+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Interesting view on Lord of the Rings (/thread-5590.html)
Pages:
1
2
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Doc - 10-03-2005
Do Balrogs have wings?
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - whyBish - 10-03-2005
Jeunemaitre,Sep 30 2005, 01:34 AM Wrote:They all have their epic heroes and tales (and most, oddly enough, have some story of a great flood)And many also have stories about the sun slowing down and or reversing direction in the sky...
[right][snapback]90487[/snapback][/right]
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - whyBish - 10-03-2005
Occhidiangela,Sep 30 2005, 03:17 AM Wrote:The article strikes me as a rehash of the standard Gnostic and Satanist lines that the Devil suffers from having been the subject of a vicious PR campaign, and is really an alright guy, is a rebel with a righteous cause, and all that other Gnostic wheeze. While an interesting line of inquiry, particularly considering the Apocrypha, it comes up short in an absolute sense.
... it is in method of leadership that the universal moral dichotomy comes out, ...
Occhi
[right][snapback]90491[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, I've tried that line a few times with fundamentalists... makes for interesting debate for about two minutes if that :(
As to leadership being a (the?) key indicator, I'd definately argue against that. Perhaps if all sides reported the leadership in the same way then it would have more weight, but as you know even GWB actions in Iraq can be painted as the dictatorial actions of the third atichrist (ignoring the democratic process of the U.N., motivated by oil etc.etc.), or as the only person with the balls to do the dirty work to clean up the world and save us from terrorists, or any other tangent that fits (e.g. puppet of XYZ, servant of the American people, victim of poor advice, well meaning but misguided etc).
(Sorry to pick GWB as the example, but I figured if I picked Mr H. then the thread is defacto finished :P )
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - whyBish - 10-03-2005
jahcs,Sep 30 2005, 12:45 PM Wrote:History may be written by the victors, but that doesn't neccesarily make the victors wrong.
[right][snapback]90562[/snapback][/right]
Yes but having a victor and a vanquished implies that there is more than one side to the story, with each side providing enough motivation to engage in conflict.
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Occhidiangela - 10-03-2005
whyBish,Oct 2 2005, 11:36 PM Wrote:Yeah, I've tried that line a few times with fundamentalists... makes for interesting debate for about two minutes if that :(
As to leadership being a (the?) key indicator, I'd definately argue against that. Perhaps if all sides reported the leadership in the same way then it would have more weight, but as you know even GWB actions in Iraq can be painted as the dictatorial actions of the third atichrist (ignoring the democratic process of the U.N., motivated by oil etc.etc.), or as the only person with the balls to do the dirty work to clean up the world and save us from terrorists, or any other tangent that fits (e.g. puppet of XYZ, servant of the American people, victim of poor advice, well meaning but misguided etc).
(Sorry to pick GWB as the example, but I figured if I picked Mr H. then the thread is defacto finished :P )
[right][snapback]90808[/snapback][/right]
GWB is indeed a suitable subject for a study in leadership, and such criticism as he warrants comes with the badge. The only problem with so much of the criticism is that is starts on a level of personal vitriol, rather than on the merits of his administration's successes and failures in policy. That he has a constancy of purpose is admirable, to some, though he is probably the poster child for a well worn phrase often used ironically in military circles:
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt." ;)
Before critiquing the Iraq mess, one would do well to read Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly" (circa 1984 publishing date) to get a good look at the propensity for governments/powers that be, to undertake counter productive policies with a will. She gave Mr H a pass, due to her criterion for "folly." Also, the ox she wished to gore was the American Government, for her own reasons.
Occhi
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Minionman - 10-03-2005
whyBish,Oct 2 2005, 11:36 PM Wrote:(Sorry to pick GWB as the example, but I figured if I picked Mr H. then the thread is defacto finished :P )
[right][snapback]90808[/snapback][/right]
Who's Mr. H? would make these two posts make a lot more sense.
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Doc - 10-03-2005
Minionman,Oct 3 2005, 04:15 PM Wrote:Who's Mr. H? would make these two posts make a lot more sense.
[right][snapback]90895[/snapback][/right]
Mr. Hand?
OH NOES MR. BILL!
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Assur - 10-04-2005
Minionman,Oct 3 2005, 09:15 PM Wrote:Who's Mr. H? would make these two posts make a lot more sense.
[right][snapback]90895[/snapback][/right]
A.H.
Ring any bells?
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Doc - 10-04-2005
Assur,Oct 3 2005, 09:10 PM Wrote:A.H.
Ring any bells?
[right][snapback]90940[/snapback][/right]
Anita Hanchob?
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Minionman - 10-04-2005
Assur,Oct 3 2005, 08:10 PM Wrote:A.H.
Ring any bells?
[right][snapback]90940[/snapback][/right]
Not really. (guesses he will feel pretty stupid when actual person is explained.)
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Griselda - 10-04-2005
Minionman,Oct 3 2005, 07:15 PM Wrote:Not really. (guesses he will feel pretty stupid when actual person is explained.)
[right][snapback]90943[/snapback][/right]
Well, I suspect that mentioning his name might cause someone to invoke Godwin's law.
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Vandiablo - 10-04-2005
Minionman,Oct 4 2005, 02:15 AM Wrote:Not really. (guesses he will feel pretty stupid when actual person is explained.)
[right][snapback]90943[/snapback][/right]
Yep, you'll feel pretty stupid when you next use a $10 bill...
cuz it's Alexander Hamilton!!
Yes, the founding father who wished to see a strong central government, with a strong executive. Contrast this to Jefferson ($2.05), who was afraid that an exec would wield too much power.
Now we see that Alex got his wish, and now we see that it was Tom who had it right. The Dark Lord rules behind the throne. The little man who gives the speeches is the Mouth of Karl.
But be careful! If you criticize the king, er, executive, you'll be labeled as treasonous, I mean, unpatriotic, and will be hanged, er, belittled.
-V
Dishwasher
The Forsaken Inn
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - whyBish - 10-04-2005
Minionman,Oct 4 2005, 10:15 AM Wrote:Who's Mr. H? would make these two posts make a lot more sense.Don't worry, it's just an obscure 20C reference to some German book writer that did a stint leading the country. It didn't turn out too well for him in the end.
[right][snapback]90895[/snapback][/right]
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Minionman - 10-04-2005
Ah.
Interesting view on Lord of the Rings - Occhidiangela - 10-04-2005
Vandiablo,Oct 3 2005, 10:16 PM Wrote:Yep, you'll feel pretty stupid when you next use a $10 bill...
cuz it's Alexander Hamilton!!
Yes, the founding father who wished to see a strong central government, with a strong executive. Contrast this to Jefferson ($2.05), who was afraid that an exec would wield too much power.
Now we see that Alex got his wish, and now we see that it was Tom who had it right. The Dark Lord rules behind the throne. The little man who gives the speeches is the Mouth of Karl.
But be careful! If you criticize the king, er, executive, you'll be labeled as treasonous, I mean, unpatriotic, and will be hanged, er, belittled.
-V
Dishwasher
The Forsaken Inn
[right][snapback]90951[/snapback][/right]
AH wasn't as dumb as he looked during that duel with Aaron Burr. :blink:
Jefferson wasn't all right, although it took Andrew Jackson's (AJ's) populism to bring that to the political fore.
Jefferson was also, in some matters, a complete idiot.
The man who wanted to expand his nation's borders and rule/influence a continent could not be bothered to construct a Navy, although he sent such as he inherited off to kick some butt on the Shores of Tripoli. In maritime matters, he chose to pursue "floating gun platforms" as a cost effective method of maritime defense. You get what you pay for. He did not GET that in maritime matters, the battle of the first salvo is decisive, and little boats on the Potomac were merely target practice for even a sloop. More with less tends to get you less . . .
Occhi