Am I missing something?

[Cow Poke]

How could he check it? He was "not privy to what you are thinking, and what you specifically intended by what you wrote. Only you know that."

[rogue06]

over and over and over.

again and again and again

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How could he check it? He was "not privy to what you are thinking, and what you specifically intended by what you wrote. Only you know that."

Either you did not think through this reply before posting it, or you are simply trolling.for the sake of trolling.

[Gondwanaland]

Either you did not think through this reply before posting it, or you are simply trolling.for the sake of trolling.

No, I thought it through completely. I'm sorry you don't like your own words being used against you.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, I thought it through completely. I'm sorry you don't like your own words being used against you.

You are not using my words against me you are making rather infantile comments.

sparko referred to my phrase "come in for" as a euphemism. It is not a euphemism it is an idiom. Had he bothered to use the internet to ascertain the precise nsture of that example of figurative language he would have discovered that fact for himself.

[CivilDiscourse]

You are not using my words against me you are making rather infantile comments.

sparko referred to my phrase "come in for" as a euphemism. It is not a euphemism it is an idiom. Had he bothered to use the internet to ascertain the precise nsture of that example of figurative language he would have discovered that fact for himself.

If only you had done that with "single biggest factor"

[Gondwanaland]

You are not using my words against me you are making rather infantile comments.

The comments are your own, turned back on you. SO....

sparko referred to my phrase "come in for" as a euphemism. It is not a euphemism it is an idiom. Had he bothered to use the internet to ascertain the precise nsture of that example of figurative language he would have discovered that fact for himself.

But again how does he know that? He doesn't know what you specifically intended by what you wrote He's not privy to your thinking. Remember, you could have looked up the meaning of 'single biggest factor', but you didn't because according to you, people are "not privy to what you are thinking, and what you specifically intended by what you wrote. Only you know that."

[Cow Poke]

You are not using my words against me you are making rather infantile comments.

sparko referred to my phrase "come in for" as a euphemism. It is not a euphemism it is an idiom. Had he bothered to use the internet to ascertain the precise nsture of that example of figurative language he would have discovered that fact for himself.

Nobody else cares.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But again how does he know that? But again how does he know that? He doesn't know what you specifically intended by what you wrote He's not privy to your thinking. Remember, you could have looked up the meaning of 'single biggest factor', but you didn't because according to you, people are "not privy to what you are thinking, and what you specifically intended by what you wrote. Only you know that."

Then he should have kept quiet.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

With regard to the comments I mentioned earlier that were made by Russell T Davies concerning his opinion that only gays should play the parts of gays [ and which I considered ridiculous because all acting is artifice] it would appear I am not alone with regard to what is known as "authentic casting".

Brian Cox [the actor, not the physicist] has similar reservations concerning this tendency to cast the disabled to play the parts of disabled characters which completely ignores the skills required in acting.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...ions-brian-cox
The Succession star Brian Cox has said authentic casting, where roles are reserved for actors with the same lived experiences as a character, ignores the “craft of acting”.

Cox, who plays the media tycoon Logan Roy in the hit HBO show, said he had spent a lot of his recent time off from filming watching movies, including Russell Crowe as a mathematician with mental illness in A Beautiful Mind and Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything.

“Both brilliant performances,” Cox told the Radio Times. “My wife said: ‘Well, of course, they wouldn’t be allowed to do that now.’ I said: ‘What do you mean?’ And she said: ‘Well, they’re not disabled or mentally ill.’ But that’s wrong, because it’s acting, it’s a piece of craft.”

Casting a severely disabled or mentally ill person to play such a part “might be exploitative”, the 75-year-old added.

His comment about exploitative behaviour is interesting and one wonders how far are these casting decisions are actually going to go.

Will the next production of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men seek to cast a very tall and immensely strong man with severe learning disabilities to play Lennie Small?

[rogue06]

With regard to the comments I mentioned earlier that were made by Russell T Davies concerning his opinion that only gays should play the parts of gays [ and which I considered ridiculous because all acting is artifice] it would appear I am not alone with regard to what is known as "authentic casting".

The entire point of acting is playing people who you aren't

I wonder how he would react to someone saying that only straights can play the roles of straights and therefore gays can only get "gay roles." It would merely be applying his argument.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The entire point of acting is playing people who you aren't

Precisely the point I made on page one of this thread and with which Brian Cox appears to agree.

I wonder how he would react to someone saying that only straights can play the roles of straights and therefore gays can only get "gay roles." It would merely be applying his argument.

I assume the "he" in your second comment is a reference to Russell T Davies and again I agree with you. How far is such a ludicrous idea to be taken? If Davies strictly advocates gay parts for gays only then he is removing from an already precarious career, insofar as paid work is concerned, the opportunity for gay actors to perform in just about any drama written prior to the 1950s.

And do we take that ludicrous suggestion to its logically ridiculous conclusion? No white actors can play Othello. Only Danes may play Hamlet. Only Italians may play Romeo and Juliet or The Two Gentlemen of Verona, only a Jew for Shylock, and only an actor on the brink of losing his mind should play Lear. And that's only Shakespeare - extend such nonsense to all drama and we see how utterly stupid such a suggestion is.

[Gondwanaland]

Then he should have kept quiet.

Hypocrisy thy name is Hypatia.

[CivilDiscourse]

Then he should have kept quiet.

I think you miss the point of a discussion board.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well I never realised that acting was either eurocentric or was part of colonial imperialism. I have just found an interesting commentary by an actor. https://minnesotaplaylist.com/magazi...hentic-casting

“If it is the craft that allows me to transform into any character, then I should be honored for my craft! I can become anything through my acting!”

This ideal is so wrong and frankly, so eurocentric. It is this ideal that has allowed white performers to justify playing other racial identities in the past. It is this ideal that has allowed white supremacy to seep its way into our theatre culture and institutions in the form of entitlement. Most importantly, it is this ideal that lets theatre companies off the hook for misrepresentation in casting " Really?

She later writes that "It is supremacy that also enables an actor to think that they have the right to perform any role because they indeed are an “actor”. This sense of entitlement is similar to the entitlement found in colonialism. To think one has the right to something simply because they feel they are “better” or “trained”. Excuse me? Surely the skill is the basic requirement. If an actor of colour can play the part with more skill they get the part and vice versa. I would also suggest that if she really considers that "identity is sacred " she might not be in the best suited profession. Acting is all about taking on the identify of others.

I think it was Gary Oldman who summed up his job as Going to a particular venue, putting on different clothes, standing in a particular spot, speaking in a different voice, and then going home. It's called acting.

She also writes that "I’m not saying that a Nigerian actress can’t play a Liberian person in a play or that a Korean actress can’t play a Japanese person"

Oh dear in today's world she might find some who would argue otherwise. Only Liberians for Liberian characters and no Koreans to play Japanese characters [in part because of the historical abuse of the former by the latter].

Where would it all end?