A 4-hour debate?
-
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
-
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
-
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg. And yet that broken bone is considered insignificant, compared to the other stuff that happened. That's where the phrase "break a leg" originated - it means that even if you break your leg, you still might be very lucky, compared to what else could have happened to you.
-
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg. And yet that broken bone is considered insignificant, compared to the other stuff that happened. That's where the phrase "break a leg" originated - it means that even if you break your leg, you still might be very lucky, compared to what else could have happened to you.
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg
One popular but false etymology derives the phrase from the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln, during which John Wilkes Booth, the actor-turned-assassin, claimed in his diary that he broke his leg leaping to the stage of Ford's Theatre after murdering the president. The fact that actors did not start wishing each other to "break a leg" until as early as the 1920s (more than 50 years later) makes this an unlikely source. Furthermore, Booth often exaggerated and falsified his diary entries to make them more dramatic.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
@Rainman said in A 4-hour debate?:
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
He also was a helluva vampire slayer.
-
Maybe they could have Howard Stern do it - he could spend 4 hours trying to persuade them to take their top off. That would really improve things.
I was only joking
-
@jon-nyc said in A 4-hour debate?:
I love the idea of Joe Rogan hosting the debate. But 4 hours? No thanks.
Recently I somehow found myself listening to a 2 hour podcast of Joe Rogan with Miley Cyrus. I know almost none of her songs and generally have very little in common with Ms. Cyrus, yet I somehow kept listening.
-
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg
One popular but false etymology derives the phrase from the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln, during which John Wilkes Booth, the actor-turned-assassin, claimed in his diary that he broke his leg leaping to the stage of Ford's Theatre after murdering the president. The fact that actors did not start wishing each other to "break a leg" until as early as the 1920s (more than 50 years later) makes this an unlikely source. Furthermore, Booth often exaggerated and falsified his diary entries to make them more dramatic.
@George-K said in A 4-hour debate?:
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg
One popular but false etymology derives the phrase from the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln, during which John Wilkes Booth, the actor-turned-assassin, claimed in his diary that he broke his leg leaping to the stage of Ford's Theatre after murdering the president. The fact that actors did not start wishing each other to "break a leg" until as early as the 1920s (more than 50 years later) makes this an unlikely source. Furthermore, Booth often exaggerated and falsified his diary entries to make them more dramatic.
I thought I invented the notion for that post as a joke. Guess not.
-
Maybe they could have Howard Stern do it - he could spend 4 hours trying to persuade them to take their top off. That would really improve things.
@Doctor-Phibes said in A 4-hour debate?:
Maybe they could have Howard Stern do it - he could spend 4 hours trying to persuade them to take their top off. That would really improve things.
Maybe for you.
-
@jon-nyc said in A 4-hour debate?:
I love the idea of Joe Rogan hosting the debate. But 4 hours? No thanks.
Recently I somehow found myself listening to a 2 hour podcast of Joe Rogan with Miley Cyrus. I know almost none of her songs and generally have very little in common with Ms. Cyrus, yet I somehow kept listening.
@Klaus said in A 4-hour debate?:
@jon-nyc said in A 4-hour debate?:
I love the idea of Joe Rogan hosting the debate. But 4 hours? No thanks.
Recently I somehow found myself listening to a 2 hour podcast of Joe Rogan with Miley Cyrus. I know almost none of her songs and generally have very little in common with Ms. Cyrus, yet I somehow kept listening.
That's the whole point of it being 4 hours. For one, his audience doesn't watch or listen to him in the same way that they watch The Simpsons. It's not the same format at all. Clearly no one has a problem with the length of his podcasts, he's the most listened to person on the planet.
Second, any jackass can recite stock 90-second answers and 30-second rebuttals. But can you honestly bullshit for 4 hours when the moderator (and your opponent) can interrupt you at any point? It'd be a far better way to get to the bottom of who the candidates actually are. Far more informative than the political theatre we're usually subjected to.
I mean hell, it's a podcast, not Columbo. It's not like you have to tune in and watch the whole thing in one go.
