The proper quote to define Catholic Fabulation

James Jordan · 20 Jan 2003, 18:49 · from urth-v0301.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) The proper quote to define Catholic Fabulation
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:49:44 -0600
Message-ID: <urth-v0301-2722 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0301/2722.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 12:35 PM 1/20/2003, you wrote:
>This really is awfully good.

Thanks. I had a more negative view of the Tarkovsky the first time I=20
watched it, since I did not know he was a "secret believer" (a point=20
brought out briefly in the Criterion edition discussions, but they don't=20
make much of it). Now that I've "caught on" to the film, I'm interested to=20
see the Soderberg again, and see what if anything he has done with this=20
aspect. But I'll have to wait for the video.

Nutria

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net