Why did Bernadette not go back to the grotto on a few different days? - The Song of Bernadette Discussion

[–] Pmdmnym 10 years ago

OK, I think there was a gap at first because her mom would not let her go. When she was able, they went with her. But there may have been days she was ill,etc. Of course I don't know for sure.

reply

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

I saw this timeline in Wikipedia too.

I suppose only a solid biography of Bernadette could answer your question (obviously for dramatic reasons if nothing else we can't rely on the movie to be accurate). But from what I've read it sounds as though on some days she was unable to go (school, work, illness, etc.) and on others may have been prevented from going (by her parents, priests, authorities, etc.).

I think the reference to not seeing any visions clearly implies that she went to the grotto on those dates but simply didn't see anything, for whatever reason. It would not have been noteworthy to report that she hadn't seen a vision if she were not at the grotto, where all her visions occurred. I also can't say whether on the days she went but saw nothing she expected to see anything or, like any young person, went mainly out of curiosity. That's the kind of thing that sounds more plausible and humanizes Bernadette more.

reply

[–] JosephASpadaro 8 years ago

Well, there are a lot of questions and, I guess, there is some incomplete information.

If I were told by Jesus's mother Mary to show up somewhere for 15 days, I have a pretty good feeling that I would make sure that I did indeed show up there for 15 days.

I mean, nothing would be able to stop me. Nothing.

I'd think the same would go for anybody. Including Bernadette.

It seems odd that she would "miss" a few days here and there, even if there were any "good" reasons.

Remember, these would be reasons to essentially disobey the Virgin Mary.

What good reason could there possibly be?

It seems odd to me, that's all.

It also seems odd that Mary would tell Bernadette to show up there for 15 days. And then, willy-nilly, Mary might or might not appear on any of the 15 given days.

I can't wrap my mind around the whole scenario.

reply

[–] JosephASpadaro 8 years ago

And one confusing -- or misleading -- element in the Wikipedia article is that it discusses the dates of the appearances. Not necessarily the dates of Bernadette's actual visits.

Apparently, those are two very different things.

reply

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Good point to remember -- the dates of the appearances are not necessarily the dates of all Bernadette's visits. There could have been many more of the latter than the former. And since no one but Bernadette ever saw Mary (or whom we assume to be Mary), who's to say that the Virgin may have appeared at the grotto on a day when Bernadette was not there, but no one could see her?

To a point in your prior post:

It also seems odd that Mary would tell Bernadette to show up there for 15 days. And then, willy-nilly, Mary might or might not appear on any of the 15 given days.

This isn't odd to me at all. Why would Mary cause Bernadette to dig in the mud or eat grass? Why, as I asked on another thread, do such alleged miracles or visions always occur in out-of-the-way places to one (or at most a handful) of people, often children? And why would God, or Christ, or the Virgin Mary, or any saint or other such figure deliver their message to mankind in obscure places, to obscure people, and in such obscure ways...ways that usually involve what can be accurately, if uncharitably, called parlor games -- speaking in riddles, compelling their communicants to behave in self-abasing or even self-destructive ways, and the like? As a test of faith? Is that what the divine is really all about? That does not sound like a loving God to me. And the non-responsive response given by those who accept such things unquestioningly, that God works in mysterious ways, is no answer.

This is perhaps the single greatest reason why I am extremely skeptical of the alleged miracle at Lourdes. Why would the Virgin manifest herself in the manner she did (by which I mean not just the vision to Bernadette, but by asking of her so many pointless things)? This applies to all such supposed sightings or other miracles.

So, far from being out-of-character, the idea that Mary would tell Bernadette to show up on days when she, Mary, would not appear, is in fact entirely in keeping with the nature and content of her appearances, and in fact, of most reported or supposed miraculous visions or visitations.

reply

[–] libby2130 8 years ago

according to the website about her

In the early morning hours on March 25th, Bernadette awoke with the familiar inner call to return to the grotto. This was a call that she could not resist.

she was DRAWN to the place ad could not resist, went when she got the inner urge

reply

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Well, that would explain why she went when she did. But did she always have a vision on the days she felt called to go to the grotto? Did she ever go to the grotto when she had no such call, or see a vision on such days? I have no idea of the answer to either question. But presumably Mary, as a divine figure, would know beforehand whether Bernadette could or would visit the grotto on any given day.

reply

[–] Molly-31 8 years ago

I always thought she went to the grotto to pray even on days the lady wasn't supposed to be there. As for the lady not showing up, I liked Werfel's take on it: Bernadette reasoned that the lady had other obligations and responsibilities, and simply could not keep the appointment every time, and trusted Bernadette to understand.

Well, the city's being built and I'm winning this game. So don't interrupt us with trifles.

reply

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

That makes sense, Molly.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

hobnob wrote:

Why, as I asked on another thread, do such alleged miracles or visions always occur in out-of-the-way places to one (or at most a handful) of people, often children? And why would God, or Christ, or the Virgin Mary, or any saint or other such figure deliver their message to mankind in obscure places, to obscure people, and in such obscure ways

Hi, Hob -

Actually, this is typical, time-honored revelation-pattern in the Judeo-Christian tradition - in the NT:

Luke's Mary praises God and the angel Gabriel for taking note of "my low estate" and for bringing salvation to the poor and the humble.

The "Son of God" is born into obscurity - in Luke, when Jesus is born only some shepherds take notice; similarly in Matthew, Jesus is born and only three Asiatic astrologers mark the miraculous birth, and then they leave the territory and the narrative altogether.

"Blessed are you poor" / "One who wishes to be righteous must be the servant of all" ... etc., in which entry into the Kingdom on earth is predicated on humility, the practice of poverty, and an avoidance of pomp and a narcissistic over-evaluation of social status.

In the Hebrew Bible:

Moses was a wandering soul, unknown to the world (except perhaps as a renegade murderer of an Egyptian), when Yahweh appeared to him under the guise of a bush that burned but was never consumed - a very humble point of contact and revelation - Moses protests that he himself has no talent or calling whatsoever to be the voice of the Lord to men.

Yahweh revealed himself to the pre-royal, pre-Psalmic David, "a mere shepherd boy".

The point throughout seems to be that the Divine Transcendent, when It manifests on the worldly plane, usually targets the poor, the obscure and the humble - which partially explains Judeo-Christianity's emphasis on voluntary poverty, care for the marginalized, and its (early) avoidance of imperial/royal domination systems, emperor-worship and service in the Roman army, and the thinking and lifestyle that usually accompanies such secular groupings.

...ways that usually involve what can be accurately, if uncharitably, called parlor games -- speaking in riddles, compelling their communicants to behave in self-abasing or even self-destructive ways, and the like?

The revealed-and-revealing Transcendent typically speaks in the language of the archetypal Unconscious, especially in the language of the Jungian Collective Unconscious. As such, these outpouring are not - nor can they be - "rational", discursive, analytically-understandable communications. In fact, to the extent that they would sound rational, the less chance there would be that they really issued from the Transcendent Unknown, but rather from some mendacious and wholly rational machinations of the conscious ego.

Moreover, it is never "Mary" who originally reveals Herself in such manifestations.

Almost invariably, "She" initially presents Herself as a truly foreign, even "alien" entity ("Her" instructing someone to eat grass may issue from a type of awareness about which we are nearly clueless; or, more likely, the percipient may be reacting to internal prompts that s/he erroneously attributes to the manifesting entity...I rather think that this behavior is more related to a form of spontaneous shamanism than to any genuine Marian manifestation).

Only later, through a standard process of interrogation-and-re-interrogation, does the Church step in to safely domesticate the original undomesticated narrative. This happened with Bernadette, just as surely as it happened with the testimony of Lucia and the two other children-experiencers at Fatima in Portugal.

In Its original manifestation, the chief impression that the Event(s) leave with the percipients is one of a (partly) terrifying, supernatural, numinous "Something" emerging from Its native realm into our mundane localities. It is thus bound not to "speak our language". And, as far as the question of these processes/events being a "parlor game" is concerned, much of that interpretation derives from the combination of:

1. Our social-popular expectations of what Mary or God "should-or-would do",

with

2. The confusion of domesticated theology added onto the original event(s) until the whole develops a protective shell, a doctrinally-safe patina, which takes some research to penetrate. Speaking for myself, if I sincerely believed that I recovered my sight or was cured of paralysis or fatal cancer while praying at a Marian shrine, the very last interpretation that would occur to me would be that of a parlor game.

reply

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Hello bastache,

Thank you for a very complex and learned discussion. Thoughtful and well presented.

Still, with respect, while your assessment of the reasons for the nature of such divine appearances may be in keeping with Christian teachings and interpretations, most of this can be ascribed to ex-post-facto reasoning: that is, taking alleged facts and finding interpretations to fit them. Put another way, if such visions were vouchsafed to great masses of people, or people in high places -- as opposed to one person, or one small group of persons (as with the Fátima children), of humble station -- then no doubt one could find theological explanations or justifications for those visions.

I believe it is perfectly legitimate to inquire about the nature of these things: why only the low-born, children, humble folk of little education and simple faith and the like are chosen as witnesses to a miracle, or why a divine figure such as Mary, or Jesus, or anyone else would demand of these individuals -- chosen with no say on their own part -- that they abase themselves or put themselves at risk for something which they had no choice in. Surely the divine figure who would pick such individuals would know the strength of their faith; why then must this be tested in such abasing ways? What purpose does this serve? Personally, I have a problem with a God or his emissaries who engage in such behavior. This is my judgment and opinion; I have as much right to it as someone who accepts and rationalizes such actions. Unfortunately, no one can know how God works or speak for Him, although many claim to; the arrogance of such persons strikes me as the greatest sin of all, as well as being contrary to His own word.

For believers who want to accept such things uncritically, no explanation is necessary, to turn the famous quote about Lourdes on itself. The convenient rationale for faith-based beliefs is that the are their own proof. For some, this is satisfactory; for others, not. It is a matter of indifference to me what anyone believes, as long as they do not try to foist their own beliefs on others. But to me asking questions and attempting to understand and assess such claimed things as the miracles of Lourdes is not only legitimate and above criticism, it's making use of man's God-given power to think, to learn and to reason. And that would include seeking understanding beyond what is contained in religious texts or teachings, which by their nature would lend support to the object of the inquiry and therefore be of some, but limited, value.

As for your last statement,

Speaking for myself, if I sincerely believed that I recovered my sight or was cured of paralysis or fatal cancer while praying at a Marian shrine, the very last interpretation that would occur to me would be that of a parlor game.

You do not quote me accurately. I said nothing about the claimed cures that have come out of Lourdes, and never did I refer to anything associated with them, including any shrine, as a "parlor game". That phrase was used specifically and quite plainly in connection with the nature of the acts that divine figures appearing to someone seem to insist their chosen ones perform, as with Mary's instruction to Bernadette to eat grass. Again, this would seem to serve no purpose whatsoever except to compel the individual to abase him- or herself in order to demonstrate the depth of their faith or their uncritical acceptance of what they are being told. This may in fact be the case, but if so it shakes my belief in the kind of divine entity who would demand such things, especially of poor, humble and uneducated persons who, bluntly, would know no better.

The phrase "parlor game" was obviously used as a pejorative but equally obviously it refers to the demands of the divine figure allegedly seen. I agree, were I to have experienced a cure of some terrible affliction because of what I believed was a divine intervention, I would certainly not consider that a "parlor game". But since I never said any such thing, you are making what I can only deem a non-germane point in a disingenuous way.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

while your assessment of the reasons for the nature of such divine appearances may be in keeping with Christian teachings and interpretations

Well, thanks - and while I do think my assessment accurately echoes what typically happens with apparitions in the Catholic tradition, in actuality, it is not in keeping with Christian teachings and interpretations - it is in fact opposed to such interpretations, as I mentioned:

1. The original experience is archetypal and undomesticated. It does not fit into traditional religious categories.

2. The original experience is of beings who do not fit into classic Christian theology - the beings are not originally described as Mary or saints, but rather as earth elementals, or celestial dwellers - Bernadette called her entity "aquerra" - a local name for earth spirit. Only later, through external social prodding, did the sprite become "the Immaculate Conception" and then the full-fledged Catholic "Queen of Heaven". The same thing happened with Lucia of Fatima - her "little lady" was anything but the Catholic Mary, until that is, Lucia's vision underwent Church revision in order to produce a domesticated "Mary" fit for popular worship.

3. The experience is typically subjected to ecclesiastical/theological interrogation, the result of which is a "safe", domesticated modification of the original experience, in which it is carefully crafted to conform to standard (in this case, Marian) theological doctrine. The original wild, undomesticated, "Pagan" experience is traded in for a typical Marian apparition complete with the expected admonitions to pray, build a chapel, and be devout because "My Son is already much offended" by human sinfulness.

In none of these three points is my assessment - or the historical facts involved - supportive of, or in keeping with, Christian/Catholic teaching. In fact, it utterly contradicts the "domesticated" doctrines of standard Christianity.

Surely the divine figure who would pick such individuals would know the strength of their faith; why then must this be tested in such abasing ways?

I don't see any of the original apparitions as being tests of faith - they're just revelations from "the other shore". "Faith" - as "Christian" - faith only enters in as a subtext after it has been decided by "authorities" that the revelation is "officially" Mary, a saint, an angel, Jesus, or some other figure defined as divine or semi-divine by said "authority".

I have a difficult time with the notion that a percipient's faith is being tested while at the same time s/he is being graced and even immersed in a transcendent experience. Experience trumps faith, i.e., if you know something you do not need to believe in it or its properties. If you experience a divine manifestation, you don't need to have faith in it, any more than you need to have faith that honey is sweet once you've tasted it.

no one can know how God works or speak for Him

The authentic percipients of whom I am aware do not claim to possess (false) knowledge about the Divine's inner processes, but of course they do claim a right and a duty to communicate as best they can the content of their individual revelations - especially when they believe that the Divine wishes them to do so. That's just the religious version of free speech. And they realize that the content of their message will be subject to stern analysis by both secular and ecclesiastical authority, as indeed happened with Bernadette and Lucia. It is seldom an easy thing for percipients - especially very young ones - to do: Bernadette and Lucia were subjected to frightening interrogations by both state officials and clergy, as well as rejection and punishment by their respective families.

That phrase ["parlor game"] was used specifically and quite plainly in connection with the nature of the acts that divine figures appearing to someone seem to insist their chosen ones perform

Sorry if I misinterpreted the target of your meaning. But I have to return to my point that, simply because Bernadette claimed that a direct command from the Lady was for her to eat grass, does not mean that it actually came from the Lady. It may have come from Bernadette's own unconscious reaction to the experience. It certainly seems an odd thing to do, but even viewed in terms of abjection and humiliation, it is not much. After all, the Lady could have asked Bernadette to roll around in the mud and then relieve herself on the ground or to strip off her clothing and flagellate herself. In any case, I see the grass-eating as a minor glitch in the overall apparition. Iirc, Bernadette's own testimony does not mention that she herself experienced embarrassment, humiliation, or indignation over having performed the act.

Moreover, in none of the several New Testament and Hebrew Bible texts I cited in the previous post are any biblical figures humiliatingly manipulated. They are not humbled by God; rather, their already extant humbleness makes them attractive to the Divine. God did not humble or sordidly degrade the great Hebrew propehts, or Mary, Joseph, Moses or David. You seem to see a large number of instances of God cruelly humliating his human contacts, but in the very important, pertinent examples I cited, such degradation is wholly absent. Which to me makes your fixation on Bernadette's grass-eating seem a bit of an overstatement, especially in view of the fact that you provided only that one example of divine "degredation".

But to me asking questions and attempting to understand and assess such claimed things as the miracles of Lourdes is not only legitimate and above criticism, it's making use of man's God-given power to think, to learn and to reason.

Right...but of course I never criticised you or anyone for asking these questions.

it shakes my belief in the kind of divine entity who would demand such things, especially of poor, humble and uneducated persons who, bluntly, would know no better.

But I think that your criterion of abasement and humiliation actually hinges on the principle that such people would have to know better. Otherwise grass-eating or self-flagellation would not have the power to degrade them. That is, they would have to already know that such behavior is inappropriate in order for them to feel revolted by, and ashamed of, it.

For believers who want to accept such things uncritically, no explanation is necessary

It does come down to ideology. One might just as well say that for unbelievers who want to reject such things uncritically, no explanation is necessary because they already "know" that the whole subject is nonsense.

A nonmaterialist/transcendentalist ideally keeps his/her mind open to the possibility of such events, although s/he is not compelled to accept any of them as authentic. A materialist/non-transcendentalist is ideally obliged to reject such events as impossible from the get-go, because they are "not allowed" by the matter-only structure of the world as conceived by them...

reply

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

bastasch, I'll just make some comments (in purple) after various points in your post of 1/20/17, reproduced in its entirety herewith (including its citations from my prior post, also reproduced here in italics)....

while your assessment of the reasons for the nature of such divine appearances may be in keeping with Christian teachings and interpretations

Well, thanks - and while I do think my assessment accurately echoes what typically happens with apparitions in the Catholic tradition, in actuality, it is not in keeping with Christian teachings and interpretations - it is in fact opposed to such interpretations, as I mentioned:

1. The original experience is archetypal and undomesticated. It does not fit into traditional religious categories.

2. The original experience is of beings who do not fit into classic Christian theology - the beings are not originally described as Mary or saints, but rather as earth elementals, or celestial dwellers - Bernadette called her entity "aquerra" - a local name for earth spirit. Only later, through external social prodding, did the sprite become "the Immaculate Conception" and then the full-fledged Catholic "Queen of Heaven". The same thing happened with Lucia of Fatima - her "little lady" was anything but the Catholic Mary, until that is, Lucia's vision underwent Church revision in order to produce a domesticated "Mary" fit for popular worship.

3. The experience is typically subjected to ecclesiastical/theological interrogation, the result of which is a "safe", domesticated modification of the original experience, in which it is carefully crafted to conform to standard (in this case, Marian) theological doctrine. The original wild, undomesticated, "Pagan" experience is traded in for a typical Marian apparition complete with the expected admonitions to pray, build a chapel, and be devout because "My Son is already much offended" by human sinfulness.

In none of these three points is my assessment - or the historical facts involved - supportive of, or in keeping with, Christian/Catholic teaching. In fact, it utterly contradicts the "domesticated" doctrines of standard Christianity.

Understood and essentially agree.

Surely the divine figure who would pick such individuals would know the strength of their faith; why then must this be tested in such abasing ways?

I don't see any of the original apparitions as being tests of faith - they're just revelations from "the other shore". "Faith" - as "Christian" - faith only enters in as a subtext after it has been decided by "authorities" that the revelation is "officially" Mary, a saint, an angel, Jesus, or some other figure defined as divine or semi-divine by said "authority".

I have a difficult time with the notion that a percipient's faith is being tested while at the same time s/he is being graced and even immersed in a transcendent experience. Experience trumps faith, i.e., if you know something you do not need to believe in it or its properties. If you experience a divine manifestation, you don't need to have faith in it, any more than you need to have faith that honey is sweet once you've tasted it.

This is my point: I don't understand what I see as the purposelessness of such "tests", or better, the humiliation (at best) or endangering (at worst) of the mortal upon whom such a visitation is bestowed. But in my view if you receive a divine manifestation and are a person of faith this fact should presumably be known to the divine figure that manifests itself, thereby in all logic obviating the need for asking the visitee to "prove" his faith or devotion by acts that would be degrading, insulting or risky. Why would any God or His messengers require such manifestations of "faith", especially from one whom they must know is faithful, and are not such demands demeaning of that faith itself? On the other hand, if such a manifestation appeared to a non-believer, it would seem that in order to instill faith where none has existed commanding pointless acts that serve no purpose save to demonstrate blind obedience would backfire and result in precisely the opposite reaction.

no one can know how God works or speak for Him

The authentic percipients of whom I am aware do not claim to possess (false) knowledge about the Divine's inner processes, but of course they do claim a right and a duty to communicate as best they can the content of their individual revelations - especially when they believe that the Divine wishes them to do so. That's just the religious version of free speech. And they realize that the content of their message will be subject to stern analysis by both secular and ecclesiastical authority, as indeed happened with Bernadette and Lucia. It is seldom an easy thing for percipients - especially very young ones - to do: Bernadette and Lucia were subjected to frightening interrogations by both state officials and clergy, as well as rejection and punishment by their respective families.

I was referring not necessarily to anyone depicted in this film (or for that matter The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima), whether in real life or in the movie, but to those "professional" purveyors of religion who see faith as a means of milking the public for millions and building temporal shrines to themselves under the guise of honoring the Lord...and others, such as those conservative politicians who routinely invoke God and announce they've been forgiven whenever they're caught committing adultery, theft and the like, a Get Out of Jail Free card evidently denied liberal politicians, who may just not be quite as cynical as their vociferously "religious" brethren.

To your comment that the young, such as Bernadette or Lucia, "realize" they and their message will be subject to stern analysis and frightening interrogation, I disagree. I'm sure such simple folk, especially the young, would have no such thoughts or realization ahead of time. Part of their being tested is being subjected to such harsh skepticism and the stress and even terror it brings, which clearly would not manifest itself to such a degree had they understood ahead of time what carrying these messages would entail for their lives.

That phrase ["parlor game"] was used specifically and quite plainly in connection with the nature of the acts that divine figures appearing to someone seem to insist their chosen ones perform

Sorry if I misinterpreted the target of your meaning. But I have to return to my point that, simply because Bernadette claimed that a direct command from the Lady was for her to eat grass, does not mean that it actually came from the Lady. It may have come from Bernadette's own unconscious reaction to the experience. It certainly seems an odd thing to do, but even viewed in terms of abjection and humiliation, it is not much. After all, the Lady could have asked Bernadette to roll around in the mud and then relieve herself on the ground or to strip off her clothing and flagellate herself. In any case, I see the grass-eating as a minor glitch in the overall apparition. Iirc, Bernadette's own testimony does not mention that she herself experienced embarrassment, humiliation, or indignation over having performed the act.

Moreover, in none of the several New Testament and Hebrew Bible texts I cited in the previous post are any biblical figures humiliatingly manipulated. They are not humbled by God; rather, their already extant humbleness makes them attractive to the Divine. God did not humble or sordidly degrade the great Hebrew propehts, or Mary, Joseph, Moses or David. You seem to see a large number of instances of God cruelly humliating his human contacts, but in the very important, pertinent examples I cited, such degradation is wholly absent. Which to me makes your fixation on Bernadette's grass-eating seem a bit of an overstatement, especially in view of the fact that you provided only that one example of divine "degredation".

Again, understood, but Bernadette's own reactions are actually irrelevant. The fundamental issue is (also, again), why would a divine apparition demand such behavior in the first place? What purpose is served? Is this not a cruel, gratuitous demand, even if the targeted one is willing, even eager, to uncomplainingly comply?

But to me asking questions and attempting to understand and assess such claimed things as the miracles of Lourdes is not only legitimate and above criticism, it's making use of man's God-given power to think, to learn and to reason.

Right...but of course I never criticised you or anyone for asking these questions.

I didn't say you had...but many do, especially those who blindly accept miracles and other allegedly divine manifestations and subtly or overtly denounce or look down upon (with most un-Christian officiousness) those who do ask questions or look upon such claims with skepticism.

it shakes my belief in the kind of divine entity who would demand such things, especially of poor, humble and uneducated persons who, bluntly, would know no better.

But I think that your criterion of abasement and humiliation actually hinges on the principle that such people would have to know better. Otherwise grass-eating or self-flagellation would not have the power to degrade them. That is, they would have to already know that such behavior is inappropriate in order for them to feel revolted by, and ashamed of, it.

Perhaps, but I think any divine being would him/herself know precisely what kinds of actions these were and not seek to demean someone, regardless of whether that person sees or understands such demands. In fact, I would argue that requiring such things of a more simple-minded individual is among the most un-Christian acts anyone, including a divine figure, could commit. To put it in the vernacular, why don't they pick on someone their own size?

For believers who want to accept such things uncritically, no explanation is necessary

It does come down to ideology. One might just as well say that for unbelievers who want to reject such things uncritically, no explanation is necessary because they already "know" that the whole subject is nonsense.

Exactly.

A nonmaterialist/transcendentalist ideally keeps his/her mind open to the possibility of such events, although s/he is not compelled to accept any of them as authentic. A materialist/non-transcendentalist is ideally obliged to reject such events as impossible from the get-go, because they are "not allowed" by the matter-only structure of the world as conceived by them...

Speaking personally, I find elements of each personality within myself, at least to the point of keeping an open mind. Neither blind, unthinking acceptance, nor obtuse, out-of-hand rejection, suits me. But each "side" is trapped in their own mental or emotional prison, which is not conducive to a broad, fair or objective examination or discussion of such matters.

Good talking with you.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

Hi, Hob. Thanks again for your thoughtful, detailed reply - I agree with some, disagree with other, parts, as could be expected, but I'm at the point that it seems that we both have had our say. For one of the last times.

So, I guess this is goodbye, in view of imdb's unfortunate decision to close all the boards. I've enjoyed talking with you, especially over on the On the Beach board.

Best of everything to you.

reply

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Thank you, bastasch. The same goes for me. Too bad all this erudition is going the way of all flesh (if I may risk putting it that way on this board)!

If you'd care to stay in touch through alternate channels (email), please PM me so we can talk.

Otherwise, as I put it on another thread here after IMDb's announcement, these boards are coming to an end...barring a miracle, of course. It's been real...and ethereal.

reply