The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #59418 Message #1735090
Posted By: Little Hawk
08-May-06 - 01:22 AM
Thread Name: BS: The Mother of all BS threads
Subject: RE: BS: The Mother of all BS threads
That's not entirely fair, Amos. Shatner does have meaning for me, although he clearly does not for you, and some of it is quite positive meaning.. I did NOT simply pick him at random when I decided to see if I could launch a Mudcat icon just for the hell of it...(having noticed the bizarre fooferaw that endlessly swirled around Cletus, Paw, the Reg Boys, Cleigh O'Possum, the Little Pissant, and the NYCFTTS...all created by one Mudcatter, you will note). I picked him because Star Trek and its various characters have always interested me, and are interesting in their own right as a major cultural phenomenon ever since the show first appeard in the late 60's. I've been into the whole thing for a long time, basically since about '69.
Although the acting in the original series was, in retrospect, corny at times (and not at other times), the groundbreaking scripts that Gene Rodenberry came up with were absolutely revolutionary in their philosophical implications. They were a complete different take on the idea of society from our money-driven, disunited, dog-eat-dog culture. They were a breath of fresh air, in fact.
You think I am just fucking around with Shatner for no other reason than to fuck around. That is not correct. I am sometimes doing that, but definitely not all the time.
Now the icons that Spaw created were, in my opinion, with the exception of Neil Young and the NYCFTTS, far more arbitrary and capricious than Mr Shatner. Mr Shatner is real, he's an entertainment personality, as is Neil Young, and like Neil Young he's a character distinctive enough...and odd enough, you might say...that one can spin endless jokes, yarns, and stories using him as the foil. Exactly the same thing in both cases.
He has also done musical recordings (although he can't sing)...and that makes him more appropriate to make jokes about on this forum than if he had not done that.
I see little or no difference in my selecting Shatner or Spaw selecting Neil Young to make ridiculous stories about. If there is a difference, you tell me what it is.
Spaw's other inventions were essentially frivolous, just for fun, and that's fine. That's what I did with Chongo Chimp, for instance, and several other fictional characters.
You go on and on about Shatner as though I were violating some kind of rule of order here by daring to use a Canadian actor whom some would accuse of overacting for humorous purposes on this holy forum.
Well, get stuffed. I think you are taking your own personal taste on the matter a bit too seriously. I find the NYCFTTS and the Neil Young stuff damn funny. I find Shatner damn funny too. So do a number of other people. If you don't, fine, but you are not in a position to dictate what is and is not funny on this forum for all the other people.
I have been joking about Shatner for the last 35 years, Amos! Long before I ever knew about Mudcat. I find Shatner and Star Trek both interesting, enjoyable, and sometimes very funny. So do a hell of a lot of other people, and he IS Canadian too, and that matters to Canadians. We are proud of our few actors and actresses who have made a name for themselves in the big USA.
My selection of Shatner for humour on Mudcat was NOT a mere arbitrary throw of the icon dart at the forum board, it was not a meaningless non-sequitor to me, it was something I've always found amusing. It was inevitable that I would choose at some point to tell Shatner jokes on Mudcat, and he is the least arbitrary and meaningless character I have ever chosen to play around with on this forum.
Man, he may mean diddly-squat to you, but he means something to me and Star Trek means something to me. And you don't get that, do you? What I find fascinating about that show was that it could be that good in some ways and that bad at times too...all on the same show. It was most unusual. Shatner, likewise, is unusual, because although one can make fun of his acting, his non-singing, and all the rest, he was absolutely perfect for that show, and he's done some other pretty neat stuff here and there.
Neither he nor Star Trek are to be simply dismissed as valueless, unless you are simply too prejudiced to bother giving them a fair look in the first place.
I do not accept your view of my use of Shatner on this forum, Amos. If someone else who was a longtime and beloved member of the original founding few who launched this forum or were there in the very early days had introduced Shatner...or someone else like him...in exactly the same way and for the same purposes, I think that you would think it was a great idea and you would think it was funny. Just like Neil Young and the NYCFTTS. Same deal.
By the way, there's another one: James Taylor and the James Taylor Institute for Catatonic Blandness or something like that. Spaw launched that one too, but it remained one that only showed up occasionally. Again, same basic idea. Spaw does not have a monopoly here on using popular entertainment figures as the foil for a running joke, Amos...or does he? If so, please show me his license, okay?