Leslie Nielsen and Notions of Propriety

EDIT: moved from a discussion in the R.I.P. Leslie Nielsen thread.

Lecture is a matter of intent rather than length, and your intent (in a statement longer than Will's original post) obviously was to call him down for not being "properly" respectful to Nielsen. You responded to me the same way one time (and to a certain degree this time too) basically because my reaction to an event differed from yours. I hope that is not becoming a trend--you're usually more open-minded than that. And more witty in your responses.


I didn't say it was "terrible" insightful or even unusually insightful, but insightfulness doesn't have to be a major event. It just means that Will noticed it was a lousy movie! Nothing to get excited over, so turn that frown upside down and smile.

No, I haven't. I react to what I read when I read it, not after I have combed through the whole thread. I may get interrupted and never get back to my response. And I admit I do have a kneejerk reaction when it seems someone is getting chastised for not going along with the crowd or the authority in charge. I've been in that position too often myself.

Now that just sounds bitter. No, I'm not claiming any special knowledge, but from what I've read about Nielsen, the man was not adverse to laughing at himself. That's an outstanding ability for one to have, and way too rare these days.

Now this just confuses me--what accuracy with which "it" had nothing to do?

Oh, yes, definitely a PC lecture to set the heatherns straight.

Er...thanks, I guess? If we want to get technical, the definition also mention length, and some of the definitions require that the lecture be "tedious." Though if length is irrelevant, I'm not sure why it would be important that my statement was "longer than Will's original post." Not that that's saying much to begin with, because his post was a single sentence.

Anyway, this isn't terribly important; I'm simply highlighting it because it's one of several instances in your reply where a word gets thrown into the mix to make something sound better or worse than it actually was.

That wasn't a typo meant to read "terribly," it refers to Will's comment: he pointed out that the film was terrible.

Well, if and when you find the time, you might want to give it a quick once-over, because it might have clarified a few things. And more importantly you'd see that it was over and done with already. I feel like a heel going through all this again just to defend myself, because it was done and finished and I don't harbor any hard feelings towards Will.

I honestly can't imagine why it would sound bitter at all. I just think it's something you can't lay claim to. We obviously don't know what the man would think of it; I was just saying what I thought of it.

The "it" in that sentence refers to my response to Will's comment. I wasn't disputing whether or not his comment was accurate, so pointing out that it probably was is beside the point.

Apparently we use "PC" very differently. Most of the things you highlighted don't fit even the most sensitive definitions of the phrase, and even the ones that do only presuppose that we all have some shared sense of propriety.

Honestly, I think you might be the first person who's ever called me "PC" before, because I tend to despise that sort of thing. But that's because I don't use "PC" to describe any attempt to suggest someone ought not to say or do something.

All this said, if you want to continue this I'd rather do it pretty much anywhere else. Email, PM, or another thread. Whatever you want, but I don't want to ruin this thread any more for people who just want to remember the guy's tremendous body of work.

omg. way to hijack the thread, guys. what happened to being respectful of the memorial of his death? this is really quite ironic.

As I said, I'd rather discuss this anywhere else, but I can hardly do that unilaterally. Anyway, I guess I don't see it as ironic because arguing about this is not a comment on him one way or another.

Definitions of ironic on the Web:

* dry: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit"
* characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely"

======

apparently we use "ironic" very differently. most of the things you highlighted don't fit even the most sensitive definitions of the phrase, and even the ones that do only presuppose that we all have some shared sense of propriety.

Huh? What part of me having this discussion now demonstrates a "poignant difference" between what is expected and what actually is? I also didn't mention propriety or "highlight" anything in my last response. I like pith as much as the next person, but it's gotta make sense.

And, again, I'd be glad to have this conversation elsewhere, but that's kind of a two-way thing.

There, moved.

heh, sorry Yods. you had to have known i'm not that well-spoken.

I've always thought you were pretty articulate, but okay then.

I fully expect this thread to die almost instantly, but at least it won't get in the way of the other one, I guess.

ooh, Yoda, i'm gonna have to make this into a signature or something.