Names changed to protect the innocent
Fri, 30 Apr 2004, 10:47 pmcrgwllms27 posts in thread
Names changed to protect the innocent
Fri, 30 Apr 2004, 10:47 pmThis should possibly go in the 'Theatre Reviews' section, but I can't actually bring myself to write a review about what I saw tonight. It was, in all probability, the single worst piece of theatre I've ever seen. The writing, characters, production, directing, and acting were all atrocious. I actually enjoyed myself immensely, but for all the wrong reasons. Also it helped a fair bit that I was fairly well inebriated.
I don't have the heart to mention any details. But it's certainly made me feel more tolerant to a lot of other shows with only half the talent.
Craig
somewhere in NSW
I don't have the heart to mention any details. But it's certainly made me feel more tolerant to a lot of other shows with only half the talent.
Craig
somewhere in NSW
Re: What's in a Name?
Sun, 9 May 2004, 11:16 pmOld Friend/George wrote:
>
> I couldn't agree with you both by the way.
...So which one did you decide to agree with? :-)
Hello then, 'George', although as you say, I'm afraid the name still means little...apart from something else to associate with 'Old Friend'.
I actually have no problem with anonymous posts, as I have ascertained in a previous essay. ( Anonymous Verse; http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=19&i=6475&t=6475). If someone feels more at ease writing what they think without being identified, I think that is valid, especially if they feel they would need to temper their thoughts because of close personal associations. Anonymity can mean more honesty, which should not be seen as cowardly. And if the points are valid, I don't see the difference between writing under a pseudonym or a real name.
What I have the problem with is people who write crap. This applies equally to anonymous or identified authors, but tends to apply more to the pseudonyms only because people who identify themselves tend to be more responsible in what they say.
I don't mind a controversial or unpopular opinion if it is justified and argued well. But if what you write is no more than name-calling or poorly conceived ridicule, expect to be the object of my own perhaps unpopular opinion.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> I couldn't agree with you both by the way.
...So which one did you decide to agree with? :-)
Hello then, 'George', although as you say, I'm afraid the name still means little...apart from something else to associate with 'Old Friend'.
I actually have no problem with anonymous posts, as I have ascertained in a previous essay. ( Anonymous Verse; http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=19&i=6475&t=6475). If someone feels more at ease writing what they think without being identified, I think that is valid, especially if they feel they would need to temper their thoughts because of close personal associations. Anonymity can mean more honesty, which should not be seen as cowardly. And if the points are valid, I don't see the difference between writing under a pseudonym or a real name.
What I have the problem with is people who write crap. This applies equally to anonymous or identified authors, but tends to apply more to the pseudonyms only because people who identify themselves tend to be more responsible in what they say.
I don't mind a controversial or unpopular opinion if it is justified and argued well. But if what you write is no more than name-calling or poorly conceived ridicule, expect to be the object of my own perhaps unpopular opinion.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···