From: owner-apple-tree-digest@smoe.org (apple-tree-digest) To: apple-tree-digest@smoe.org Subject: apple-tree-digest V1 #33 Reply-To: apple-tree@smoe.org Sender: owner-apple-tree-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-apple-tree-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk apple-tree-digest Wednesday, August 26 1998 Volume 01 : Number 033 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: apple-tree-digest V1 #29 [Sissyneck3@aol.com] Re: apple-tree-digest V1 #29 ["Ethan Mitchell" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:03:19 EDT From: Sissyneck3@aol.com Subject: Re: apple-tree-digest V1 #29 I really don't have that much to say anymore, because Roger baisically said what I wanted to get across... :) Although I do want to point out that no-one can just go completely "with themselves". Not even Fiona. I have been told since I was old enough to understand that I shouldn't emulate celebrities. While I think Fiona's speech was all in good heart, I think it was the wrong place to make it and she was just re-hashing what all young women have heard since they were old enough to hear it. Her speech was inappropriate and instead of it doing what she wanted it to do, it just made her seem immature and have people laugh at her. It's good that you got so much out of her speech, it really is, but I personally found it to be fairly stupid. The fact is, she had been drinking, people say things that aren't that great when they have been drinking. Even if it was only a couple of drinks. Amber ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:51:35 +0000 From: "Ethan Mitchell" Subject: Re: apple-tree-digest V1 #29 > I really don't have that much to say anymore, because Roger baisically said > what I wanted to get across... :) Although I do want to point out that no-one > can just go completely "with themselves". Not even Fiona. I have been told > since I was old enough to understand that I shouldn't emulate celebrities. Of course no one can go completely with themselves...and it's not an on-off thing, either. Some can more than others. Some can more easily than others. And I'd been told it, too, obviously. That doesn't mean a reminder won't help a lot of people. And here's what she said about her speech, her idea of Hollywood being like high school, where people are trying to relive the cool senior group thing on a world-wide scale, and it's unoriginality to Howard Stern: Howard Stern: ...Everyone see that, I mean, that's not profound. Fi: I'm not trying to be profound... Howard Stern: No, I'm just telling you that *everyone* sees through that. Fi: Everybody sees *everything* that I'm saying but not everybody says it... Howard: Oh > While I think Fiona's speech was all in good heart, I think it was the wrong > place to make it and she was just re-hashing what all young women have heard > since they were old enough to hear it. Her speech was inappropriate and > instead of it doing what she wanted it to do, it just made her seem immature > and have people laugh at her. So that's all it meant to you. So what? She's not going to care about that: Fi: It didn't make sense to you, but it made sense to m--I don't care if it made sense to everybody. That H Stern sidekick: Well, who were you talking to, yourself? H Stern: You gotta communicate, that's right. Fi: There were people out there that understood me. The people that I was talking to understood me. So why even bother? You can respect her heart for it, and she really doesn't care that you didn't understand her goals, so what's the big deal? Why keep insisting that it was just a restatement of something that's already been said? That wasn't her goal. That's not what people who understood got out of it.--I certainly wasn't like, "Wow...no one's ever said this before." Certainly, I had never seen anyone be as publically blunt--or as you say, "immature," but that's what caught my attention. You've gotta weigh it on a scale: her "immaturity" seems to be a small price to pay to really show people that are going to understand it that she means what she's saying. And it's obvious she tries to uphold those ideals when you read what she says in interviews. It's nice to hear someone not just throw something in like, "Oh yeah, I need a goal to accomplish while I'm here...la dee da...pro life." She took advantage of an opportunity--an excellent opportunity to reach all the people in her audience, cause, let's face it, a helluva lot more of her target audeince was watching that night than some dinky interview. Like, thik of it like that. Just because it was an awards ceremony doesn't mean she should have ot follow some set of rules. She went with herself when she felt it necessary to spread a message to a ton of people she wanted to reach *who were right there.* Don't be so quick to pass it off as innapropriate just because people were wearing nice clothes and on TV. She's a person, just like you. She has feelings, just like you. She has something to say, just like you. So why should she hinder her message to such an easily-accessable-at-the-time audience just because she's on TV? What would she prove then? That she can't take an opportunity to go with herself, because she doesn't believe it that strongly. That's what it would've shown. > It's good that you got so much out of her speech, it really is, but I > personally found it to be fairly stupid. The fact is, she had been drinking, > people say things that aren't that great when they have been drinking. Even if > it was only a couple of drinks. > > Amber That's rather black-and-white to say: "people say things that aren't that great when they have been drinking." I mean, suddenly that changes her words to a lesser value, because they were extracted in a more uninhibited manner? I mean, what a great time to go with yourself and really say what she means. Oh, so that's a bad thing, because you're not supposed to drink and say what you mean when you're on TV. So no one's really done that before? Big deal. It's different. I think that's also a small price to pay for the change she made. And if she made herself look stupid to you, big deal. That's her problem, and she's chosen not to care about it...so why worry yourself with it? Why can the fact that other people were helped and that she went with herself not be the overriding characteristics of her speech to you? I mean, honestly, think what you want. But really think about what you're saying here. You've got a negative opinion of something that was essentially a positive message, just because of charateristics she doesn't even care about: lack of originality and lack of convention. I mean, it seems like a waste of effort to to dislike something so easily likeable, especially because of its lack of traditional delivery. Like, you don't speak in old english, so maybe I should laugh at what you say. And you were just repeating what Roger said, so maybe I shouldn't care about what you wrote cause I've heard it all before. But, no, you aren't trying to be traditional, and you aren't trying to be original, so it would be really lame of me to disrespect your post because of those reasons, no? ...cause it's really the same type of situation. Oh, she didn't talk about purple elephants. That just makes her sem uncreative. In general, why bother judging such arbitrary aspects of her speech that she didn't care to fulfill? Would you judge a figure skater for his hair style? Or a beauty pageant contestant for her ability to eat ice cream? No. So why pick such irrelevant criteria with Fi? Ethan ------------------------------ End of apple-tree-digest V1 #33 *******************************