Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS:

rfcsac6....TakeThisOut@aol.com (Richard Carnahan)
wrote:

>>>>>>I observed it without first having read
>>>>>>it in Kerr.

>>>>>I don't believe you.
>>>>Par for the course.

>>>I have NEVER before called you a liar.

>>Is this a new tradition for you, then?

>>But it is "par for the course" in that it is
>>typical of the Chaplinistas here.

>I am typical of no one but myself. And I
>don't believe you.

Think what you like. I only skimmed
the Kerr book and didn't know he
mentioned the flaw until I read it here.

You have no reason to disbelieve me
except that you are indeed typical
of the scuzzball ethos that prevails
here...newest member, Bachusio..
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

Phil P. (phil@nospam.com) writes:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:14:11 -0700, David Totheroh <dtotheroh.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 3, 7:41 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>>> dtothe....DeleteThis@aol.com (David Totheroh)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>it makes ludicrously absurd any
>>> >>>>claims using Kerr as a source for
>>> >>>>evidence of a flaw' in the end of City
>>> >>>>Lights.
>>> >>>I observed it without first having read
>>> >>>it in Kerr.
>>> >>I don't believe you.
>>> >Actually he could be telling the truth... in
>>> >exactly the same way that Clinton told
>>> >the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has
>>> >told the 'truth' about virtually everything
>>> >he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>>>
>>> Your usual scuzzy insinuations, I see.
>>
>>No insinuation intended, merely a sharp eye for rhetorical loopholes.
>>
>>>
>>> >If George heard about it from someone
>>> >ELSE who had read Kerr before he
>>> >noticed, his above statement would
>>> >technically be true, completely
>>> >misleading but true.
>>>
>>> I never knew until I read it here that
>>> Kerr mentioned it. I never even regarded
>>> Kerr seriously as a film critic, since
>>> he was principally a Broadway critic.
>>
>>And again, this still leaves open the very real possibility of having
>>been told of the 'flaw' sans a Kerr attribution but still prior to
>>having noticed it on your own.
>>
>>>
>>> >He also didn't say under what
>>> >circumstances he first observed the
>>> >socalled 'flaw.'
>>>
>>> By watching the movie, you clown.
>>
>>Snide comments, coupled with the typical immature namecalling does
>>very little to disprove my point.
>>
>>>
>>> > Other than as a rhetorical question,
>>> >there's virtually no point in even asking
>>> >whether it was first noticed in a theatrical
>>> >setting or after how many previous
>>> >viewings, because quite simply there is
>>>
>>> no way to establish the veracity of the
>>>
>>> >answer no matter what it might be. (And
>>> >the precedent of his previous record of
>>> >misremembering facts in ways that
>>> >support' his 'conclusions' isn't very
>>> >reassuring.)
>>>
>>> Your usual trash.
>>
>>Is it that difficult for you to simply and unequivocally describe the
>>true and full circumstances that led to your observation?
>>
> Kill file, kill file, kill file. Would this group be >that< much less amusing
> if everyone else stopped interacting with him? I don't read his posts except
> (regretfully) when they are quoted in messages by those I actually respect.
> That's all I have to say.
>
> Actually it's not - on the subject of the ultimate scene in CL, I think I first
> noticed the "mismatch" during a live screening in Vancouver, probably the third
> or fourth time I saw it. This was before the video era. I don't recall if I
> remembered Kerr's mention of it or not, but I suspect the screening took place
> after I had read the book. Anyway, it never bothered me. I never considered it
> a flaw. I thought it was necessary to see Virginia's face clearly, hence flower
> down, and an integral element of Chaplin's reaction to her, hence flower up. To
> me City Lights is as near a perfect film as anyone has ever made.


I'm quite sure I didn't notice this the first time I saw _City Lights_,
since I was only about ten years old. Nor did I notice it the second
time I saw it, which was in a college film course. Nor did I notice it
the third time I saw it, which was on Fox Video. After reading Kerr's
book, I made a point of looking for it, and after seeing it at last, my
reaction was pretty much so what? Why would Kerr even bother to mention
it? And why would people go on mentioning it as if it were somehow
important?

I've always been fascinated by this seeming need some people have to
find fault with art. They can't create it themselves, but they can
at least nitpick. The urge to find a flaw in what Agee rightly considered
on of the greatest moments in film must be impossible for these people
to resist.

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

Phil P. (phil@nospam.com) writes:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:14:11 -0700, David Totheroh <dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 3, 7:41 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>>> dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>it makes ludicrously absurd any
>>> >>>>claims using Kerr as a source for
>>> >>>>evidence of a flaw' in the end of City
>>> >>>>Lights.
>>> >>>I observed it without first having read
>>> >>>it in Kerr.
>>> >>I don't believe you.
>>> >Actually he could be telling the truth... in
>>> >exactly the same way that Clinton told
>>> >the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has
>>> >told the 'truth' about virtually everything
>>> >he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>>>
>>> Your usual scuzzy insinuations, I see.
>>
>>No insinuation intended, merely a sharp eye for rhetorical loopholes.
>>
>>>
>>> >If George heard about it from someone
>>> >ELSE who had read Kerr before he
>>> >noticed, his above statement would
>>> >technically be true, completely
>>> >misleading but true.
>>>
>>> I never knew until I read it here that
>>> Kerr mentioned it. I never even regarded
>>> Kerr seriously as a film critic, since
>>> he was principally a Broadway critic.
>>
>>And again, this still leaves open the very real possibility of having
>>been told of the 'flaw' sans a Kerr attribution but still prior to
>>having noticed it on your own.
>>
>>>
>>> >He also didn't say under what
>>> >circumstances he first observed the
>>> >socalled 'flaw.'
>>>
>>> By watching the movie, you clown.
>>
>>Snide comments, coupled with the typical immature namecalling does
>>very little to disprove my point.
>>
>>>
>>> > Other than as a rhetorical question,
>>> >there's virtually no point in even asking
>>> >whether it was first noticed in a theatrical
>>> >setting or after how many previous
>>> >viewings, because quite simply there is
>>>
>>> no way to establish the veracity of the
>>>
>>> >answer no matter what it might be. (And
>>> >the precedent of his previous record of
>>> >misremembering facts in ways that
>>> >support' his 'conclusions' isn't very
>>> >reassuring.)
>>>
>>> Your usual trash.
>>
>>Is it that difficult for you to simply and unequivocally describe the
>>true and full circumstances that led to your observation?
>>
> Kill file, kill file, kill file. Would this group be >that< much less amusing
> if everyone else stopped interacting with him? I don't read his posts except
> (regretfully) when they are quoted in messages by those I actually respect.
> That's all I have to say.
>
> Actually it's not -

Just think of Mr. Shelps as our newsgroup's village idiot. Most of what he
posts is senseless babble, but it can spark some intelligent comments by
others, as it just did in your case.

He's also a demi troll, of course, and most of the other things he's been
called; he's like an incurable disease that never gets quite bad enough
to kill you.

All you can do is ignore him as much as possible, and make the most of
whatever opportunities for sensible conversation he accidently creates.

Connie K.






> on the subject of the ultimate scene in CL, I think I first
> noticed the "mismatch" during a live screening in Vancouver, probably the third
> or fourth time I saw it. This was before the video era. I don't recall if I
> remembered Kerr's mention of it or not, but I suspect the screening took place
> after I had read the book. Anyway, it never bothered me. I never considered it
> a flaw. I thought it was necessary to see Virginia's face clearly, hence flower
> down, and an integral element of Chaplin's reaction to her, hence flower up. To
> me City Lights is as near a perfect film as anyone has ever made.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

Constance Kuriyama wrote:

>The urge to find a flaw in what Agee
>rightly considered on of the greatest
>moments in film must be impossible for
>these people to resist.

On the contrary, I reget that the flaw
keeps the scene from near-perfection.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

Constance Kuriyama wrote:

>All you can do is ignore him as much as
>possible, and make the most of whatever
>opportunities for sensible conversation
>he accidently creates.

Please ignore me.

It woukd be good for your souls to
avoid slander, smear tactics, and
hate.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

WaverBoy wrote:

>Sorry, but George did absolutely nothing
>to provoke anyone in this thread. He said
>that he noticed it without having read
>Kerr, that it detracted from the scene
>somewhat for him, but that he still found
>it moving and powerful. It was a couple
>of other posters who made inflammatory
>comments.

Absolutely true, Thank you for your
fair-minded appraisal of the situation.

>For what it's worth (probably not much), I
>first noticed the mismatch the first time I
>ever saw the film, as a lad of thirteen.

You mean you're lying too about not
reading it in Kerr first??? :)
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

David Totheroh (dtotheroh@aol.com) writes:
> On Jun 3, 7:01 pm, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 5:56 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>>
>> > David Totheroh wrote:
>> > >it makes ludicrously absurd any claims
>> > >using Kerr as a source for evidence of a
>> > >flaw' in the end of City Lights.
>>
>> > I observed it without first having read
>> > it in Kerr.
>>
>> I don't believe you.
>
> Actually he could be telling the truth... in exactly the same way that
> Clinton told the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has told the 'truth'
> about virtually everything he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>
> If George heard about it from someone ELSE who had read Kerr before he
> noticed, his above statement would technically be true, completely
> misleading but true.


I doubt that anyone alive in the twentieth century after the publication
of Kerr's book who is interested in film *hasn't* heard about it.
Before Kerr no one ever mentioned it to my knowledge. After Kerr,
it crops up frequently, and some people do claim to have seen it before
(or without) reading Kerr, but when a notion has such amazing currency
it's hard to prove that you haven't been preconditioned to see it.

Connie K.


> He also didn't say under what circumstances he first observed the
> socalled 'flaw.' Other than as a rhetorical question, there's
> virtually no point in even asking whether it was first noticed in a
> theatrical setting or after how many previous viewings, because quite
> simply there is no way to establish the veracity of the answer no
> matter what it might be. (And the precedent of his previous record of
> misremembering facts in ways that 'support' his 'conclusions' isn't
> very reassuring.)
>
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

Constance Kuriayam wrote:

>I doubt that anyone alive in the twentieth
>century after the publication of Kerr's
>book who is interested in film *hasn't*
>heard about it.

The violation of continuity between
shots is part of Film 101.

It is an elementary
error, easily discenuble by anyone
who understands the medium. You don't
need a Broadway theatrical critic
to point it out. To repeat, I never read
it in Kerr.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 4, 12:00 am, WaverBoy <waver... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 9:45 pm, d... RemoveThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > David Totheroh (dtothe...@aol.com) writes:
> > > On Jun 3, 7:01 pm, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 3, 5:56 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> > >> > David Totheroh wrote:
> > >> > >it makes ludicrously absurd any claims
> > >> > >using Kerr as a source for evidence of a
> > >> > >flaw' in the end of City Lights.
>
> > >> > I observed it without first having read
> > >> > it in Kerr.
>
> > >> I don't believe you.
>
> > > Actually he could be telling the truth... in exactly the same way that
> > > Clinton told the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has told the 'truth'
> > > about virtually everything he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>
> > > If George heard about it from someone ELSE who had read Kerr before he
> > > noticed, his above statement would technically be true, completely
> > > misleading but true.
>
> > I doubt that anyone alive in the twentieth century after the publication
> > of Kerr's book who is interested in film *hasn't* heard about it.
> > Before Kerr no one ever mentioned it to my knowledge. After Kerr,
> > it crops up frequently, and some people do claim to have seen it before
> > (or without) reading Kerr, but when a notion has such amazing currency
> > it's hard to prove that you haven't been preconditioned to see it.
>
> > Connie K.
>
> I noticed it without having ever read Kerr or heard it mentioned. I
> was 13, watching the film for the first time. It's pretty obvious;
> whether it's intentional or a flaw is another matter.

I'm rather curious as to what someone who noticed it without being
prompted
was thinking about when s/he was watching that scene. The fact that
many
people who watch a lot of films don't see it the first time (or the
second or the
third), and that nobody mentioned it before Walter Kerr, suggests that
it becomes
more obvious when you've digested the main point of the scene and
start noticing
details that aren't essential.

As for it being part of film 101, I got through an excellent college
film course in
which _City Lights_ was required viewing without ever hearing it
mentioned.
Emphasizing something like that in a film course is high school stuff,
like
teaching Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_ by pointing out the
anachronisms.

In both cases, so what?

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 11:57 pm, WaverBoy <waver....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 8:38 pm, Phil P. <p....TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:14:11 -0700, David Totheroh <dtothe....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> > >On Jun 3, 7:41 pm, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> > >> dtothe....TakeThisOut@aol.com (David Totheroh)
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >>>>it makes ludicrously absurd any
> > >> >>>>claims using Kerr as a source for
> > >> >>>>evidence of a flaw' in the end of City
> > >> >>>>Lights.
> > >> >>>I observed it without first having read
> > >> >>>it in Kerr.
> > >> >>I don't believe you.
> > >> >Actually he could be telling the truth... in
> > >> >exactly the same way that Clinton told
> > >> >the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has
> > >> >told the 'truth' about virtually everything
> > >> >he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>
> > >> Your usual scuzzy insinuations, I see.
>
> > >No insinuation intended, merely a sharp eye for rhetorical loopholes.
>
> > >> >If George heard about it from someone
> > >> >ELSE who had read Kerr before he
> > >> >noticed, his above statement would
> > >> >technically be true, completely
> > >> >misleading but true.
>
> > >> I never knew until I read it here that
> > >> Kerr mentioned it. I never even regarded
> > >> Kerr seriously as a film critic, since
> > >> he was principally a Broadway critic.
>
> > >And again, this still leaves open the very real possibility of having
> > >been told of the 'flaw' sans a Kerr attribution but still prior to
> > >having noticed it on your own.
>
> > >> >He also didn't say under what
> > >> >circumstances he first observed the
> > >> >socalled 'flaw.'
>
> > >> By watching the movie, you clown.
>
> > >Snide comments, coupled with the typical immature namecalling does
> > >very little to disprove my point.
>
> > >> > Other than as a rhetorical question,
> > >> >there's virtually no point in even asking
> > >> >whether it was first noticed in a theatrical
> > >> >setting or after how many previous
> > >> >viewings, because quite simply there is
>
> > >> no way to establish the veracity of the
>
> > >> >answer no matter what it might be. (And
> > >> >the precedent of his previous record of
> > >> >misremembering facts in ways that
> > >> >support' his 'conclusions' isn't very
> > >> >reassuring.)
>
> > >> Your usual trash.
>
> > >Is it that difficult for you to simply and unequivocally describe the
> > >true and full circumstances that led to your observation?
>
> > Kill file, kill file, kill file. Would this group be >that< much less amusing
> > if everyone else stopped interacting with him? I don't read his posts except
> > (regretfully) when they are quoted in messages by those I actually respect.
> > That's all I have to say.
>
> Sorry, but George did absolutely nothing to provoke anyone in this
> thread. He said that he noticed it without having read Kerr, that it
> detracted from the scene somewhat for him, but that he still found it
> moving and powerful. It was a couple of other posters who made
> inflammatory comments.

That may be true in this thread, but consider the whole context.
In the thread which this one sprang from, Mr. Shelps accused both me
and Richard of adolescent infatuation because we happened to say
something
*he* didn't agree with, etc., etc. He has a long history of resorting
to
insults and name-calling when people disagree with him, and he
therefore
gets the same respect from others that he shows others.

Connie K.


> For what it's worth (probably not much), I first noticed the mismatch
> the first time I ever saw the film, as a lad of thirteen.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

constance.kuriy... RemoveThis @ttu.edu wrote:

> Interestingly enough, of all the things Kerr said about Chaplin, only
> two
> of the most ridiculous ones have been picked up by others. One is
> the moving flower "error"; the other is his theory that Chaplin didn't
> know
> who he was.


There are wonderful things about the Kerr book, and I've had it
around for almost 30 years, but there are such lengthy theoretical
ponderings in it that I've never been able to slog through the thing,
cover to cover. I mean, he spends an entire chapter defining the
"Keaton 'No'" (whatever that is). Come on. I don't get college credits
anymore for suffering through that sort of thing, and life's too
short. I've skimmed the book at great length but I doubt I'll ever
read it all the way through.

I don't think I ever heard about the flower thing until it was
discussed here. It's been many years since I last watched CITY LIGHTS
and I don't recall whether I ever noticed it onscreen. I may have
noticed it and not thought anything about it, or I may not have
noticed it at all. I don't remember. It's not important. When you have
a scene that's *this* powerful, it's hard to call it flawed.
Regardless of where the damn flower is from one shot to the next, the
scene works tremendously well.



--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 4, 8:04 am, "constance.kuriy...@ttu.edu"
<constance.kuriy....RemoveThis@ttu.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 12:00 am, WaverBoy <waver....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 9:45 pm, d....RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
> > wrote:
>
> > > David Totheroh (dtothe...@aol.com) writes:
> > > > On Jun 3, 7:01 pm, Richard Carnahan <rfcsac6....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 3, 5:56 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> > > >> > David Totheroh wrote:
> > > >> > >it makes ludicrously absurd any claims
> > > >> > >using Kerr as a source for evidence of a
> > > >> > >flaw' in the end of City Lights.
>
> > > >> > I observed it without first having read
> > > >> > it in Kerr.
>
> > > >> I don't believe you.
>
> > > > Actually he could be telling the truth... in exactly the same way that
> > > > Clinton told the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has told the 'truth'
> > > > about virtually everything he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>
> > > > If George heard about it from someone ELSE who had read Kerr before he
> > > > noticed, his above statement would technically be true, completely
> > > > misleading but true.
>
> > > I doubt that anyone alive in the twentieth century after the publication
> > > of Kerr's book who is interested in film *hasn't* heard about it.
> > > Before Kerr no one ever mentioned it to my knowledge. After Kerr,
> > > it crops up frequently, and some people do claim to have seen it before
> > > (or without) reading Kerr, but when a notion has such amazing currency
> > > it's hard to prove that you haven't been preconditioned to see it.
>
> > > Connie K.
>
> > I noticed it without having ever read Kerr or heard it mentioned. I
> > was 13, watching the film for the first time. It's pretty obvious;
> > whether it's intentional or a flaw is another matter.
>
> I'm rather curious as to what someone who noticed it without being
> prompted
> was thinking about when s/he was watching that scene. The fact that
> many
> people who watch a lot of films don't see it the first time (or the
> second or the
> third), and that nobody mentioned it before Walter Kerr, suggests that
> it becomes
> more obvious when you've digested the main point of the scene and
> start noticing
> details that aren't essential.
>
> As for it being part of film 101, I got through an excellent college
> film course in
> which _City Lights_ was required viewing without ever hearing it
> mentioned.
> Emphasizing something like that in a film course is high school stuff,
> like
> teaching Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_ by pointing out the
> anachronisms.
>
> In both cases, so what?
>
> Connie K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm not trying to put anyone down for not noticing it...just pointing
out that it is possible for someone to notice it without ever having
read Kerr's book or heard it mentioned that it was in Kerr's book. As
I did. Perhaps I'm obsessive-compulsive, but I found it to be
obvious. :-)
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: 

On Jun 3, 9:57 pm, WaverBoy <waver....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 8:38 pm, Phil P. <p....DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:14:11 -0700, David Totheroh <dtothe....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > >On Jun 3, 7:41 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> > >> dtothe....DeleteThis@aol.com (David Totheroh)
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >>>>it makes ludicrously absurd any
> > >> >>>>claims using Kerr as a source for
> > >> >>>>evidence of a flaw' in the end of City
> > >> >>>>Lights.
> > >> >>>I observed it without first having read
> > >> >>>it in Kerr.
> > >> >>I don't believe you.
> > >> >Actually he could be telling the truth... in
> > >> >exactly the same way that Clinton told
> > >> >the 'truth' about Monica and Bush has
> > >> >told the 'truth' about virtually everything
> > >> >he's said about Iraq and domestic spying.
>
> > >> Your usual scuzzy insinuations, I see.
>
> > >No insinuation intended, merely a sharp eye for rhetorical loopholes.
>
> > >> >If George heard about it from someone
> > >> >ELSE who had read Kerr before he
> > >> >noticed, his above statement would
> > >> >technically be true, completely
> > >> >misleading but true.
>
> > >> I never knew until I read it here that
> > >> Kerr mentioned it. I never even regarded
> > >> Kerr seriously as a film critic, since
> > >> he was principally a Broadway critic.
>
> > >And again, this still leaves open the very real possibility of having
> > >been told of the 'flaw' sans a Kerr attribution but still prior to
> > >having noticed it on your own.
>
> > >> >He also didn't say under what
> > >> >circumstances he first observed the
> > >> >socalled 'flaw.'
>
> > >> By watching the movie, you clown.
>
> > >Snide comments, coupled with the typical immature namecalling does
> > >very little to disprove my point.
>
> > >> > Other than as a rhetorical question,
> > >> >there's virtually no point in even asking
> > >> >whether it was first noticed in a theatrical
> > >> >setting or after how many previous
> > >> >viewings, because quite simply there is
>
> > >> no way to establish the veracity of the
>
> > >> >answer no matter what it might be. (And
> > >> >the precedent of his previous record of
> > >> >misremembering facts in ways that
> > >> >support' his 'conclusions' isn't very
> > >> >reassuring.)
>
> > >> Your usual trash.
>
> > >Is it that difficult for you to simply and unequivocally describe the
> > >true and full circumstances that led to your observation?
>
> > Kill file, kill file, kill file. Would this group be >that< much less amusing
> > if everyone else stopped interacting with him? I don't read his posts except
> > (regretfully) when they are quoted in messages by those I actually respect.
> > That's all I have to say.
>
> Sorry, but George did absolutely nothing to provoke anyone in this
> thread.

Wrong. He started the day by calling >me< a liar.
 >> Stay informed about: Walter Kerr on CITY LIGHTS: