September 24, 2007
Who is fooling who
John Smythe posted 14 Sep 2007, 10:54 PM / edited 14 Sep 2007, 11:15 PM
The content of this Forum has been moved or removed. It was started by one James Clemson whose inability to distinguish Simon Prast from Simon Ferry has rendered all his commentary suspect. His posts and those dealing directly with his discredited comments have been removed.
Items dealing with the state of Auckland theatre have been moved to the Forum ‘Maidment to close! Ak theatre Crisis!’
Items dealing with the pseudonym debate have been moved to the Forum ‘Some thoughts on Pseudonyms’.
Lizzie Broughton posted 16 Sep 2007, 02:05 PM
John, I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here a bit, but didn’t James Clemson simply claim, among other things, that he believed Auckland’s Simon Prast was “lost to P”, that is, lost to Palmerston? Now, we know he was mistaken. And he seems quite upfront about this. But why are you blaming him? If anyone is to be blamed for the unconscionable content of this thread, it’s those who appalling misinterpreted James.
Oliver Driver posted 18 Sep 2007, 12:21 AM
Come on Lizzie, do any of us really believe given the tone and content of the post submitted by Mr Clemenson that he was talking about Palmerston North. For one if he was he would have made it PN or P North as well as this, his post was verbose and it is a big reach to expect us to believe that he decided to call Palmerston North P when he didn’t do this for any other aspect of his writing especially given that that letter is so closely associated with Meth. He was talking about Auckland and ATC and it was pretty clear what he meant by his accusation.
That he is too weak to stand behind hiss accusations and cops out with an unbelievable excuse is one thing, for you to believe and defend this excuse is downright silly.
Tugol posted 18 Sep 2007, 01:23 AM
So would you say, Oliver, that the many rumours that P is pretty commonly used in the Ak theatre community are unfounded?
Marc posted 18 Sep 2007, 10:20 AM / edited 21 Sep 2007, 12:26 PM
Sorry Tugol, but does anycare care? Please let’s not have this forum start to take the New Idea/Woman’s Weekly approach to discussion. Boring.
martyn roberts posted 18 Sep 2007, 12:08 PM
You mean to say it hasn’t already?
Oliver Driver posted 21 Sep 2007, 12:18 PM
Tell you what Tugol, use your full, real name and i’ll give you an answer.
e.v posted 24 Sep 2007, 05:24 PM / edited 27 Sep 2007, 08:32 PM
im sure you’re aware of the effects P has on a person..in their personality and physically. unless they’re a ‘functioning addict’ it would be fairly obvious were they on drugs. what i mean to say is, that were someone (and i think its unlikely and you’re cheeky for saying so) were taking it it would be no longer rumour if you know what i mean.
this isnt the place for unfounded rumours or accusations. accusing someone of being a P user isnt something said lightly…though im sure you would never say anything like that if you were using your real name..
Jonathan Hardy posted 24 Sep 2007, 06:57 PM
Ah Oliver and all. I truly think this is a bit Hobbity. I have not read the cause of this debate but it seems to me that there are many ways to criticise practice in the arts.
However if it becomes an attack on an individual for some behaviour that is not related to the practice then I find it right and proper to disagree with the product. I find myself unqualified to delve into other peoples psyches though I would claim qualification within areas of practice. Otherwise we are dealing in ‘green room gossip” Fun perhaps and trenchant in the hothouse but at this distance it seems demeaning to lot of us.
I well remember a defence against a claim of mine was fought on the grounds of my own particular proclivities when my lawyer leapt up screaming, “Jesus Christ you honour what does it matter if the guy fucks pigs this is a contract case.” His honouring while admonishing against the language of utterance of the objection none less perceived and upheld it.
The fact is we all know a good deal about each other and have heard worse. Like mad voice teachers who dally in pseudo psychology we can go down pathways that are beyond their professional scope. Perhaps we need our profession to be more educated in the critiques of our profession and that is the one means we have to find terms in common and discipline our minds to the work.
If then we do not like some one’s practice we have the language to express this. Without this we are merely using ignorant personal invective. Who then will chuck the first rock. (my own translation from the syro-chaldaic.)
I saw one of our theatre companies brought down by, a now defunct, muck raking newspaper. I have seen good people brought down by silly academics whole “praxis” is little, whose tenure is assured and whose venom springs from some offence incomprehensible outside their institutions. I counsel awareness that it is better fight in the open if we must. We can lose whole institutions which create employment. We can get on the dark side of our creativity.
By the way loved the way loved working with you on Pillowman. Thanks for some of the thoughts.