe "he disagrees with us" is a more appropriate way to oppose religiously-held distaste for homosexuality as a lifestyle. Love how some people are "open minded" til they hear something they disagree with. Then they want to shut down free speech for the opposing side. Oh, and before you start slinging the "god" stuff around, I'm atheist. I have no dog in that fight. I support heterosexuality for preservation of the species. Period. To each his/her own. [previous version re-edited] __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160. Last edited by bropous : 03-21-2002 at 07:35 PM.

03-19-2002, 03:47 PM	#23
Comic Book Guy Best Ex-Administrator ever Join Date: May 2001 Location: Ireland Posts: 60,547	When did anything relative to the Lord of the Rings get posted here? This forum is about the Lord of the Rings movies, Ian Mc Kellan, Cate Blanchett etc is a part of those movies, so it is ok to post about them here.

03-20-2002, 03:39 PM	#25
maelyn Hobbit Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 22	I applaud those who have stood up for basic human rights here --eruviel, darth, comic, markedel --and I'm glad to see that bigotry isn't tolerated on this board.

03-20-2002, 03:44 PM	#26
maelyn Hobbit Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 22	So i'll start: I think Ian McKellan played an outstanding Gandalf--noble and gentle. I'm crossing my fingers until Academy night--he deserves the BSA award!

03-20-2002, 07:40 PM	#29
Darth Tater The man Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: MA Posts: 4,572	bropous I wasn't saying it was a bigotted view (I myself am not sure of my opinions on homosexuality), I was speaking to the way it was addressed and the words people chose. We don't tolerate that kind of thing here. __________________ Visit the worlds greatest webpage! No, not The Tolkien Trail! Just click this! The Tolkien Trail ~Camelot

03-20-2002, 08:05 PM	#30
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Darth, I certainly didn't think of you with the last post. I jsut get a burr under me saddle the second someone starts screaming "human rights" on an issue where folks aren't being marched off to the camps. Sort of crying "Wolf!" which lessens the import of the warning when REAL evil is afoot. I understand about the way some folks express themselves on the issue, and I certainly do appreciate that the Moot just ain't about that. I think folks can believe as they wish on the subject, and as long as either sides ain't erecting stakes to burn the unbelievers, a bit of difference of opinion can exist in peace. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

03-20-2002, 08:09 PM	#31
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	And, finding out that Sir Ian McKellem may or may not be gay [I really don't give a flip either way] in no way affected my opinion of him as one of the best actors I have ever seen. It did not extole him more in my eyes, nor was he diminished. It is a non-issue in his portrayal of Gandalf. He is still Sir Ian, and he is a man for whom I have immense respect. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

03-20-2002, 10:22 PM	#32
Tanoliel Eccentric Chocolate Crow Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: The Emerald City--Seattle, WA Posts: 1,861	Oh...darn...I always seem to miss LOTR related TV stuff. Maybe cause I don't watch TV. sigh oh well.... btw, Bropous (and I'm not attacking you here, please don't think I am, I thought that was an eloquent post)...with the population going up as fast as it is...isn't it sort of a good thing that EVERYONE isn't involved in preservation of the species? -tano __________________ Wisdom for Short Attention Spans...Ozy and Millie. It rocks. Food Of The Gods: 3,7-dihydro-3,7-dimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione Feed Me.... Another Online Dwelling Place... "All right, I confess. It is my intention to comandeer a ship, pick up a crew in Tortuga, to rape, pillage, plunder and otherwise pilfer my weasely black guts out." -Captain Jack Sparrow "The trouble with unknown enemies is that they are so difficult to identify." -Amelia Peabody Emerson "Most people obey the orders of someone who is pointing a gun at their head." -A.P. Emerson

03-20-2002, 10:29 PM	#33
markedel 'Sober' Mullet Frosh Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Queen's Posts: 1,245	I didn't intend to crusade for human rights. I just think such things have no bearing on the discussion. Discussing sexual orientation tends to lead to flames. __________________ "Earnur was a man like his father in valour, but not in wisdom"

03-20-2002, 11:00 PM	#34
maelyn Hobbit Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 22	well, i know this thread will probably be closed since it is no longer strictly about Sir Ian, but i just can't sit and say nothing (actually, it is about him, since he is such an advocate for equal rights for gays). I realize that no one is "attacking" the gay "lifestyle", because by throwing in those "hey - to each his own" automatically clears you of being a homophobe. Not really, actually. Gay rights are human rights. (And to use the term "lifestyle" when speaking of gay people is about as archane as calling african-americans negroes.) This is really simple; maybe an example will elucidate why equal rights for gay people is ONE AND THE SAME as human rights: I can't get married, which means that I can't see my partner if she's dying in the hospital, OR if something happens to her, i could lose the house we bought together, and all kinds of other legal things (i am deprived of 1,049 federal priveledges that marraige allows, to be exact). Also, gay rights are human rights because it isn't okay for people to be beat up/killed because of their sexuality. It happens all the time all over the world (Russia, China, the Middle East, the United States). bropous, you obviously have lots of anger about gay people, for all of your "i'm okay with its" you sure seem pissed off to me. You have your issues that you are passionate about, and I have mine. Everyone needs to have their passionate ideals, that way the world will one day become a more accepting and gracious place for everyone. When women and blacks were fighting for simple human rights in decades past these same conversations were going on - their issues were never important enough to those who didn't support their civil rights - there was always something MORE important to be upset about somewhere else in the world. WRONG! This is not a question of what is more worthy of attention - bigotry, racism, sexism are stems of the same diseased plant. And, Ian McKellan is a shining example of a star using his media power to draw attention to the persuction of today's most regularly marginalized group - of which he is a member.

03-21-2002, 12:32 AM	#36
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	maelyn, frankly, I'll simply bite my tongue. Too much information. May the Valar see us back to the essence of the thread and away from the minefield of deeply held personal beliefs. Fighting about whether Balrogs gots wings is so much more interesting. [version 2.0] __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160. Last edited by bropous : 03-21-2002 at 07:37 PM.

03-21-2002, 12:40 AM	#37
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	maelyn, Euviel, I am interested, though, on what you think of Tolkien's opinions on the subject. I am sure, as a devout Catholic who did not approve of homosexuality but did not support drubbing them out of their homes to be burnt in the public square, you would also find JRR to be of the same variety of troglodyte you appear to classify me, since his views and mine are pretty darn close, except for being Catholic. And, maelyn, you can't get married to another woman because marriage is a union between man and woman, with ZERO exception in the historical record. Again, taking centuries-old traditions and re-writing them for twenty-first century mores does not buy your side credibility. Have your partnerships, live as you bloody well want, and if you want to make sure the partner inherits your estate, WRITE A BLOODY WILL!!!!!!!! Oh, and "lifestyle" is exactly what it is. Black folks didn't choose to be black, white folks didn't choose to be white, and (aside from surgical intervention), women didn't choose to be women. Hijacking the honorable and esteemed work that womens' rights and civil rights leaders put in to make sure people weren't discriminated against because of immutable physical characteristics to make excuses for people who simply CHOOSE to ACT a certain way (contrary to homoerotophobe brainwashing propaganda) is despicable. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

03-21-2002, 01:05 AM	#39
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Eruviel, the definitions you have given are incorrect. I am sure with a bit of research into political science you will see which end of the political spectrum "fascism" falls on. "Left" means using the government to interfere in the life of the individual or in the conduct of commerce. "Right" stands for limited intrusion of government into private life or commerce. Fascism is the use of the government's force to control the individual and commerce. Ergo, Left. Its mirror opposite, anarchy, totally opposes the involvement of government in private life or commerce, again by use of force. Refer to the writings of Hobbes and Locke and you will understand political science more clearly. Your school is not giving you a balanced definition, and this makes me think the school system is staffed with folks who have an agenda. I think you were given incorrect data by people you trusted to tell you the truth. That is a failure of the teacher, and not of the student. Just wish revisionists didn't use new generations as fodder for their repainting of the past as they wish to view it. Just ask yourself this question of your teacher, Eruviel: In the sixties, was he/she involved in the anti-war movement? If they were, you can bet your elven boots that everything they teach regarding history is slanted to their agenda. [original post re-edited] __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160. Last edited by bropous : 03-21-2002 at 07:48 PM.

03-21-2002, 01:32 AM	#40
crickhollow The Buckleberry Fairy/Captain Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Washington State again (I miss Texas). Posts: 1,345	:ahem: delicately clears throat in an attempt to discretely (or else not so discretely) chang the subject Speaking of Ian McKellan, has anyone seen The Scarlett Pimpernell? The Jane Seymore version, I mean. I get a kick out of seeing Sir Ian play a sheriff of nottingham-type role. That's also the only thing I had seen him play in before LotR (not having seen XMen until after Christmas). Great family film, but hard to get ahold of. __________________ A day will come at last when I Shall take the hidden paths that run West of the Moon, East of the Sun.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The latest Ian McKellen news.	Estel13	Entertainment Forum	23	03-11-2003 02:56 PM
Mckellen versus Connery	Balrog_of_Morgoth	Lord of the Rings Movies	26	02-02-2003 12:28 AM
First reviews are coming in...	IronParrot	Lord of the Rings Movies	9	12-04-2001 02:21 PM
The latest McKellen update - Radagast, Arwen, etc.	IronParrot	Lord of the Rings Movies	10	08-01-2000 08:11 PM
McKellen debunks Arwen rumors!	IronParrot	Lord of the Rings Movies	4	06-17-2000 04:06 PM