Buffalo '66

CherieAmour

Buffalo '66 is on Film Four now. Is this not the best movie ever? Some people hate it :eek:

Ruu_Old

Moved from AH. CherieAmour, discover the wonderful world of Boards.ie.:) We have more forums than After Hours.

CherieAmour

I know:)
Unfortunately people tend to go straight there first to have a read:(

Diogenes

CherieAmour wrote:

Buffalo '66 is on Film Four now. Is this not the best movie ever? Some people hate it :eek:

It's a piece of prententious waffle. Vincent Gallo deserves to be drowned in cat's piss.

CherieAmour

Mmmm...is it your dislike of Vincent Gallo that makes you hate it so much??

Pighead

Excellent film, has the honour of making it into Pigheads Top 10 Favourite Films Ever. Christina Ricci is perfect for her role and the part where Gallos Dad starts crooning to Ricci is classic cinema gold.

CherieAmour

Yeah! I love it for those reasons too! Angelica Huston is class, and like you say, Christina Ricci is perfect! The strip club scene at the end is great as well.
I can't understand why people hate it! I'm studying film and it's almost as if I'm supposed to despise it - It's one of my favourite films ever!:rolleyes:

Pighead

CherieAmour wrote:

Yeah! I love it for those reasons too! Angelica Huston is class, and like you say, Christina Ricci is perfect! The strip club scene at the end is great as well.
I can't understand why people hate it! I'm studying film and it's almost as if I'm supposed to despise it - It's one of my favourite films ever!:rolleyes:

Don't mind the haters CherieAmour. Its a work of genius.

By the way if your interested Gallo is selling his sperm online, could make a nice Christmas pressie for one of your friends.

http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3467037

CherieAmour

HOLLYWOOD - An Internet site is offering controversial filmmaker Vincent Gallo's sperm for sale for $1 million.
VGmerchandise.com—which calls itself "the official website for Vincent Gallo merchandise"—includes a detailed agreement whereby wannabe mothers can pay for Gallo to inseminate them by in vitro fertilization (IVF) or even naturally for an extra $500,000, a fee it alleges he will waive if he deems the woman attractive enough.

The site details the actor/director's physical attributes: "Mr. Gallo is 5 feet 11 inches and has blue eyes. There are no known genetic deformities in his ancestry and no history of congenital diseases. If you have seen The Brown Bunny, you know the potential size of the genitals if it's a boy (eight inches if he's like his father)."

It also recommends his sharp features would "blend well with a softer, more subtly featured female."

OH MY GOD! He is mental, this is true! Luckily I can seperate the movie from the actor. That's how I have no problem watching Gladiator

Diogenes

CherieAmour wrote:

Mmmm...is it your dislike of Vincent Gallo that makes you hate it so much??

No my dislike of Vincent Gallo, stems from this film, and the interviews with the pompous wanker. He's phenominally arrogant for no good reason, with the ego of an entire open call of an early episode of the Xfactor.

It's poorly shot, directionless, and aimless.

The only thing worse is brown bloody bunny

CherieAmour

Perhaps it's poorly shot intentionally as with many 'arty' movies.:rolleyes:
I like the effect...

Anyway, as per my previous post, I'm in the happy position of being able to seperate the personality of the creator from the actual experience of viewing a movie and taking each actor as they are. Yes he's arrogant, there's no doubt about it, all you gotta do is read his blurb on his official website. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the film though...

Diogenes

CherieAmour wrote:

Perhaps it's poorly shot intentionally as with many 'arty' movies.:rolleyes:

Are you sure you're studying film because you don't seem to know what you're on about. No one sets out to shoot a film "badly". "Arty" films as you call them are often reduced to shooting a film shoddily because of time and budget constraints.

It's poorly shot as in stylistically it's trying to rip off late 70s films in particular "Saturday night fever" and "Mean Streets", in terms of grain, stock etc, I get what it's trying to do, it just fails.

I like the effect...

Anyway, as per my previous post, I'm in the happy position of being able to seperate the personality of the creator from the actual experience of viewing a movie and taking each actor as they are. Yes he's arrogant, there's no doubt about it, all you gotta do is read his blurb on his official website. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the film though...

I saw and hated the film, then read about the man. If you're unable to look at the films creator and the personality behind the film and the direction and psychology of the artist, you're not really studying film.

CherieAmour

Diogenes wrote:

Are you sure you're studying film because you don't seem to know what you're on about. No one sets out to shoot a film "badly".

Thanks! :mad: I've seen plenty of films that are purposeful about making things 'different' just for the sake of it (That out of focus effect in Nadja just gets plain annoying, yet it is hailed as a post-modern classic) I'm not saying they set out to do it badly, it's often done on purpose.

It's poorly shot as in stylistically it's trying to rip off late 70s films in particular "Saturday night fever" and "Mean Streets", in terms of grain, stock etc

So if it's trying to rip off something, then it does have a purpose. I think it captures the effect rather well.

I saw and hated the film, then read about the man. If you're unable to look at the films creator and the personality behind the film and the direction and psychology of the artist, you're not really studying film.

Knowing too much about the creator impairs your judgement. Was it not Roland Barthes who said a work can only be truly born at the cost of the death of its author?

Also, it's hardly aimless. Are you talking plot wise or from a directional point of view?

Diogenes

CherieAmour wrote:

Thanks! :mad: I've seen plenty of films that are purposeful about making things 'different' just for the sake of it (That out of focus effect in Nadja just gets plain annoying, yet it is hailed as a post-modern classic)

Hailed by whom? It's a piece of pretentious ****.

I'm not saying they set out to do it badly, it's often done on purpose.

Similiar to Dogma's shaky handy work, yes yes yes I get it, but Buffalo 66 looks terrible in my opinion.

So if it's trying to rip off something, then it does have a purpose. I think it captures the effect rather well.

Agree to disagree.

Knowing too much about the creator impairs your judgement. Was it not Roland Barthes who said a work can only be truly born at the cost of the death of its author?

Generally people who ask such questioning aren't just asking retorical questions they're showing off how well read they are.

No sorry I think to firmly understand someones work, you need to understand where they are coming from, and what they are striving for. Otherwise you're just projecting your own interpretation on the work.

In Gallo's case his unjustified monsterously overinflated ego makes it impossible to see the wood from trees artisticaly.

Also, it's hardly aimless. Are you talking plot wise or from a directional point of view?

I think a better word is pointless.

CherieAmour

Diogenes wrote:

Hailed by whom? It's a piece of pretentious ****.

ok, it's clear that these are not the kind of films you like.

Similiar to Dogma's shaky handy work, yes yes yes I get it, but Buffalo 66 looks terrible in my opinion.

Agree to disagree.

Generally people who ask such questioning aren't just asking retorical questions they're showing off how well read they are.

you were the one who came on here telling me I knew nothing. Surely that's an invitation to respond with what I do know.

No sorry I think to firmly understand someones work, you need to understand where they are coming from, and what they are striving for. Otherwise you're just projecting your own interpretation on the work.

That is your opinion, but this question of authorship and ownership is hotly debated among literary critics and theorists. Some would agree with you and others wouldn't. There are many ways to interpret a piece of work, only one of them is to look at who created it. A singular attitude towards a creation can put some artists in straight jackets. Imagine being a gay author trying to get a message across and having people pore over your book for homosexual references when there aren't any? In this case, I know you said you saw the film first, fair enough, but imagine if everyone refused to watch films or read books because they disliked the person who made it! Kind of ridiculous when you think of it.

In Gallo's case his unjustified monsterously overinflated ego makes it impossible to see the wood from trees artisticaly.

Well I think it's unfortunate that you think that way. You could miss out on some great things.:(

Diogenes

CherieAmour wrote:

ok, it's clear that these are not the kind of films you like.

No I can differeniate between quality "arthouse" cinema and pretentious waffle like Nadja, and the work of Gallo.

you were the one who came on here telling me I knew nothing. Surely that's an invitation to respond with what I do know.

You introduced the fact that you were "studying film" before claiming people shoot films intentially badly

That is your opinion, but this question of authorship and ownership is hotly debated among literary critics and theorists. Some would agree with you and others wouldn't. There are many ways to interpret a piece of work, only one of them is to look at who created it. A singular attitude towards a creation can put some artists in straight jackets. Imagine being a gay author trying to get a message across and having people pore over your book for homosexual references when there aren't any?

Unless you're JD Salinger, and even if you're JD Salinger people are going to wonder about the author's "finger prints" on a book. their personality and what they are driving at. 400 years later and people still speculate whether Micheangelo was gay. People will read into it what they want to read into it.

Unless you publish everything anonymously, and never do any publicity, people will learn something about you. And reading into how an author of filmakers, personality affects their work and the themes that they examine, is whats keeps thousands of academics in work across the globe.

In this case, I know you said you saw the film first, fair enough, but imagine if everyone refused to watch films or read books because they disliked the person who made it! Kind of ridiculous when you think of it.

Not at all, it's perfectly acceptable to consider and reject the films of someone who you dislike. Personally I find Gallo's ego incredibly annoying, and egotism drives his work, every aspect of it is drenched in that hyper self enflated sense of his own self importance.

Well I think it's unfortunate that you think that way. You could miss out on some great things.:(

So my avoidance of all things Gallo is depriving me of what? Brown Bunny? Freeway 2? Truth and Consequences NM?

Gosh before me stands a desolate artist wasteland, how ever will I cope?

johnny_ultimate

Watched half an hour, didn't like it at all, switched it off.
It's the kind of film I'd generally like, but the pretentiousness made me queasy. And I have been known to like pretentious films in the past.

Kingsize

Play fair dodgy knees if you dont agree theres no need to get personal.
Personally i liked the movie but later found out what a weirdo twat vincent gallo is.
It doesn't affect my viewing of the movie.
i cant quite see what you're saying , either you dont like it cos vincent gallo is a pretentious twat Or you dont like it for another reason.big fukin swing theres no need to take swipes at people.
Pehaps i'd like "rudebox" if i didn't know that robbie williams recorded it but i quite like "Imagine" by John Lennon even though i know he was an insufferable cnut, a junkie & a womanising, egotistical wife beater.
Can a film not be taken on face value alone ?

"No I can differeniate between quality "arthouse" cinema and pretentious waffle like Nadja"
Good for you !! you dont sound at all pretentious when you come out with a sentence like that really.

Diogenes

Kingsize wrote:

Play fair dodgy knees if you dont agree theres no need to get personal.
Personally i liked the movie but later found out what a weirdo twat vincent gallo is.
It doesn't affect my viewing of the movie.

I dunno I'm not wild on Roman Polanski, I love chinatown, I'm not affected by the fact he commited statutory rape.

In Gallo's case I didn't like the film when I saw it first, and the first article I read about Gallo was an interview where he claimed to the worlds leading expert in 70s hi fi technology and had used an article for a thaiwanise magazine on the subject, to deliver a one line killer blow, to ruin Naomi Watts career in Thailand.

Theres so much stuff wrong with that, that it's difficult to know where to start feeling contempt for the man.

i cant quite see what you're saying , either you dont like it cos vincent gallo is a pretentious twat Or you dont like it for another reason.big fukin swing theres no need to take swipes at people.

With respect, it was Cherie who made it personal from the outset. If you don't like how I've presented my point of theres a report post button.

Pehaps i'd like "rudebox" if i didn't know that robbie williams recorded it but i quite like "Imagine" by John Lennon even though i know he was an insufferable cnut, a junkie & a womanising, egotistical wife beater.
Can a film not be taken on face value alone ?

For starts Imagine is a piece of purile crap. Look there are songs you can like as guilt pleasures (and frankly rudebox is such a guilt pleasure I'd only try and listen to it on the green mile) thats fine, they're not great but they're toe tapping.

Similar with films, my wife rolls her eyes whenever "the wild geese" or "kelly's heroes" come up on tv, as these are guilty pleasures, that I enjoy, I'm not going to try and proclaim them the greatest films ever told.

I don't think a film, that someone is arguing as a truely great film or work of art cannot be taken on face value. Thats my opinion.

"No I can differeniate between quality "arthouse" cinema and pretentious waffle like Nadja"
Good for you !! you dont sound at all pretentious when you come out with a sentence like that really.

Wow and you don't sound at all hyprocritical after criticising my posts for being an ad hominem, when you come out with a sentence like that to finish your post.

Kingsize

ad hominem.

Sorry i couldn't help myself i couldn't let it go i know what youre getting at but if knew what ad hominem meant it might help.

Does that make me thick or you pretentious or both???

I never said Imagine was the greatest song ever written in fact i was really only using it as an example so slag away - Not quite sure what you mean by "purile" though .....

as for it was "Cherie who made it personal from the outset"
Thats not how it reads
i've read through the thread & Unless i'm very much mistaken you started getting personal with " Are you sure you're studying film because you don't seem to know what you're on about."

uncalled for I wouldve said but I'm not gonna hit the "Report thread" button cos I'm not like that - i guess that's the diffence between you & me.

Diogenes

CherieAmour. wrote:

There are many ways to interpret a piece of work, only one of them is to look at who created it.

Hmmm I think fundamentally theres only one way to interpret a work of art, and thats look at person who created it and what they strived to say with it, everything else is just project.

Everyone else is just projecting their interpretation onto the work and their meaning is just subjective. Their ideals, their morality, etc... Anything else is just an academic looking to justify a thesis.

A singular attitude towards a creation can put some artists in straight jackets. Imagine being a gay author trying to get a message across and having people pore over your book for homosexual references when there aren't any?

Again this is and isn't the case look at industry around Wilde, or how his work was an attack on victorian social morals and attitudes, but could be seen as an attack on the criminalisation of homosexuality. Industries are built around different opinions of authors attitudes, books and themes.

kingsize wrote:

Sorry i couldn't help myself i couldn't let it go i know what youre getting at but if knew what ad hominem meant it might help.

Wow if there was only some website to help you out. Oh like dictionary.com. See you giving out to me making an ad hominem to Cherie is fine, but then you make an ad hominem calling me pretentious rather than actually challengingm the points of my posts. This makes you a wanker* however I'm not going to pretend to have intelletual superiority so I don't look like a complete wanker.



Well I think it's unfortunate that you think that way. You could miss out on some great things.:([/QUOTE]

*appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem

*This is a joke, but also an adhominem

kingsize wrote:

i've read through the thread & Unless i'm very much mistaken you started getting personal with " Are you sure you're studying film because you don't seem to know what you're on about.

Ahem, you're a bit hard of thinking right?

CherieAmour to me wrote:

Mmmm...is it your dislike of Vincent Gallo that makes you hate it so much??

Thats the quote that starts this out, bless.

uncalled for I wouldve said but I'm not gonna hit the "Report thread" button cos I'm not like that - i guess that's the diffence between you & me.

Aw bless is that weird sound you, trying to scrabble towards the high moral ground? You'll notice I've never tried to go for the report posting, you've the one who's suggested my posts are out of line, whiole throwing ad hominems at me, then hitting the report thread the hypocracy is rich here. I'd suggest you'd give up you're getting altitude sickness on the moral high ground.

Kingsize

You must have a wondeful married life you sound like an absolute coc-k.

I did challenge the points in your posts you ignored them.

"I'm not going to pretend to have intelletual superiority so I don't look like a complete wanker." there you go again

Its obvious you hate vincent gallo big deal no need to get personal .
but seeing as you mention it i'll try dictionary.com i might find the meaning of words like intelletual, challengingm, whiole,purile,retorical.

"You'll notice I've never tried to go for the report posting, you've the one who's suggested my posts are out of line" - I notice in another thread you were looking to report someone to his /her employer for posting during work hours & you call me a W_anker?

I dont know about altitude sickness but now that you mention it your posts did make me sick- youre right - Thread reported-

CherieAmour

Dear oh dear. The only word to describe you Diogenes is sad. (a simple 3 letter word will suffice!)
I'm not even going to waste my time cutting and pasting parts of your abusive posts in order to respond, because it's clear that me and others on here are wasting our time with your vile attitude. You clearly don't know the meaning of an interesting, productive debate and spend your time trying to personally annihilate other people.

Crawl back under the rock you came from and do us all a favour.

Aoife-FM104

Buffalo 66 is a truely awful movie.

monkeyfudge

I actually enjoy Gallo's offscreen hijinks.

He's recently started hanging out with a 16 year old jewish girl.

"With the psychotic, middle aged Madonna out there on the loose buying up all the stolen Negro babies in Africa, I felt my it my social and humanitarian duty to take in any young, beautiful and sexy orphaned Jew teens running wild in Berverly Hills."

It's a good few years since I've seen Buffalo '66. But I did enjoy it. It's certainly not one I'd watch again and again. I saw The Brown Bunny recently and I thought it had it's moments too. I'm a big fan of Chloë Sevigny so that's why I hunted down a copy.

Catari Jaguar

I thought it was a great film.

Karl Hungus

I like it when things are spiced up a little, there's a distinct lack of indepth discussion, and I'm willing to overlook a few personal insults, but don't over do it, because I'm watching this thread.

StarryBud

I thorougly enjoyed this excellent movie. Not only has Gallo written an engaging and funny script with a fascinating central character, he proves himself a fine director. What a great debut. I'll definitely be checking on The Brown Bunny and I hope he directs many more movies.

Diogenes

Kingsize wrote:

You must have a wondeful married life you sound like an absolute coc-k.

Wow did you dust off that insult before you used it, or just pick it off the shelf in the museum you found it in?

I did challenge the points in your posts you ignored them.

I addressed every point in every post you made, left nothing out, so that’s a distortion.

"I'm not going to pretend to have intelletual superiority so I don't look like a complete wanker." there you go again

Wow now there’s a point whistling far over your head again.

Its obvious you hate vincent gallo big deal no need to get personal .
but seeing as you mention it i'll try dictionary.com i might find the meaning of words like intelletual, challengingm, whiole,purile,retorical.

Criticising someone's spelling in the last act of desperate man. But you're going to be so difficult could I point out that there are no such words as "dont" or "theres" or "youre" or "wouldve" or "wondeful" or "diffence". Quick tip Kingsize if you're having a go at someone's spelling, would it kill you to run your own post through word before you start lashing out?

you've the one who's suggested my posts are out of line" - I notice in another thread you were looking to report someone to his /her employer for posting during work hours & you call me a W_anker?

Bless, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. The person I mentioned is a civil servant. Who was engaging in persistent cyber bullying on another website I frequent, all done during work hours. Call me nuts but I dislike subsidising someone who spends their day giving grief and abuse to people.

I dont know about altitude sickness but now that you mention it your posts did make me sick- youre right - Thread reported-

Wow more blatant hypocrisy, but hey Kingsize I've come to expect nothing less of you.

CheireAmour wrote:

Dear oh dear. The only word to describe you Diogenes is sad. (a simple 3 letter word will suffice!)
I'm not even going to waste my time cutting and pasting parts of your abusive posts in order to respond, because it's clear that me and others on here are wasting our time with your vile attitude. You clearly don't know the meaning of an interesting, productive debate and spend your time trying to personally annihilate other people.

Crawl back under the rock you came from and do us all a favour.

It'd be funny if the actor you so admire didn't spend so much of his time suggesting his critic’s get cancer, or abusing his co stars.

Nevyn

CherieAmour wrote:

I know:)
Unfortunately people tend to go straight there first to have a read:(

Only those new to boards do that, the rest of us use the forums sub list and the
panel which displays them.

CherieAmour if you want a sensible discussion on a film great but honestly I
was put off posting in this thread by you personally abusing another poster.
You would not behave like that to a stranger in a pub.

I liked the film, always have.
I enjoyed the counter point of the two charchters and their relationship.
Also before the movie very few people wore red shoes and then afterward they were everywhere.

CherieAmour

Thaedydal wrote:

Only those new to boards do that, the rest of us use the forums sub list and the
panel which displays them.

I was new when I posted this and have since learned the error of my ways.

Thaedydal wrote:

CherieAmour if you want a sensible discussion on a film great but honestly I
was put off posting in this thread by you personally abusing another poster.
You would not behave like that to a stranger in a pub.

Sorry, I must be missing something here, can you quote at what point I did that without being initially provoked by another user who is seriously abusive and whose posts you have completely overlooked? Have you not read all of the thread? - or just my last post, which, in my opinion is mild compared to what I've been subjected to!!

crybaby

great film, Gallo is quite obviously a bit of a gob****e but who cares? you don't need to like the artist to enjoy their work

stay away from The Brown Bunny at all costs

Kingsize

Seriously diogenes what's your problem you sound like you need a good blowjob or something.
I'd do the job myself if it meant you'd Fukk off afterwards & not come back.

"Quick tip Kingsize if you're having a go at someone's spelling, would it kill you to run your own post through word before you start lashing out?"

Quick reminder dodgy knees your the pr_ick who brought it up in the first place -as for my spelling "dont" or "theres" or "youre" or "wouldve" are just badly punctuated but are actually correctly spelt- if you really want to be pedantic about it
(I'd kick your ass on Countdown with a lowly 4 letter word like "dont" as opposed to "Thaiwanese"????)
so apologies I couldn't help it ,you were already professing to be so Fukkin wordy & goin on like a ***** telling me to use a dictionary (Dare i say it taking the moral high ground ?
incedentally seeing as we're nit picking -read my posts i never said you were pretentious )


"Call me nuts but I dislike subsidising someone who spends their day giving grief and abuse to people the person I mentioned is a civil servant. Who was engaging in persistent cyber bullying on another website I frequent, all done during work hours."
Aww poor diogenes did the cyber bully steal your cyber lunch money & put worms down your cyber trousers ???
If you really felt bullied You wouldn't be on here acting like a bully so I can only presume you are a troll or a pric_k or both.

Also how is me saying that your posts made me sick hypocritical? surely that would mean going back on my word ?& i can assure you your posts have made me sick from the start.
Maybe I don't understand the word Hypocritical , if only there was a website I could look up or some bitch to point me in the right direction.Or was it the "thread reported" bit - surely that's a victory for you getting me down from morality mountain ???
Thanks diogenese the view really is better down here , but I cant say much for the neighbours.

To get back to the actual point of the thread Your Hatred of Vincent Gallo is well researched & comprehensive & quite frankly a little bit frightening .
Given what you say I don't think you(Diogenes) could like any movie he was in- (think of your favourite movie with Vincent gallo in a leading role)
I'd Imagine that he's not the first or last actor who is abusive, egotistical & would wish bad things upon his detractors but maybe he's one of the first to admit it/not hide it ?

Diogenese :I'm pretty much finished posting on this thread because I've already wasted too much time arguing with you & then recieving your Patronising , pathetic abuse back.
If you want to take that as a "Victory" go ahead, youre great king of the forum, pat yourself on the back, Print the whole thing off , Show it to your wife & frame it .
Maybe If this was a car park & the weapons were pool cues the "debate" wouldve (sorry would've)ended a long time ago.

I like Buffalo 66 & I'm not bothered either way about V Gallo...

Diogenes

Y'know I was going to write a full response to kingsize's juvenile rant, pseudo posturing, and ad hominem riddled post, but it has very little to do with Buffalo 66, however two things caught my eye.

Kingsize wrote:

Seriously diogenes what's your problem you sound like you need a good blowjob or something.
I'd do the job myself if it meant you'd Fukk off afterwards & not come back.

"Maybe If this was a car park & the weapons were pool cues the "debate" wouldve (sorry would've)ended a long time ago.

So first you offer to blow me off, and then you finish by "threatening" to kick my ass.

Kingsize sorry I have to ask, are you like some in the closet, repressed self hating homosexual? I mean if you are, (and you sound like you are) I'm sorry, I'm flattered, but I'm really not interested in playing Kevin Spacey to your Chris Cooper. I've seen American Beauty. It doesn't bode well for me.

CherieAmour

Kingsize sorry I have to ask, are you like some in the closet, repressed self hating homosexual?

I wouldn't think so, sounds as if he's just that desperate to get rid of you!

CherieAmour

crybaby wrote:

great film, Gallo is quite obviously a bit of a gob****e but who cares? you don't need to like the artist to enjoy their work

stay away from The Brown Bunny at all costs

Agree on all counts! I haven't seen the Brown Bunny but have been advised not to a number of times

Kingsize

Ever the Hypocrite I've decided to come back to adress the issues that diogenese has raised.

I think I really touched a nerve when I mentioned your married life didn't I?
I'm truly sorry if I did but I'm beginning to see why you hate The brown bunny - trust me 8 inches is the exception rather than the rule.

I've no problem with my homosexuality I would've thought that offering you oral pleasure in return for you chilling out & Fukking off was pretty much a statement of intent- no closet required
perhaps you'd better go back to dictionary.com & look up the meaning of Repressed.

The fact that you think you can goad me by calling me an "in the closet, repressed self hating homosexual" says a lot more about your prejudices & the type of person that you are.

Insofar as "threatening to kick your ass" goes it was really a joke not a threat & kinda (but not directly admittedly) aimed at the person who said "you wouldn't talk like that to a stranger in a pub" If a stranger came up to me in a pub & called me a ****_er for no reason it would've gone outside & finished long ago.
Im sure in real life it probably would not come to that but I cant help thinking of someone trying to say "AD HOMINEM " with all their front teeth knocked out
But in truth I wasn't really threatening to kick your ass it was a joke lighten up FFS
(I'm sure if i met you in person i'd be withdrawing the offer of the BJ Too)

Happy xmas!!

Karl Hungus

Ok, this has gone all kinds of classroom spat. Kindly don't repeat any of this crap again, or you lot might be sent home.