Generic Is Another Sock Puppet Du Jour Uncovered...
You are so pathetic, Generic. I love humiliating you. Or shoud I say, bunny77, olliescoot, redstate... all of your socks.
Or shall I say, notmenotme.
In any event, yet another sock puppet du jour has now been easily exposed and deposed.
LMAO
Let's start at the beginning.
notmenotme started a thread on the "Good Night, and Good Luck" board called "Point of Order" with this OP:
by Generic_Login (Fri Feb 10 2006 20:46:16)Now if anyone actually watched this documentary, you would know that these claims are inaccurate.
UPDATED Fri Feb 10 2006 21:33:38
I recommend that you watch this highly informative documentary. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058481/
It covers the Army-McCarthy hearings in which the Army accused McCarthy of seeking special favors for a staffer of his who was mysteriously drafted right after McCarthy started asking uncomfortable (for certain Army officers) questions about communists. It is an eye opener. It was intended to show what a demogogue and charlaton McCarthy was. But when I watched it I saw that the image of McCarthly as presented in this movies and the history books is nearly one hundred and eighty degrees off from the truth. He was calm under the grilling from the Senators investigating him. He joked around with them. He chuckled when they asked him such question as "Is it not true that Private Schine (the drafted staffer) requested a fur lined hood?" and "Is it not true that whenever his unit was moved in a truck, he got to sit in the cab while the others were packed in the back like cattle?" Remember this is the documentary that supposedly shows "how a demogogue comes to power." At one point the Army presented a chart to show the days off that Private Schine took and the days off an average recruit took. (I'm not kidding. The investigation into McCarthy was really that stupid) The showed Schine's days off in black and those of average recruits in white. McCarthy's friends told him that on TV the white blocks were invisible making it appear as though only Schine got days off. McCarthy called them on that. They were dishonestly trying so smear him. The only time that the "angry" McCarthy came out was when Senators asked him questions and when he tried to answer, cut him off in mid sentence. He always encouraged the witnesses before him to give full and complete answers. It is they people McCarthy "grilled" who were reluctant to tell the truth. Speaking of the truth, you can see that famous "Have you no shame, sir?" speech by Jack Welch the Army's counsel. You can see how rude and sarcastic Welch was to Roy Cohn and how McCarthy finally got tired of his hypocracy and called him on it. Then Welch gave his obviously rehearsed speech. McCarthy asked, "What have I said that is not the truth?" What indeed?
Here's my response...
Wow. Sure, I watched it. McCarthy sweats, stammers, bumbles his way through it. He sure looks and sounds like a jerk. But I don't take it too seriously. Whether you're pro or con McCarthy, you'd have to be nuts to recommend this film to anyone. I take it you're not a serious movie critic. And you're not familiar with the work of Emile de Antonio. What's an eye opener is that you were watching something that was part fictitious and didn't even know it. Or else you surely would have mentioned that little important fact.But what's interesting is that the thread/OP was not posted by "Generic."
http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/31/emile_de_antonio.html
An excerpt[quote]My films are a kind of history of the United States in the days of the Cold War. They are episodic disjunctive histories. They're not like a written history which moves magisterially from the beginning to the end. They're chaotic; they're made by a chaotic person and his interests.
EDA: McCarthy was really paper to begin with. The soft part about McCarthy was he was always upset that the people he maligned, people he made, were angry. He couldn't understand why.
BJ: You catch that very well in your film Point of Order.
Q: Yeah, where he says, “Where are you going? How can you be walking out on me?”
EDA: That ending is fictitious, of course. It's made by me. That's the world walking out.
BJ: Was the court reporter made by you?
EDA: I put that in intentionally.
BJ: Yeah, but was that a shot you filmed separately?
EDA: No, no. I bought that. See, the film, the primary influence in that film is John Cage, who is a dear friend of mine, who influenced Robert Rauschenberg. It's that art can be made out of junk as much as it can out of beautifully shot stuff. In fact, most beautifully shot stuff, the way it's shot in Hollywood, is *beep* and not worth looking at.
BJ: A lot of movies now are just gorgeous to look at.
EDA: Gorgeous to look at, and I don't go. This stuff is raw, art brut, and all that. But I wanted people to see what a 35 millimetre shot would look like at that time, so I went and bought a 35 millimetre sequence that was only a few seconds, that was taken by the newsreels. It's actually beautiful.
BJ: And it's that?
EDA: And that's it.
BJ: 'Cause it pops out at you like that.
EDA: It's supposed to pop out. It's saying, “Look, this is the way film in black and white can look, but the rest of the film is really so much more significant than the courtroom stenographer doing this ridiculous thing is. That's why it's there”.
It was posted by "notmenotme."
The troll assumed that he could simply change "notmenotme," the ID of the humiliated sock puppet that was destroyed, to "Generic."
But he (Generic) forgot to read the many other posters and their remarks or debate addressed to "notmenotme" (a.k.a. Generic).
In fact, there is not one response addressed to "Generic."
Like this one...
by Lucky-Dan (Fri Feb 17 2006 08:25:04)Or this one...
notmenotme, I've been following this tete-a-tete with lawtarantino with great interest and I have to say: You should know when it's time to give up. You've met your match this time, my friend.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/board/flat/35952991?p=5
by Generic_Login (Wed Feb 22 2006 19:52:56)So we now have Generic responding even though the post was clearly addressed to "notmenotme."
My ears have been burning.
"---Notmenotme straightening me out? He hasn't replied to my posting regarding Budenz. He never mentioned Budenz. I pointed out that Budenz was the witness in the website he gave me. I said that I knew about Budenz. - lawtarantino"
I wouldn't call it straightening you out, lawtarantino.
And there are many other posts just like that one. I call it quite hilarious, indeed.
So you changed your humiliated sock puppet ID "notmenotme" to "Generic" but forgot to read the many posts that respond to you as "notmenotme." Too good to be true.
"Go ahead, make my day" share