| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Stapler
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Lolita(1962) |
 |
|
Geez, what was all the controversy here? Sue Lyon never showed her cooch
even once! |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
TBerk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
Try again.
TBerk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Flasherly
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
On Jul 12, 1:56 pm, Mike O'Sullivan <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
A realistic movie will never be made of Lolita. In the novel the girl
was 12 years old. Both actresses who have tried the role appear to be 17
at least.
|
Hardly. Besides, I fail to see why realism, facets of actuality, in
as much fare given for what's "read into" a novel --
conceptualizations vaguely shrouded beneath the veneer of distance
separating forward motion to rend images -- need necessarily allude to
stray far from what most we see in, likewise, their considered reading
-- that need it ought then sufficiently be lubricious to a prurient
scintillation derived, so be it the case;-- for, rather than to
redress Dominique by a quality Irons stretches most fitfully into such
an obsessive honeypot granted a minor by few years that distinction,
in what cool imperturbability reveals between statuesque alabaster a
twelve-year-old yields, her white, white thighs lain and spread agape
-- bound from form and what I should think you chance to miss over a
subsequent revelation, the second-most delivery makes apparent to
consequent factors mismatched for a nubile due psychological
development.
--
http://www.andrewfolan.com/03digital/dig08.html |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
TBerk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
On Jul 12, 1:43 pm, Captain Infinity <Infin...@captaininfinity.us>
wrote:
| Quote: | Once Upon A Time,
Flasherly wrote:
On Jul 12, 1:56 pm, Mike O'Sullivan <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
A realistic movie will never be made of Lolita. In the novel the girl
was 12 years old. Both actresses who have tried the role appear to be 17
at least.
Hardly. Besides, I fail to see why realism, facets of actuality, in
as much fare given for what's "read into" a novel --
conceptualizations vaguely shrouded beneath the veneer of distance
separating forward motion to rend images -- need necessarily allude to
stray far from what most we see in, likewise, their considered reading
-- that need it ought then sufficiently be lubricious to a prurient
scintillation derived, so be it the case;-- for, rather than to
redress Dominique by a quality Irons stretches most fitfully into such
an obsessive honeypot granted a minor by few years that distinction,
in what cool imperturbability reveals between statuesque alabaster a
twelve-year-old yields, her white, white thighs lain and spread agape
-- bound from form and what I should think you chance to miss over a
subsequent revelation, the second-most delivery makes apparent to
consequent factors mismatched for a nubile due psychological
development.
I haven't the slightest idea what you just said but whatever it was it made
me want to take a bath and scrub myself rid of it.
**
Captain Infinity
|
Flashery aaaaalmost makes sense with that one, but his phrases are too
disjointed this time and I _believe_ he is missing some small
connecting words. (I think they fell out due to rough treatment of the
English Language.)
TBerk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Flasherly
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
On Jul 12, 4:28 pm, "Stapler" <stap...@tmp.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Flasherly wrote:
On Jul 12, 1:56 pm, Mike O'Sullivan <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
A realistic movie will never be made of Lolita. In the novel the girl
was 12 years old. Both actresses who have tried the role appear to
be 17 at least.
Hardly. Besides, I fail to see why realism, facets of actuality, in
as much fare given for what's "read into" a novel --
conceptualizations vaguely shrouded beneath the veneer of distance
separating forward motion to rend images -- need necessarily allude to
stray far from what most we see in, likewise, their considered reading
-- that need it ought then sufficiently be lubricious to a prurient
scintillation derived, so be it the case;-- for, rather than to
redress Dominique by a quality Irons stretches most fitfully into such
an obsessive honeypot granted a minor by few years that distinction,
in what cool imperturbability reveals between statuesque alabaster a
twelve-year-old yields, her white, white thighs lain and spread agape
-- bound from form and what I should think you chance to miss over a
subsequent revelation, the second-most delivery makes apparent to
consequent factors mismatched for a nubile due psychological
development.
WTF was that shiznit?
|
Precisely. Over what to arise to mount in the best of all fashion. A
mere curio on my part to conceive you'd qualify a twelve-year-old.
Fair's fair -- rest assured, Shakespeare no doubt saw more afar a
range developing pubescence cedes, than anything impressed like a
brand seared by a hot iron across the cosmic forebodings of my
memories, ages past. A mere wee mite of tyke, hardly to doubt having
eclipsed second-form schooling, when I turn to gaze upon her, a most
rapturous thirteen-year-old of an oak, standing at the school bus
stop, in a brick shithouse fit for what compulsion composure regale
these manners I related, as I understood them, in a wind such as this
tremulously when driven, writhing and reeling about oneself all the
while. Hardly from a state of equanimity I now can call upon to
discuss with you reasons I'd hope already illustrated, if not then a
priori, somewhat distanced in that veiled fog, each might grant to
come and be reconciled -- between that which appears and that which
is.
--
"He thought of the subject only, and the words came of themselves.
Looking straight in front of him he saw, as it were, his argument
mapped out in the form of a diagram, and he set to work to prove it
point by point. . ." -Bishop Wilberforce, speaking on the authority of
an ordained Lewis Carroll at the pulpit. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Flasherly
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
On Jul 12, 5:09 pm, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jul 12, 1:43 pm, Captain Infinity <Infin...@captaininfinity.us
wrote:
Once Upon A Time,
Flasherly wrote:
On Jul 12, 1:56 pm, Mike O'Sullivan <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
A realistic movie will never be made of Lolita. In the novel the girl
was 12 years old. Both actresses who have tried the role appear to be 17
at least.
Hardly. Besides, I fail to see why realism, facets of actuality, in
as much fare given for what's "read into" a novel --
conceptualizations vaguely shrouded beneath the veneer of distance
separating forward motion to rend images -- need necessarily allude to
stray far from what most we see in, likewise, their considered reading
-- that need it ought then sufficiently be lubricious to a prurient
scintillation derived, so be it the case;-- for, rather than to
redress Dominique by a quality Irons stretches most fitfully into such
an obsessive honeypot granted a minor by few years that distinction,
in what cool imperturbability reveals between statuesque alabaster a
twelve-year-old yields, her white, white thighs lain and spread agape
-- bound from form and what I should think you chance to miss over a
subsequent revelation, the second-most delivery makes apparent to
consequent factors mismatched for a nubile due psychological
development.
I haven't the slightest idea what you just said but whatever it was it made
me want to take a bath and scrub myself rid of it.
**
Captain Infinity
Flashery aaaaalmost makes sense with that one, but his phrases are too
disjointed this time and I _believe_ he is missing some small
connecting words. (I think they fell out due to rough treatment of the
English Language.)
|
Effectual in both instances. The filth moreover, whereas a disjointed
roughness I'll admit is adaptable to our OP's interesting twelve-year-
old, as it were, imaginatively situated on the set of the second-most
production of Lolita, posed legs astride Jeremy Iron's lap to
proclaim: 'You're big [inside me] and it's still uncomfortable.'
Apart from the consternation of Daughters of the America, so stated as
matter of fact in an advancing womanhood, for inconveniences to bestow
upon her that knowledge, a physicality and condition by which she
accords by mere inconvenience, no less consistent to the good
professor's selection. Twelve-, or an ostensibly so-called vixens for
portrayal by sixteen-, dear me, my goodness, and whatever is for well
of something-beyond a few elder years, give or take, as you see fit;--
it needn't matter as much to me where such demarcations are drawn.
Perhaps but for convenience sake that so broadly bestowed upon a
woman, these manners fit she chooses to spread her thighs;-- that, I
should think, to a gentlemanly art which doth yet linger and think
first of a taste flavoring such composures, to judge all the better
whether she be receptive and rightly fitted.
--
“Every city has a sex and an age which have nothing to do with
demography. Rome is feminine. So is Odessa. London is a teenager, an
urchin, and, in this, hasn't changed since the time of Dickens. Paris,
I believe, is a man in his twenties in love with an older woman.” -
John Berger (English Painter) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mike O'Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
Stapler wrote:
| Quote: | Geez, what was all the controversy here? Sue Lyon never showed her cooch
even once!
A realistic movie will never be made of Lolita. In the novel the girl |
was 12 years old. Both actresses who have tried the role appear to be 17
at least. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Stapler
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | Stapler wrote:
Geez, what was all the controversy here? Sue Lyon never showed her
cooch even once!
A realistic movie will never be made of Lolita. In the novel the girl
was 12 years old. Both actresses who have tried the role appear to be
17 at least.
|
Typical Puritan morality at work suppressing art. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Stapler
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
Flasherly wrote:
| Quote: | On Jul 12, 1:56 pm, Mike O'Sullivan <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
A realistic movie will never be made of Lolita. In the novel the girl
was 12 years old. Both actresses who have tried the role appear to
be 17 at least.
Hardly. Besides, I fail to see why realism, facets of actuality, in
as much fare given for what's "read into" a novel --
conceptualizations vaguely shrouded beneath the veneer of distance
separating forward motion to rend images -- need necessarily allude to
stray far from what most we see in, likewise, their considered reading
-- that need it ought then sufficiently be lubricious to a prurient
scintillation derived, so be it the case;-- for, rather than to
redress Dominique by a quality Irons stretches most fitfully into such
an obsessive honeypot granted a minor by few years that distinction,
in what cool imperturbability reveals between statuesque alabaster a
twelve-year-old yields, her white, white thighs lain and spread agape
-- bound from form and what I should think you chance to miss over a
subsequent revelation, the second-most delivery makes apparent to
consequent factors mismatched for a nubile due psychological
development.
|
WTF was that shiznit? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Captain Infinity
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
Once Upon A Time,
Flasherly wrote:
| Quote: | On Jul 12, 1:56 pm, Mike O'Sullivan <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
A realistic movie will never be made of Lolita. In the novel the girl
was 12 years old. Both actresses who have tried the role appear to be 17
at least.
Hardly. Besides, I fail to see why realism, facets of actuality, in
as much fare given for what's "read into" a novel --
conceptualizations vaguely shrouded beneath the veneer of distance
separating forward motion to rend images -- need necessarily allude to
stray far from what most we see in, likewise, their considered reading
-- that need it ought then sufficiently be lubricious to a prurient
scintillation derived, so be it the case;-- for, rather than to
redress Dominique by a quality Irons stretches most fitfully into such
an obsessive honeypot granted a minor by few years that distinction,
in what cool imperturbability reveals between statuesque alabaster a
twelve-year-old yields, her white, white thighs lain and spread agape
-- bound from form and what I should think you chance to miss over a
subsequent revelation, the second-most delivery makes apparent to
consequent factors mismatched for a nubile due psychological
development.
|
I haven't the slightest idea what you just said but whatever it was it made
me want to take a bath and scrub myself rid of it.
**
Captain Infinity |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jesper Lauridsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:34 am Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
On 2008-07-12, Stapler <staples@tmp.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Flasherly wrote:
On Jul 12, 1:56 pm, Mike O'Sullivan <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
A realistic movie will never be made of Lolita. In the novel the girl
was 12 years old. Both actresses who have tried the role appear to
be 17 at least.
Hardly. Besides, I fail to see why realism, facets of actuality, in
as much fare given for what's "read into" a novel --
conceptualizations vaguely shrouded beneath the veneer of distance
separating forward motion to rend images -- need necessarily allude to
stray far from what most we see in, likewise, their considered reading
-- that need it ought then sufficiently be lubricious to a prurient
scintillation derived, so be it the case;-- for, rather than to
redress Dominique by a quality Irons stretches most fitfully into such
an obsessive honeypot granted a minor by few years that distinction,
in what cool imperturbability reveals between statuesque alabaster a
twelve-year-old yields, her white, white thighs lain and spread agape
-- bound from form and what I should think you chance to miss over a
subsequent revelation, the second-most delivery makes apparent to
consequent factors mismatched for a nubile due psychological
development.
WTF was that shiznit?
|
I've tried, but so far I have not managed to parse any posts from that
Flasherly guy. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Okierazorbacker
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:48 am Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
On Jul 16, 3:34 pm, Jesper Lauridsen <rorsc...@sorrystofanet.dk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
I've tried, but so far I have not managed to parse any posts from that
Flasherly guy.
|
Perhaps the cosmic energies shredding via one to three highways of the
overlords have been blasting his Grape Nuts.
Or something like that. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Armand
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: Lolita(1962) |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:02:45 -0700 (PDT), Flasherly <gjerrell@ij.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Jul 12, 5:09 pm, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 12, 1:43 pm, Captain Infinity <Infin...@captaininfinity.us
wrote:
Once Upon A Time,
Flasherly wrote:
On Jul 12, 1:56 pm, Mike O'Sullivan <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
A realistic movie will never be made of Lolita. In the novel the girl
was 12 years old. Both actresses who have tried the role appear to be 17
at least.
Hardly. Besides, I fail to see why realism, facets of actuality, in
as much fare given for what's "read into" a novel --
conceptualizations vaguely shrouded beneath the veneer of distance
separating forward motion to rend images -- need necessarily allude to
stray far from what most we see in, likewise, their considered reading
-- that need it ought then sufficiently be lubricious to a prurient
scintillation derived, so be it the case;-- for, rather than to
redress Dominique by a quality Irons stretches most fitfully into such
an obsessive honeypot granted a minor by few years that distinction,
in what cool imperturbability reveals between statuesque alabaster a
twelve-year-old yields, her white, white thighs lain and spread agape
-- bound from form and what I should think you chance to miss over a
subsequent revelation, the second-most delivery makes apparent to
consequent factors mismatched for a nubile due psychological
development.
I haven't the slightest idea what you just said but whatever it was it made
me want to take a bath and scrub myself rid of it.
**
Captain Infinity
Flashery aaaaalmost makes sense with that one, but his phrases are too
disjointed this time and I _believe_ he is missing some small
connecting words. (I think they fell out due to rough treatment of the
English Language.)
Effectual in both instances. The filth moreover, whereas a disjointed
roughness I'll admit is adaptable to our OP's interesting twelve-year-
old, as it were, imaginatively situated on the set of the second-most
production of Lolita, posed legs astride Jeremy Iron's lap to
proclaim: 'You're big [inside me] and it's still uncomfortable.'
Apart from the consternation of Daughters of the America, so stated as
matter of fact in an advancing womanhood, for inconveniences to bestow
upon her that knowledge, a physicality and condition by which she
accords by mere inconvenience, no less consistent to the good
professor's selection. Twelve-, or an ostensibly so-called vixens for
portrayal by sixteen-, dear me, my goodness, and whatever is for well
of something-beyond a few elder years, give or take, as you see fit;--
it needn't matter as much to me where such demarcations are drawn.
Perhaps but for convenience sake that so broadly bestowed upon a
woman, these manners fit she chooses to spread her thighs;-- that, I
should think, to a gentlemanly art which doth yet linger and think
first of a taste flavoring such composures, to judge all the better
whether she be receptive and rightly fitted.
|
He's got you there, TBerk. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
