From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu_Ren=E9?= <creaturiste-AT-magma.ca>
To: <puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:43:23 -0500
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] masters list


Hi all,

I agree that we should not take any list as the ultimate, all-exclusive 
BEST.
But we should still be able to express our opinions and make as many lists 
as we want.

The following is not meant to attack any individual within or outside 
Puptcrit.
I however gladly admit to attacking certain attitudes and actions.

My goal is not directly to ruffle any feathers, but if they do ruffle, then 
so be it (their own choice): I am tired of people everywhere, trying to 
stiffle any effort to classify, organise, or otherwise suggest things. These 
are just natural processes that we start to try to improve situations.

Everyone has the freedom to decide for themselves if they pay attention to a 
list or not.
Whenever I see censorship applied, I imagine a bunch of small, 
self-conscious, scared individuals trying to find controlled comfort, in 
their own narrow-minded box, in an everchanging world that goes too vast and 
fast for them. I feel sorry for them, but I am irritated that they have so 
much power (out of sheer numbers) as to influence societie's ways of 
working.
But then again, that's democratic at least. LoL.
Ever see those rated warnings before and during TV broadcasts?
Ridiculous! When I watch an horror movie at 3 am, I don't need to hear 
parental advisory warnings every commercial break! Why warn us about a 
little swearing, even during primetime? In day-to-day life, we hear swearing 
all the time.  They even have and advisory warning for a '"suitable for all 
viewers"! Annoying repetitive torture! Next thing you know, they will be 
putting advisory warnings on the street when certain individuals pass by!

Well, this may not be directly linked to puppet-talk, but to me it feels the 
same when I see people get upset for such small ripples (like harmless 
lists). Are we just a bunch of brainless preppy brats, when we get 
scandalised by someone wearing non-matching striped knee socks?  Tolerance 
is a necessity, but alone, without an honest try at understanding, it is not 
sufficient. The best censorship is self-imposed. So yes, I support 
questionning Everything, but suggest keeping it reasonnable by applying 
logic and good emotions to the process, and respecting an environment's 
rules of conduct in the realm of reaonability. Even if we don't understand 
someone's point of view, why should we stop it from being expressed? We 
always have a choice to close our ears and eyes anyways. Of course, all of 
these statements are only completely in a utopia.

Well, I am human, and I will make wrong judgements from time to time, as is 
normal in the process of growing and learning. I just hope I won't be 
executed for them.















----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Cook" <alangregorycook-AT-msn.com>
To: <puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: [Puptcrit] No-one is the greatest puppeteer, bu we've sure had some 
wonderful talents to watch


> My e-mail service was not working for about 48 hours (a periodic problem 
> in the modern world, reminding us of technology's limits).
>
> There is nothing wrong with each of us having lists of favorite 
> performers, builders & such. More importnt is to appreciate talent, to 
> preserve information about past greats to clue in those who missed seeing 
> them.
>
> As far as awards go, in every field some are more deserved than others, 
> and if even half are deserved, it is a plus for increasing audiences for 
> talent.
>
> Jim M who thought this a terrible subject for puptcrit may be remembering 
> stories of when Puppeteers of America tried to distinguish "Master 
> Puppeteers" from mere "Puppeteers". It became a big mess.
>
> That was probably the first "lemmings leap" event in PofA. Many 
> organizations experience similar screw-ups, when everybody gets mad at 
> each other instead of working together. It can be harder to give 
> recognition than people realize, but it is still important. So use your 
> own 2 cents wisely.
>
> The New York Times review of David Lynch's new 3 hour less 60 blessed 
> seconds movie, "Inland Empire" (whatever that means) was highly favorable. 
> I went to a press screening and saw a poorly edited, self-indulgent, 
> make-it-up as you film it pile of crap. There was one laugh from the 
> audience (and not a good laugh), and a lot of squirming waiting for the 
> confused work to end. There are humanoid bunnies at the beginning which I 
> thought were donkeys (more appropriate to the ass-inine film).
>
> The other non- NY Times reviews I have seen did not rave. But who 
> knows---maybe someone on puptcrit will love it as much as I thot it "worst 
> movie ever". (I liked earlier Lynch movies)
>
> So it goes with puppet shows and puppeteers and puppet makers---something 
> for every taste.
>
> I have enjoyed many shows recommended by friends, and not enjoyed some 
> others not recommended by those same friends. While other friends hated 
> something so I knew I'd like it. When you read reviews or LISTS OF GREAT 
> PUPPETEERS you learn to rate the reviewers and the list-makers---it can 
> save time & money.
>
> ALAN COOK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List address: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
> Admin interface: 
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/puptcrit-driftline.org
> Archives: http://www.driftline.org 

_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Admin interface: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/puptcrit-driftline.org
Archives: http://www.driftline.org