David Meadows
Mon, 11 Mar 2002, 10:44 pmWalter Plinge10 posts in thread
David Meadows
Mon, 11 Mar 2002, 10:44 pmI do not live in Perth, or know anyone involved in professional theatre there, but I feel that I would like to express an opinion on the myriad posts of the above Mr Meadows. Now maybe all the polite people who responded to your various posts cannot come out and say this: as a total outsider I must state that I have rarely seen anyone express such a simplified black and white view of the world. Moreover your treatment, sir, of those who express a dissentind view can be rude anf offhand.
Now you may in fact be a lovely man who wouldn't say boo to a goose, but you come across in your posts as a blinkered, arrogant intellectual snob. Professional v amateur; "safe" theatre v controversial ....there is good and bad on all sides and one should be careful about these ridiculous swingeing generalisations. If you want a defence of simple entertainment for instance, then see Preston Sturges masterpiece "Sullivan's Travels"
If you are the same man as the actor playing Hamlet then I advise you consider the lines
"there is nothing either good or bad
but thinking makes it so..."
Now you may in fact be a lovely man who wouldn't say boo to a goose, but you come across in your posts as a blinkered, arrogant intellectual snob. Professional v amateur; "safe" theatre v controversial ....there is good and bad on all sides and one should be careful about these ridiculous swingeing generalisations. If you want a defence of simple entertainment for instance, then see Preston Sturges masterpiece "Sullivan's Travels"
If you are the same man as the actor playing Hamlet then I advise you consider the lines
"there is nothing either good or bad
but thinking makes it so..."
Walter PlingeMon, 11 Mar 2002, 10:44 pm
I do not live in Perth, or know anyone involved in professional theatre there, but I feel that I would like to express an opinion on the myriad posts of the above Mr Meadows. Now maybe all the polite people who responded to your various posts cannot come out and say this: as a total outsider I must state that I have rarely seen anyone express such a simplified black and white view of the world. Moreover your treatment, sir, of those who express a dissentind view can be rude anf offhand.
Now you may in fact be a lovely man who wouldn't say boo to a goose, but you come across in your posts as a blinkered, arrogant intellectual snob. Professional v amateur; "safe" theatre v controversial ....there is good and bad on all sides and one should be careful about these ridiculous swingeing generalisations. If you want a defence of simple entertainment for instance, then see Preston Sturges masterpiece "Sullivan's Travels"
If you are the same man as the actor playing Hamlet then I advise you consider the lines
"there is nothing either good or bad
but thinking makes it so..."
Now you may in fact be a lovely man who wouldn't say boo to a goose, but you come across in your posts as a blinkered, arrogant intellectual snob. Professional v amateur; "safe" theatre v controversial ....there is good and bad on all sides and one should be careful about these ridiculous swingeing generalisations. If you want a defence of simple entertainment for instance, then see Preston Sturges masterpiece "Sullivan's Travels"
If you are the same man as the actor playing Hamlet then I advise you consider the lines
"there is nothing either good or bad
but thinking makes it so..."
Grant MalcolmMon, 11 Mar 2002, 11:30 pm
Hey Seb!
"Moreover your treatment, sir, of those who express a dissentind view can be rude anf offhand."
"you come across in your posts as a blinkered, arrogant intellectual snob"
"there is good and bad on all sides and one should be careful about these ridiculous swingeing generalisations"
pots and kettles
:-)
Cheers
Grant
"you come across in your posts as a blinkered, arrogant intellectual snob"
"there is good and bad on all sides and one should be careful about these ridiculous swingeing generalisations"
pots and kettles
:-)
Cheers
Grant
Walter PlingeTue, 12 Mar 2002, 12:55 am
RE: David Meadows
>I do not live in Perth
I won't hold that against you.
>Now maybe all the polite people who responded to your various
>posts cannot come out and say this...
Au contraire. Certainly Ms Chesterton would (and frequently does) kick my behind if I say anything with which she disagrees.
>your treatment, sir, of those who express a dissenting
>view can be rude and offhand.
Oh really? I thought it was succinct and politely worded. Oh, wait a minute... you mean it isn't sycophantic and apologetic? Oh well, in that case, yes, you're right.
>you come across in your posts as a blinkered, arrogant, intellectual snob.
Got me in one.
>Professional v amateur
Brilliantly obfuscating projections, perpetrated by my dastardly e-opponents.
>"safe" theatre v controversial
Over-simplification, nemesis o'mine. Safe can be controversial, and controversial safe.
>There is good and bad on all sides, and one should be careful about these
>ridiculous sweeping generalisations.
Yes, Sebastian. One should.
>If you are the same man as the actor playing Hamlet then I advise
>you consider the lines:
"there is nothing either good or bad
but thinking makes it so..."
Believe it or not, I construct my entire outlook on life from these words.
Actually, to be completely honest, I live by the Hindu variation:
"We do not see things as they are, but as _we_ are."
D.M.
P.S.: BTW, no need to thank me for fixing the myriad of spelling errors and incorrectly applied words in your post.
I won't hold that against you.
>Now maybe all the polite people who responded to your various
>posts cannot come out and say this...
Au contraire. Certainly Ms Chesterton would (and frequently does) kick my behind if I say anything with which she disagrees.
>your treatment, sir, of those who express a dissenting
>view can be rude and offhand.
Oh really? I thought it was succinct and politely worded. Oh, wait a minute... you mean it isn't sycophantic and apologetic? Oh well, in that case, yes, you're right.
>you come across in your posts as a blinkered, arrogant, intellectual snob.
Got me in one.
>Professional v amateur
Brilliantly obfuscating projections, perpetrated by my dastardly e-opponents.
>"safe" theatre v controversial
Over-simplification, nemesis o'mine. Safe can be controversial, and controversial safe.
>There is good and bad on all sides, and one should be careful about these
>ridiculous sweeping generalisations.
Yes, Sebastian. One should.
>If you are the same man as the actor playing Hamlet then I advise
>you consider the lines:
"there is nothing either good or bad
but thinking makes it so..."
Believe it or not, I construct my entire outlook on life from these words.
Actually, to be completely honest, I live by the Hindu variation:
"We do not see things as they are, but as _we_ are."
D.M.
P.S.: BTW, no need to thank me for fixing the myriad of spelling errors and incorrectly applied words in your post.
Walter PlingeThu, 14 Mar 2002, 10:02 pm
RE: David Meadows
David
Thank you for responding to my last post. I should here point out that I am not disagreeing with your views (I am about ninety per cent with you in fact), but rather with the single-mindedness and lack of consideration paid to alternative viewpoints which lead your posts to seem arrogant, if not rude. I had hoped that you might therefore respond well if challenged in kind. Indeed your initial response was rather impressive.
Now I have been an actor for nearly 25 years. I have worked in both professional and amateur capacities (and indeed still do both). Even at present, with bugger all money in my account, I am directing a play for no payment because I believe that the artistic quality of the work merits it. However I do not believe in making the generalisations that you seem so fond of. The older I get the more the world appears in shades of grey, rather than black or white. And still I find that your viewpoint seems to make theatre into a duty, even a chore, rather than a pleasure.
Anyway, thanks for responding at all. And a very big thank you for your post script. It was so kind and generous of you to say: "BTW, no need to thank me for fixing the myriad of spelling errors and incorrectly applied words in your post". I must thank you, however, as I feel very few others would take this care and trouble. I was a little puzzled. I ran my post through a spell checker to find only two errors. You cannot of course have been referring to these as they were clearly typos and not spelling mistakes ("anf" for "and" for example). But these two and an omitted apostrophe were all I could see. This is my own fault. Circumstances force me to use an Internet Cafe, and the clunky interface and rapidly counting down clock make accurate proof reading very difficult, but hey! what do I expect when I offer my services for free instead of earning enough in a proper job. I was thrown by your word "myriad". Can it really be applies to three or four? My dictionary says it means "countless, innumerable". Perhaps you did not have a dictionary to hand? You ought to be careful, many might just take it otherwise as a cheap and sneering attack.
And a very big thank you for editing my "incorrectly applied words". By this I presume you mean your silent rewriting of my phrase "swingeing generalisations" to "sweeping generalisations". This was very helpful of you. But aren't you being a little hard on yourself? Your choice of phrase (a little trite for me), implies wide ranging and random. This I feel is totally against my meaning. You do not use a scatter gun approach at all. I used the word "swingeing" which the New Oxford defines as "severe or extreme". it comes from the OE swengan meaning "to shake". Perhaps you were unfamiliar with the term? In such cases I prefer to look it up rather than just alter someone's words to fit my own vocabulary. It could seem so arrogant! I realise that if you do not own a dictionary this may be difficult.
But anyway warmest thanks David. Please do let me know next time you fell the need to write my posts for me and I will see if I cannot rise to some kind of payment. You could make a little profit, you may even save enough to buy that dictionary.
Sebastian.
Thank you for responding to my last post. I should here point out that I am not disagreeing with your views (I am about ninety per cent with you in fact), but rather with the single-mindedness and lack of consideration paid to alternative viewpoints which lead your posts to seem arrogant, if not rude. I had hoped that you might therefore respond well if challenged in kind. Indeed your initial response was rather impressive.
Now I have been an actor for nearly 25 years. I have worked in both professional and amateur capacities (and indeed still do both). Even at present, with bugger all money in my account, I am directing a play for no payment because I believe that the artistic quality of the work merits it. However I do not believe in making the generalisations that you seem so fond of. The older I get the more the world appears in shades of grey, rather than black or white. And still I find that your viewpoint seems to make theatre into a duty, even a chore, rather than a pleasure.
Anyway, thanks for responding at all. And a very big thank you for your post script. It was so kind and generous of you to say: "BTW, no need to thank me for fixing the myriad of spelling errors and incorrectly applied words in your post". I must thank you, however, as I feel very few others would take this care and trouble. I was a little puzzled. I ran my post through a spell checker to find only two errors. You cannot of course have been referring to these as they were clearly typos and not spelling mistakes ("anf" for "and" for example). But these two and an omitted apostrophe were all I could see. This is my own fault. Circumstances force me to use an Internet Cafe, and the clunky interface and rapidly counting down clock make accurate proof reading very difficult, but hey! what do I expect when I offer my services for free instead of earning enough in a proper job. I was thrown by your word "myriad". Can it really be applies to three or four? My dictionary says it means "countless, innumerable". Perhaps you did not have a dictionary to hand? You ought to be careful, many might just take it otherwise as a cheap and sneering attack.
And a very big thank you for editing my "incorrectly applied words". By this I presume you mean your silent rewriting of my phrase "swingeing generalisations" to "sweeping generalisations". This was very helpful of you. But aren't you being a little hard on yourself? Your choice of phrase (a little trite for me), implies wide ranging and random. This I feel is totally against my meaning. You do not use a scatter gun approach at all. I used the word "swingeing" which the New Oxford defines as "severe or extreme". it comes from the OE swengan meaning "to shake". Perhaps you were unfamiliar with the term? In such cases I prefer to look it up rather than just alter someone's words to fit my own vocabulary. It could seem so arrogant! I realise that if you do not own a dictionary this may be difficult.
But anyway warmest thanks David. Please do let me know next time you fell the need to write my posts for me and I will see if I cannot rise to some kind of payment. You could make a little profit, you may even save enough to buy that dictionary.
Sebastian.
Amanda ChestertonFri, 15 Mar 2002, 04:06 pm
RE: David Meadows
Why, pray, if you have such an objection to David responding in an impassioned way to postings (which you interpret as being rude and arrogant) is it perfectly acceptable for you to do the EXACTLY same thing, only in a far more personally insulting, public, rude, arrogant manner?
I work with kids - if I don't want them to behave in a certain way, I don't behave that way myself.
If you don't want to see David actively participating in a healthy debate, then email him personally and express your concerns about his manner so as not to a) publicly encourage him to get (in your opinion) more offensive and b) make yourself look like a hypocrite. I refer you back to to Grant's allusion to 'look at the kettle calling the pot black'.
Amanda Chesterton
I work with kids - if I don't want them to behave in a certain way, I don't behave that way myself.
If you don't want to see David actively participating in a healthy debate, then email him personally and express your concerns about his manner so as not to a) publicly encourage him to get (in your opinion) more offensive and b) make yourself look like a hypocrite. I refer you back to to Grant's allusion to 'look at the kettle calling the pot black'.
Amanda Chesterton
Walter PlingeFri, 15 Mar 2002, 06:26 pm
RE: David Meadows
to Sebastian Melmoth
I KNOW WHO YOU REALLY ARE!!!!!!!!
I KNOW WHO YOU REALLY ARE!!!!!!!!
EliotSat, 16 Mar 2002, 12:55 am
The Meddoes
annon anxiously averred:
---------------------------------
"to Sebastian Melmoth
I KNOW WHO YOU REALLY ARE!!!!!!!!"
And that's enough of that- this site has weathered this kind of storm before.
Say what you like about the man himself- and let's face it, we all do- the question remains "Why so much fuss over one person?"
Is it down to the fact that the Meddoes (as he knows I like to refer to him) is as thouuroughly committed to his beliefs as he is that we raise our eyebrows? Knowing him as I have for 12 yrs (Christ, we're getting old here) this has always been the case. It's part of the parcel. The Meddoes is unique in our circles- I can think of no other person who consistently and willingly puts themselves in the firing line of his peers for his thoughts, ambitions and beliefs. O, that we could have a fraction of the courage of our convictions that the Meddoes has in his.
To paraphrase someone else badly- I don't agree with every single thing the Meddoes says or thinks, but I will die defending his right to air his thoughts.
Eliot McCann
---------------------------------
"to Sebastian Melmoth
I KNOW WHO YOU REALLY ARE!!!!!!!!"
And that's enough of that- this site has weathered this kind of storm before.
Say what you like about the man himself- and let's face it, we all do- the question remains "Why so much fuss over one person?"
Is it down to the fact that the Meddoes (as he knows I like to refer to him) is as thouuroughly committed to his beliefs as he is that we raise our eyebrows? Knowing him as I have for 12 yrs (Christ, we're getting old here) this has always been the case. It's part of the parcel. The Meddoes is unique in our circles- I can think of no other person who consistently and willingly puts themselves in the firing line of his peers for his thoughts, ambitions and beliefs. O, that we could have a fraction of the courage of our convictions that the Meddoes has in his.
To paraphrase someone else badly- I don't agree with every single thing the Meddoes says or thinks, but I will die defending his right to air his thoughts.
Eliot McCann
Craig K EdwardsSun, 17 Mar 2002, 11:23 am
RE: The Meddoes
Damn, I was just beginning to enjoy that thread (puts popcorn back in cupboard)...
Seriously, at least someone on this board actually puts the effort in to stir a bit of debate every now and then. Everywhere else you look (and this goes for theatre discussion generally, not just this website) there seems to be a 90% ratio of 'oh, aren't you fabulous, oh aren't I fabulous too, oh why don't we pamper both our egos a bit more and then congradulate ourselves on our efforts'.
Ok, that's an exaggeration, but you get the point.
[apologies for drawing an already overextended conversation one post longer]
Cheers,
Craig
Seriously, at least someone on this board actually puts the effort in to stir a bit of debate every now and then. Everywhere else you look (and this goes for theatre discussion generally, not just this website) there seems to be a 90% ratio of 'oh, aren't you fabulous, oh aren't I fabulous too, oh why don't we pamper both our egos a bit more and then congradulate ourselves on our efforts'.
Ok, that's an exaggeration, but you get the point.
[apologies for drawing an already overextended conversation one post longer]
Cheers,
Craig
JessWed, 3 Apr 2002, 09:30 pm
RE: The Meddoes
It's true, Craig. I was kinda enjoying that too. Good on ya, David for giving it right back!
Funny how the word 'fabulous' is associated with theatre/acting. Are we so fabulous though? I think all I can say is that we're really specky at lying. Is that fabulous?
Still pondering.
Funny how the word 'fabulous' is associated with theatre/acting. Are we so fabulous though? I think all I can say is that we're really specky at lying. Is that fabulous?
Still pondering.