Posts by Alexander Watson

Carol Jackson45 said:"They just keep coming. One after another. "

I've got a copy recorded too, but it’s definitely not something you watch every single day. I need the right mood...

We agree far too much; we're going to hijack this whole thread! 😉

Still, I always love finding someone who actually "gets" this movie..
Sigh.. when I really think about it..
Are you the first one?
Then that makes it even better..

Carol Jackson45 said:"Who were you that I lived with, walked with? The brother, the friend? Strife and love, darkness and light--are they the workings of one mind, features of the same face? Oh my soul. Let me be in you now. Look out through my eyes. Look out at the things you made. All things shining".

You really went full poet on us there..
And that voice... absolutely stunning.

Then there's that sea of actors just passing through—everything fades eventually, especially in wartime.
Even Clooney gets less than three minutes of screen time..

I've got it recorded, though what good does that do me now? 🙂

Hannah said:Sophie Marcea? 🙂

Good grief, she was stunning back then...
Damn, I guess we were all young once, too.

I remember the movie in blurry, faded shades, but honestly, I've been wanting to give it another watch for ages.

David Price5 said:which one changes how you feel

I run into this argument all the time: "What’s the point of watching movies? You just throw money away to watch someone pretend... as if a film were reality."
We shouldn't take it that far. Dismissing criticism like that is pretty much the same as mocking people who say: "Football? Just a bunch of idiots running around a field..." (and I won't even go there)

But anyway...
Like David Price5 said—it's about the feeling..

There are plenty of films I could list here, but I keep thinking back to Thin Red Line..
I remember the poetry of it and how a war movie can be crafted so differently..

I still remember that feeling..
one that stays deeply stirred within me..

Thin Red Line

Alexander Watson said:Hey El, you really need some fresh air.😉

What are you even talking about?..
Weren't we just at the Staples Center together?😉

Clearly, I'm making friends...😁

Mickey Mouse said:When did I ever suggest everyone should smoke weed just because it's "good" for you? It definitely has downsides, and there isn't much upside to it. But it's simply not harmful enough to warrant being labeled a drug.

We’re still on the same page regarding alcohol...
But when it comes to "labeling" drugs... hmm...

Man, if we follow your logic—"it doesn't hurt enough to be called a drug"—
then a woman gaining a little weight once every three months shouldn't be any reason to wonder if her husband is doing okay, right?

Buddy, even you have to admit that theory is a bit of a stretch...

All of this brings relativity to mind—it actually reminds me of Siddhartha..

I recall a specific chapter discussing how a drunk is simply someone fleeing from reality. But then it made a fascinating parallel: isn't a person who meditates essentially doing the exact same thing?

mellowhound8 said:By that logic, alcohol counts as a drug too.

Isn't it?

Eric Wells3 said:It’s not even close.
As for everything else, I’d argue alcohol is a far worse beast than weed.
A drunk can be a menace to everyone around them, but have you ever heard of someone having an aggressive meltdown just because they were high? Never.

I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this, or how you're trying to justify marijuana...
We aren't going to get anywhere if we start playing the comparison game.
The fact remains that we still haven't settled whether both are harmful.

Eric Wells3, marijuana is a drug—period.
If we want to talk about legalization, that’s a whole different conversation. But let’s stay on track and face reality.
Alcohol is undoubtedly more destructive than weed, and we’ll always agree on that, but that doesn't make marijuana "desirable."

driftingcanyon38 said:A person’s understanding of their faith is only as deep as their understanding of themselves. It stands to reason, doesn't it? And if that's the case, then most people probably don't know their own faith nearly as well as they think they do... 🙄

Now, this is a complete departure from the whole faith versus doctrine debate, but it hits hard nonetheless.
Look, swiftcobra15, you're out here hunting for a clean distinction between the two, and then driftingcanyon38 drops this on you, and...?
How are you even going to respond to that?

Eagle 👍

Simone said:By the way, even someone like Goran Ivanišević didn't realize that being a practicing Catholic means you actually have to be married before you can have a child baptized in the Catholic Church.

Watch out—swiftcobra15 is just going to jump in and claim this isn't about faith, but rather a matter of doctrine.

swiftcobra15 said:The "average believer"—whatever that means, 😕—has their own convictions. It’s incredibly rude to tell them they "don't actually know their faith." 😉

There’s really no need to mock Simone; she was just being plain-spoken about the truth. An average believer is someone who identifies as Christian and follows the traditions—attending Mass on Sundays, getting the kids baptized, seeing them through First Communion and Confirmation—but honestly, their grasp of theology might be thinner than a Sunday school student's.
I see where you're coming from regarding the gap between faith and academic study.
But if you label doctrine as an enemy to human freedom, then I suppose even the Ten Commandments are just tools for stifling liberty, aren't they?

swiftcobra15 said:"Not knowing one's own faith" sounds like a total absurdity to me—complete nonsense. It’s like saying "not breathing with your lungs" or "not being able to speak your own language."

I suspect he actually meant: They don't have a solid grasp on Catholic teaching—the doctrine.

Fine..
If his point was "they don't know the Catholic doctrine well," then what exactly does he think a person who *does* know it looks like?
A believer?
Or just some theologian?
Because from the way you're talking, it sounds like those two things can't possibly coexist..
Correct me if I'm wrong.

swiftcobra15 said:Even if that teaching is the foundation of someone's faith, the statement remains absurd because every individual knows their own faith,

Furthermore, a second question..
Quite a basic one..
If someone claims to be a Christian, yet openly admits they hate certain people and can't forgive what was done to them... does that mean they don't know their own faith? Or simply that they aren't familiar with Christian Doctrines?

wearyowl29 said:The old trick.👍

But today, 5,443 children died in Sudan from hunger and disease. Were any of them future politicians, humanists, musicians, or scientists? Nobody knows yet—and frankly, nobody ever will.

There were more than just a few writers among them..
Four world-class painters..
A handful of human rights activists..
One gifted violinist..

And then there's the massive crowd of people who just wanted to live..
And find themselves..

(May they find peace wherever they are now)

hollowviper72 said:Alexander Watson, Alexander Watson... you’re the perfect example of how passion can blind a person. In your desperate drive to prove me wrong, you'll toss aside every logical point and every word I say—simply because they're coming from me. You refuse to see anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion of who I am, just so you can satisfy that itch to tear down my every argument.

No... actually, quite the opposite. I said VelmaX made an extraordinary comparison between addiction and obsession. She later argued they aren't the same thing, but I personally think they are.

Don't let it go to your head; this isn't about protecting anyone's reputation here.
If anyone else had started this thread with these points, I would have responded the exact same way.

My apologies regarding VelmaX; I shouldn't have lumped her in with you.
It is, frankly, absurd to equate passion with addiction. 😕 👎

If we’re being reasonable about this...
You're attacking me for being passionate, for my personality, and for supposedly insulting your name.
The truth is, I was just expressing my deep frustration with your weak logic.
In reality, you aren't even presenting arguments; you're just sharing your personal perspective...

And those are two entirely different things.

You're blurring the lines and inventing a hierarchy that simply doesn't exist.
Though, I suppose you'd say that on your own behalf.

If you really want the truth...
When a newcomer reads your stuff, they instinctively pick up on this vibe that you’re practically condemning passion itself. You end up painting it with nothing but negative strokes..

Honestly, I'm surprised no one else caught onto this..
But since you're so keen on having me check the dictionary (in that specific order):

Passion - 1. A powerful sensory experience; an irresistible urge or desire.
2. A lasting inclination toward beauty and the sublime.
3. An overwhelming, burning love.

I read those definitions and didn't exactly feel the urge to run from Passion like it was the plague, or fear it would lead me down a path of misery..
Quite the opposite, actually..
My apologies, how dare I, right, hollowviper72..?

hollowviper72 said:Is there even any point in arguing over who's right when neither of us is willing to budge? I suppose a passionate person might enjoy this kind of back-and-forth. To me... it feels like kids fighting over toys in a playground.

It isn't about giving in, Gaudrathe.
The reality, as I see it, is that passion can drive some pretty dark human behaviors. But it’s incredibly difficult—as you put it—to actually discuss passion when you start off by declaring that Every Passion Must Be Zealous!
Honestly, that's just pure aggression right out of the gate..

My pushback is really just basic self-defense against total nonsense…

hollowviper72 said:These are people who burn out—people who see nothing but their own flame. You know the type I mean;

-that CEO who, despite having millions, ends up with ulcers, a broken family, and zero satisfaction with his success;
-the athlete who destroys their healthy body in the name of passion;
-the man whose love for someone becomes pure possessiveness;
-the famous painter who sacrificed every other youthful dream just to chase his canvas;

This happens when you confuse processes with human complexity.
The businessman, the athlete, the lover, or the painter aren't like that because of passion; they are like that because of their character. Passion doesn't dictate your life. You either have it or you don't. It can guide you, sure, but it isn't the one driving the car.
Gaudrathe, if it actually dictated everything, we wouldn't be talking about passion anymore—we’d be talking about addiction. And you've already seen how VelmaX reconciled diversity.

Regarding your examples:
Think about that businessman without passion—his family wouldn't be living the high life they enjoy now (and let's skip the fairy tales about whether they're actually happy, okay?)
As for the athlete "destroying their body"—good grief, Gaudrathe, at this rate you’d say even playing the sport itself is destructive. To you, any form of professional athletics is a negative.
It's a disaster..
And that painter? We wouldn't even be discussing him today if he hadn't become famous..

Passion is an essential and extraordinary part of being human, yet you want to put it under lock and key.
Is this your obsession with moderation speaking?
I know exactly which slice of passion you're targeting, but you fail to see that your entire way of speaking is designed to stifle passion altogether..

To be fair, my first post was based entirely on my own perception of reality..
This one is pretty straightforward; all you have to do is open an American dictionary and look up "passion"..
It becomes immediately obvious just how much you're trivializing and cheapening the whole concept..
Actually, I’d go as far as to say you're desecrating it..

Passion—a lasting inclination toward the beautiful and the sublime (one of three standard definitions)

Is it clear now, hollowviper72, just how wrong you are?