1994-07-20 - Re: Come On

Header Data

From: Berzerk <berzerk@xmission.xmission.com>
To: N/A
Message Hash: 438ce7a1ff1dbc1fedb7b97090ac22a0743eb164e874a1c4edafb1476fb6fe88
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9407201541.A9178-0100000@xmission>
Reply To: <199407192326.TAA21515@pipe1.pipeline.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-20 23:05:47 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 16:05:47 PDT

Raw message

From: Berzerk <berzerk@xmission.xmission.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 16:05:47 PDT
Subject: Re: Come On
In-Reply-To: <199407192326.TAA21515@pipe1.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9407201541.A9178-0100000@xmission>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Tue, 19 Jul 1994, John Young wrote:
> Responding to msg by SADLER_C@HOSP.STANFORD.EDU ("Connie Sadler 
> (415)725-7703") on 19 Jul 1994 
> 
> <I find lines like the above very offensive/non-professional. I 
> 
> >won't let it stop me from continuing on, but what's the 
> >point? I really don't get it.
> 
> Glad you posted.  I don't get it either.
I liked the portrail of the wife as being a normal, easily spooked person 
out of a 50's sitcom who was thrown into a james bond world.  Call me 
stupid, but the time when she was trying to dance like a striper and fell 
down was funny.  I thought the whole idea was that this was part comedy 
about this.  I don't hear anyone screaming when arnold trips, or flexes.  

In that sence I don't agree with the statment about "all women are good 
for is..." but I can see how the portrial of a "weak" woman could be 
interpreted as that, and I LIKED the portraial. Just as I liked it in an 
analogous movie with the sex roles reversed.

This is why there was a little :-) on the end of this.

Berzerk.






Thread