"Silencio Stampa"
last five or six quite the same "regular" sling ink all possible fiction. Initially, clear kumquat, came out very clumsy, but, like, with time, more or less "signed". Of course, Sia "literary production, did not differ by some great artistic merit and shamelessly exploiting the different stamps, but I was wondering the same way "to express themselves." However, today the interest was gone and so's time with all of this to end.
I mean, decided to completely do away with the fiction and anything else I will not write. None of this "diary", or anywhere at all.
I do not want to waste spend time on it, which no longer represents the interest and gives no joy ...
"Modest kinoblog, in turn, for a while yet exactly profunktsioniruet (and just pay for hosting these days), as already over something and leave unfinished work - is to show disrespect to those already spent time. But perhaps, too, somewhere in the summer edak "abandoned" this "kinoblog" finally. Since, in this respect, enthusiasm fairly "frayed."
This "Haste", perhaps, makes an impression on the part of some "mental anguish", but, in fact, it's hardly true, since I have enough As calm and just "tired."
PS to you was "sorry" delete this "dead" log out "tapes", I'll take it on their consciences, by removing all of you first. I hope for reciprocity.
PPS I wish you luck in life. And "goodbye" ..
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Charles Worthington Shampoo
literal truth and falsehood metaforizm
sort coarser kind of "makeweight" to the upbeat somehow previously subject "ambiguity" , after some indirect reflection, I would like to specify shustrenko and other smaller "particular". Though not so much referring to the most "ambiguity" as reflect on what lies behind its "constituent parts" of what is behind the "literal" and "metaphorical meaning ".
If we express the basic idea briefly, then I believe that the" truth "often appears before us in a literal form, but" false "loves" to divert attention "and dress up in colorful robes metaphors.
Yes," literalism "is not always true, in terms of that, because of overly formal transfer of data, mistakenly conveys the meaning of some of the affected items. But "metaforizm, strictly speaking, never is" true. " For "true metaphor - it is nothing, as soon as only a "colorable imitation", where the degree of the most "successful" determines how "correct" some sort of "metaphor" was able to "simulate" something "literally".
I mean, even the most "faithful" metaphor - do not always have the "truth" in the best case - it is only a "plausible."
And now let's ask ourselves, which primarily seeks to achieve "a lie"? Just the same "credibility"!
Again, the metaphor - it's a "spray point". More precisely, "the game with meaning of "counting oneself" extra essence. "When a" false sense "of trying to contrive and present themselves as" true. "Of course, the" true " not going away, but due to "excess fact" is "a semantic spraying.
Is it any wonder, then, that inveterate liars often used as a convenient "tool" romping meaningful metaphors and allegories, in order to "simulate" something "credible"?
Therefore, I do not know about you, but personally I always had a somewhat alarming when one begins to wriggle, dodge, braiding Parseltongue lace in the spirit that "not necessary to understand everything so literally ".
Where ends with" literal "begin" with a sense of merrymaking. "And where there is a" game "out there" no truth ".
sort coarser kind of "makeweight" to the upbeat somehow previously subject "ambiguity" , after some indirect reflection, I would like to specify shustrenko and other smaller "particular". Though not so much referring to the most "ambiguity" as reflect on what lies behind its "constituent parts" of what is behind the "literal" and "metaphorical meaning ".
If we express the basic idea briefly, then I believe that the" truth "often appears before us in a literal form, but" false "loves" to divert attention "and dress up in colorful robes metaphors.
Yes," literalism "is not always true, in terms of that, because of overly formal transfer of data, mistakenly conveys the meaning of some of the affected items. But "metaforizm, strictly speaking, never is" true. " For "true metaphor - it is nothing, as soon as only a "colorable imitation", where the degree of the most "successful" determines how "correct" some sort of "metaphor" was able to "simulate" something "literally".
I mean, even the most "faithful" metaphor - do not always have the "truth" in the best case - it is only a "plausible."
And now let's ask ourselves, which primarily seeks to achieve "a lie"? Just the same "credibility"!
Again, the metaphor - it's a "spray point". More precisely, "the game with meaning of "counting oneself" extra essence. "When a" false sense "of trying to contrive and present themselves as" true. "Of course, the" true " not going away, but due to "excess fact" is "a semantic spraying.
Is it any wonder, then, that inveterate liars often used as a convenient "tool" romping meaningful metaphors and allegories, in order to "simulate" something "credible"?
Therefore, I do not know about you, but personally I always had a somewhat alarming when one begins to wriggle, dodge, braiding Parseltongue lace in the spirit that "not necessary to understand everything so literally ".
Where ends with" literal "begin" with a sense of merrymaking. "And where there is a" game "out there" no truth ".
Do Durmal Anchors Hurt
van Gogh and Gauguin
Sensation! It turns "Vincent van Gogh" his ear cut off druzhban "Paul Gauguin" .
Although FIGS knows what it's there actually was. Perhaps Hans Kaufmann and Rita Vildegans simply wanted to earn a little money and / or fame sucked on the finger "sensation" .
That is, if judged reasonably, another book about the famous artist, listing all the known facts, is unlikely to be enjoyed in high demand (for this "theme" is already extremely "Hackneyed", only one movie about it from a few dozen), but the book is written in the spirit of "everything you said before - not true, but, in fact, it was so, I believe, may well become "commercially successful".
In general, wildly sorry if destroy such a beautiful legend ... Remember, it is that van Gogh, allegedly cut off his left ear (which is also a "myth", in fact, it is not "ear" and "ear lobe") in a fit of madness and alcoholism, and then, wrapped in a newspaper, gave the deposit of the prostitute Rachel, saying "take care of it."
me, incidentally, the father of a child, too earlobe chop off with scissors when tonsured. True, do not remember even what it is, left or right, and if you look in general has quietly ...
Sensation! It turns "Vincent van Gogh" his ear cut off druzhban "Paul Gauguin" .
Although FIGS knows what it's there actually was. Perhaps Hans Kaufmann and Rita Vildegans simply wanted to earn a little money and / or fame sucked on the finger "sensation" .
That is, if judged reasonably, another book about the famous artist, listing all the known facts, is unlikely to be enjoyed in high demand (for this "theme" is already extremely "Hackneyed", only one movie about it from a few dozen), but the book is written in the spirit of "everything you said before - not true, but, in fact, it was so, I believe, may well become "commercially successful".
In general, wildly sorry if destroy such a beautiful legend ... Remember, it is that van Gogh, allegedly cut off his left ear (which is also a "myth", in fact, it is not "ear" and "ear lobe") in a fit of madness and alcoholism, and then, wrapped in a newspaper, gave the deposit of the prostitute Rachel, saying "take care of it."
me, incidentally, the father of a child, too earlobe chop off with scissors when tonsured. True, do not remember even what it is, left or right, and if you look in general has quietly ...
Sample Community Service Letters For Court
image sex god (poschekochivaya "sensitive issue")
arose spontaneously here a few "stupid" but "interesting" question about the gender of God ... On the one hand, as if, he really should not be any sex. On the other, nevertheless there Some established an "image" of him and often say it is in masculine , as sort of Loving Father (which, moreover, at the same time even the Son, and Holy Spirit), but the mother or daughter, you see, God somehow did not call ...
Again, the Bible, the narrative of the period of creation of the world and man " I think there are indications that God is "man." At one point, which many confusing, says: "Let us make man in our image (s) after our likeness "(Gen. 1:26), that is, plural some perceive as masculine and feminine God. But then, in my opinion, it's wildest heresy (Or stupid) as totally agree here with many reputable Christian theologians, that relate the use of multiple number with a clear indication of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit).
Then the same note, said the creation of "human" rather than the creation of the "people". That is, we are definitely talking about the creation of a singular .
In other places, actually, and disclosed the subject matter, What is the "first person" he had done. "The first man was" the man "was Adam (whose name in Hebrew, among other things, means" man "). God certainly created not only men but also women. But this does not mean that He created them "at once": "woman" He created a little later, God created Eve from the "edge" Adam (true, "edge" not everybody thinks the exact translation, but that's another story). And also it does not mean that He created Eve in His image and likeness. According to its image and likeness of God made "man." That is to say, Adam.
Of course, there are many interpretations of the "Bible", but we take the first available (synodal translation), where the first chapter of Genesis says the following:
27. So God created man in his own image, the image of God he created him ; man and female he created them.
Note to the "semicolons" - says one thing, but after - some otherwise.
In the second chapter of Genesis is and this:
22. And the Lord God formed from the rib he had taken man , his wife and brought her to the man .
I mean that from these illustrative examples should be? It should be two things ... Firstly, the first was created by "man" (Adam). Secondly, the image was created by "man" (Adam), and that the image and likeness Eve was created does not say.
Or take, so to speak, "second Adam", "God the Son, Jesus Christ, who, of course, also did not produce impression of "women". He was not the daughter, not an amorphous It is, namely, the Son (at the same time, vestimo and God).
Well, then is not for nothing called God not only as Lord, not Mrs., and God, not God (and not even "srednerodnoe" God).
seemingly "all clear". No, really well - all is far from clear "... Many with ohottsey talk about God in "masculine", but at the same time, vehemently do not want to admit it "masculine." Well, the truth is why hesitate. For example, where there is a "male", there is "sexual characteristics." And if God created "man" (Adam) in His own image and likeness, then why, I ask God the same "sexual member? What does he have him perform? "Decorative" or something? "I mean, 'Beauty'? unclear ...
It was then, indeed, a paradox ... God made represent a sort of powerful "uncle with a beard and speak of him as a" man "in masculine , but at the same time, if rises suddenly somewhere the question of "kind" of God, "male" violently and sometimes even violently denied, despite having a place to be "more than" stand "image."
So it appears that the only thing that really did "clearly", so it is only that "nothing is clear."
another matter that this "vacuum of knowledge does not prevent anyone have some own "view", giving rise to sometimes "fun debate" , where everyone saying "I introduce myself this way" can not be refuted from the point of "precise knowledge" (which could not be challenged), because of the fact that it simply does not exist, as in "Christian religion" too many areas, where people do not operate with "knowledge" and "representation".
Such is the peculiarity of the phenomenon of "faith."
To "believe" in something - not necessarily something to "know". Important - is to have a "view".
arose spontaneously here a few "stupid" but "interesting" question about the gender of God ... On the one hand, as if, he really should not be any sex. On the other, nevertheless there Some established an "image" of him and often say it is in masculine , as sort of Loving Father (which, moreover, at the same time even the Son, and Holy Spirit), but the mother or daughter, you see, God somehow did not call ...
Again, the Bible, the narrative of the period of creation of the world and man " I think there are indications that God is "man." At one point, which many confusing, says: "Let us make man in our image (s) after our likeness "(Gen. 1:26), that is, plural some perceive as masculine and feminine God. But then, in my opinion, it's wildest heresy (Or stupid) as totally agree here with many reputable Christian theologians, that relate the use of multiple number with a clear indication of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit).
Then the same note, said the creation of "human" rather than the creation of the "people". That is, we are definitely talking about the creation of a singular .
In other places, actually, and disclosed the subject matter, What is the "first person" he had done. "The first man was" the man "was Adam (whose name in Hebrew, among other things, means" man "). God certainly created not only men but also women. But this does not mean that He created them "at once": "woman" He created a little later, God created Eve from the "edge" Adam (true, "edge" not everybody thinks the exact translation, but that's another story). And also it does not mean that He created Eve in His image and likeness. According to its image and likeness of God made "man." That is to say, Adam.
Of course, there are many interpretations of the "Bible", but we take the first available (synodal translation), where the first chapter of Genesis says the following:
27. So God created man in his own image, the image of God he created him ; man and female he created them.
Note to the "semicolons" - says one thing, but after - some otherwise.
In the second chapter of Genesis is and this:
22. And the Lord God formed from the rib he had taken man , his wife and brought her to the man .
I mean that from these illustrative examples should be? It should be two things ... Firstly, the first was created by "man" (Adam). Secondly, the image was created by "man" (Adam), and that the image and likeness Eve was created does not say.
Or take, so to speak, "second Adam", "God the Son, Jesus Christ, who, of course, also did not produce impression of "women". He was not the daughter, not an amorphous It is, namely, the Son (at the same time, vestimo and God).
Well, then is not for nothing called God not only as Lord, not Mrs., and God, not God (and not even "srednerodnoe" God).
seemingly "all clear". No, really well - all is far from clear "... Many with ohottsey talk about God in "masculine", but at the same time, vehemently do not want to admit it "masculine." Well, the truth is why hesitate. For example, where there is a "male", there is "sexual characteristics." And if God created "man" (Adam) in His own image and likeness, then why, I ask God the same "sexual member? What does he have him perform? "Decorative" or something? "I mean, 'Beauty'? unclear ...
It was then, indeed, a paradox ... God made represent a sort of powerful "uncle with a beard and speak of him as a" man "in masculine , but at the same time, if rises suddenly somewhere the question of "kind" of God, "male" violently and sometimes even violently denied, despite having a place to be "more than" stand "image."
So it appears that the only thing that really did "clearly", so it is only that "nothing is clear."
another matter that this "vacuum of knowledge does not prevent anyone have some own "view", giving rise to sometimes "fun debate" , where everyone saying "I introduce myself this way" can not be refuted from the point of "precise knowledge" (which could not be challenged), because of the fact that it simply does not exist, as in "Christian religion" too many areas, where people do not operate with "knowledge" and "representation".
Such is the peculiarity of the phenomenon of "faith."
To "believe" in something - not necessarily something to "know". Important - is to have a "view".
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Watch All Episodes Of Kutumb
"empty" - does not mean "Useless" (secret and obvious benefit of "emptiness")
all heard that "everything is relative, but some refer to this expression is fairly skeptical. And, characteristically, "the outlook is, the more skeptical frame of mind."
However, in my opinion, there is no need to go to the hard-nosed about a one-sided stereotypes, if there are some quite clear "alternative", which they say is that things are not so "clearly" how "relatively". And this "relativity" If you look closely, there is literally everywhere, we only need to think carefully and try to take a fresh look at the famous things or phenomena.
For example, I would like to rehabilitate such a widespread phenomenon of "emptiness", which is usually regarded as something utterly "Useless" (that is to say, "worthless"). This terribly popular stereotype is so powerful and so ubiquitous that "emptiness" used to characterize and other words, to make emphasis on quite specific properties (constituting, in their view, the essence of the stereotype). Samples of this "neglect" lots: "Blank generation", the "empty people", "empty head", "empty knowledge", "empty words", "empty space", "waste of time" and sput-holes and sput-Pyr.
But whether everything is uniquely "emptiness"? Is it no alternative "useless"?
In my opinion, "not." Rather might say, all "is not so." To begin with, that even in the human being, there are some "void" without which he would simply "unsustainable."
Or take, perhaps, another important for our everyday life example - absolutely any dwelling house. Agree that completely "sealed" homes would be built to the highest extent is absurd, because so that we could by them to "use", of course, we need to have some access to the interior, and to do all certainly need to make void-door. Because people can not seep through walls, but the "use" the door "emptiness" We very much "by force".
Availability of benefits, and is available in these "void" make them fit for "eat."
So I would not-so "unequivocally" belittling "the void". It can be very "useful" and therefore "good."
On the other hand, are quite clear and the reasons why people choose to ignore the "ambiguity", if any. First, apparently it is much easier to navigate in that they do not "respect" and absolutely "definitely." To-one "opinion" inspires "confidence" and "certainty" tends to be "comfortable" under the "certainty" (within, at least, eliminate the disturbing "confusion"). Secondly, many of the trite "confuse cause with the consequences. "As an example, a typical situation:" empty bottle "curse of the" void ", while forgetting that this is the same" emptiness "and let it" fill. " Do not be in the flask of "emptiness", it generally can not be anything "stuff."
That is, I think the main benefit of "emptiness" is that it provides a "use". And so that opportunity for some reason did not "use" myself "emptiness" in fact did not guilty.
She sort of "open" and ready to "use" and "fill" it - it is our task.
It turns out that the "evil" is not "void" itself , "evil" only in our impotence properly as the judges to "fill."
all heard that "everything is relative, but some refer to this expression is fairly skeptical. And, characteristically, "the outlook is, the more skeptical frame of mind."
However, in my opinion, there is no need to go to the hard-nosed about a one-sided stereotypes, if there are some quite clear "alternative", which they say is that things are not so "clearly" how "relatively". And this "relativity" If you look closely, there is literally everywhere, we only need to think carefully and try to take a fresh look at the famous things or phenomena.
For example, I would like to rehabilitate such a widespread phenomenon of "emptiness", which is usually regarded as something utterly "Useless" (that is to say, "worthless"). This terribly popular stereotype is so powerful and so ubiquitous that "emptiness" used to characterize and other words, to make emphasis on quite specific properties (constituting, in their view, the essence of the stereotype). Samples of this "neglect" lots: "Blank generation", the "empty people", "empty head", "empty knowledge", "empty words", "empty space", "waste of time" and sput-holes and sput-Pyr.
But whether everything is uniquely "emptiness"? Is it no alternative "useless"?
In my opinion, "not." Rather might say, all "is not so." To begin with, that even in the human being, there are some "void" without which he would simply "unsustainable."
Or take, perhaps, another important for our everyday life example - absolutely any dwelling house. Agree that completely "sealed" homes would be built to the highest extent is absurd, because so that we could by them to "use", of course, we need to have some access to the interior, and to do all certainly need to make void-door. Because people can not seep through walls, but the "use" the door "emptiness" We very much "by force".
Availability of benefits, and is available in these "void" make them fit for "eat."
So I would not-so "unequivocally" belittling "the void". It can be very "useful" and therefore "good."
On the other hand, are quite clear and the reasons why people choose to ignore the "ambiguity", if any. First, apparently it is much easier to navigate in that they do not "respect" and absolutely "definitely." To-one "opinion" inspires "confidence" and "certainty" tends to be "comfortable" under the "certainty" (within, at least, eliminate the disturbing "confusion"). Secondly, many of the trite "confuse cause with the consequences. "As an example, a typical situation:" empty bottle "curse of the" void ", while forgetting that this is the same" emptiness "and let it" fill. " Do not be in the flask of "emptiness", it generally can not be anything "stuff."
That is, I think the main benefit of "emptiness" is that it provides a "use". And so that opportunity for some reason did not "use" myself "emptiness" in fact did not guilty.
She sort of "open" and ready to "use" and "fill" it - it is our task.
It turns out that the "evil" is not "void" itself , "evil" only in our impotence properly as the judges to "fill."
Mario Kart Ds Pin Where
mini-poem on the rage "after tomorrow" day
sinister "global financial crisis" for the time being have not yet outgrown in full "food crisis", but something "bad" is not the first year quietly "hovers in the air condenses and" . And there is no doubt that "Food crisis" is coming. Not in a year, so in five years. This is only a "matter of time."
"Inspired" is so grim prospects composed Behold the miracle poem designed in the spirit of ultraminimalizma, titled "Everything is heading there." In any case, hide it under a "cat", so as not to injure the psyche "Well-bred people", which warps and shakes from the "obscene language". By thereof, as we had to resort to more imaginative and accurate communication of where it is "There, indeed," everything goes ":
^ _ ^
sinister "global financial crisis" for the time being have not yet outgrown in full "food crisis", but something "bad" is not the first year quietly "hovers in the air condenses and" . And there is no doubt that "Food crisis" is coming. Not in a year, so in five years. This is only a "matter of time."
"Inspired" is so grim prospects composed Behold the miracle poem designed in the spirit of ultraminimalizma, titled "Everything is heading there." In any case, hide it under a "cat", so as not to injure the psyche "Well-bred people", which warps and shakes from the "obscene language". By thereof, as we had to resort to more imaginative and accurate communication of where it is "There, indeed," everything goes ":
Zephyr.
Kefir.
kebab.
Balik.
pussy-ies-ies!
pussy-ies-ies!
Kefir.
kebab.
Balik.
pussy-ies-ies!
pussy-ies-ies!
^ _ ^
Ohio State Wrestling Singlets
"God loves us, but ... "Strange love"
One venerable LJ-user, which I promised in vain not to mention catchy wondered issue to Gabby flock. Something like that, it means that:
- Write here Please, first came to mind synonymous with the word "love" .
"Return" to write did not want to not be "excessively intrusive." But if I come to argue and look up words, then my answer would be: " sick ".
Well, "sick" not only in the sense of something "painful", but in the sense of a "cloud".
"Scanner Darkly" naturally, "Mind," overwhelmed by some strong "feeling". "The feeling of love." Which, in some sense, "sickness". Or, in any case too, a "abnormal state".
Like, there lived a man a "normal", and then met someone and "ill".
"The disease at first sight." "Sometimes."
way, not to me only a "synonym" fancied ... Remembered that there is a poet Marina Tsvetaeva such lines:
seems, if not mistaken, in some famous Soviet film their carefully laid the music and sang with feeling very soulful way.
And yet the moment .. It is significant that "Christianised" users naotvechali "there", basically, something in the spirit of "believe", "love" and "worship" ... I mean, they, apparently, it climbs to the primitive association of "God is love", that demonstrates how "shallow" in svalnoy mass "Christians" of his own ideas about their own "faith." For "God is love," Well of course ... But we should not understand these things so literally, as it is only fairly superficial metaphor that "ordinary people" as a surfactant and understand (though quite "At his level ")...
And what, by implication, is this "love"? Oh-oh-oh, this is a very "strange love"! In short, "God is love" is understood as "God is suffering," because "the love of God" - is nothing like the grace bestowed upon His "suffering." Not always, but sometimes. In fact, therefore, the sense that counts, "the more a person suffer, the closer it is to God and say, therefore, obtained by "suffering" people would be worth considered as "special grace of God" . suffering man, so a way likened to someone not anyhow, but Jesus Christ himself, who allegedly also "for all of us suffer."
to "believers" on the idea that Jesus Christ must be the unquestioned authority and example, but, no, "glamorous Christians" to become like him, "hanging on the cross" - do not want, and they want to seem only to celebrate countless church "holiday" to stand next to "Cheburashka in the temple" and sugary "triple kiss" until postblagostnogo exhaustion. At the same time, alas, their "spiritual life" and exhausted.
But this is the essence of "Christianity"? Is this the way to salvation?
Hence, from this "myopia", I suppose, is nedalnozorkoe understanding about what really represents the "God is love" ...
I do it just for the fact that my version of "synonym" is perhaps more "Canonically correct."
One venerable LJ-user, which I promised in vain not to mention catchy wondered issue to Gabby flock. Something like that, it means that:
- Write here Please, first came to mind synonymous with the word "love" .
"Return" to write did not want to not be "excessively intrusive." But if I come to argue and look up words, then my answer would be: " sick ".
Well, "sick" not only in the sense of something "painful", but in the sense of a "cloud".
"Scanner Darkly" naturally, "Mind," overwhelmed by some strong "feeling". "The feeling of love." Which, in some sense, "sickness". Or, in any case too, a "abnormal state".
Like, there lived a man a "normal", and then met someone and "ill".
"The disease at first sight." "Sometimes."
way, not to me only a "synonym" fancied ... Remembered that there is a poet Marina Tsvetaeva such lines:
seems, if not mistaken, in some famous Soviet film their carefully laid the music and sang with feeling very soulful way.
And yet the moment .. It is significant that "Christianised" users naotvechali "there", basically, something in the spirit of "believe", "love" and "worship" ... I mean, they, apparently, it climbs to the primitive association of "God is love", that demonstrates how "shallow" in svalnoy mass "Christians" of his own ideas about their own "faith." For "God is love," Well of course ... But we should not understand these things so literally, as it is only fairly superficial metaphor that "ordinary people" as a surfactant and understand (though quite "At his level ")...
And what, by implication, is this "love"? Oh-oh-oh, this is a very "strange love"! In short, "God is love" is understood as "God is suffering," because "the love of God" - is nothing like the grace bestowed upon His "suffering." Not always, but sometimes. In fact, therefore, the sense that counts, "the more a person suffer, the closer it is to God and say, therefore, obtained by "suffering" people would be worth considered as "special grace of God" . suffering man, so a way likened to someone not anyhow, but Jesus Christ himself, who allegedly also "for all of us suffer."
to "believers" on the idea that Jesus Christ must be the unquestioned authority and example, but, no, "glamorous Christians" to become like him, "hanging on the cross" - do not want, and they want to seem only to celebrate countless church "holiday" to stand next to "Cheburashka in the temple" and sugary "triple kiss" until postblagostnogo exhaustion. At the same time, alas, their "spiritual life" and exhausted.
But this is the essence of "Christianity"? Is this the way to salvation?
Hence, from this "myopia", I suppose, is nedalnozorkoe understanding about what really represents the "God is love" ...
I do it just for the fact that my version of "synonym" is perhaps more "Canonically correct."
Friday, May 1, 2009
Used Stereo Amps Calgary
spaghetti westerns
Predveschennoe fulfilled. Our plans materialize. That is, laid out the same in "modest kinobloge" as blagoveschal earlier, a little fine, "spaghetti westerns". It took a little longer than I had hoped, but yes, okay "... For good cause, and "time" do not mind.
This time, however, all quite modestly (for example, "nothing special"):
"Rest in peace - Requiescant - 1967"
"Day of Wrath - I giorni dell 'ira - 1967 "
" God gun - Diamante Lobo - 1976 "
" The Return of Ringo - Il Ritorno di Ringo - 1965 "
" Gun for Ringo - Una Pistola per Ringo - 1965 "
" God forgives ... I - no! - Dio perdona ... Io no! - 1967 "
" Then it will be called "Magnificent" - E poi lo chiamarono il magnifico - 1972 "
" Genius, two fellow countryman and chick - Un genio, due compari, un pollo - 1975 "
" Sabata - Ehi amico ... c'e Sabata, hai chiuso! - 1969 "
" Return Sabato - E tornato Sabata ... hai chiuso un'altra volta - 1971 "
" Farewell, Sabata - Indio Black, sai che ti dico: Sei un gran figlio di ... - 1971 "
"10.000 bloody USD - 10.000 dollari per un massacro - 1967 "
" Stranger and arrows - El karate, el Colt y el impostor - 1974 "
" Choose the hard way - Take a Hard Ride - 1975 "
" Specialist - Gli specialisti - 1969 "
" Silver Saddle - Sella d'argento - 1978 "
" Colt sang death - Tempo di massacro - 1966 "
" My name is Trinity - Lo chiamavano Trinita - 1970 "
" I still call the Trinity - ... continuavano a chiamarlo Trinita - 1971 "
" My Name Is Nobody - Il Mio nome e Nessuno - 1973 "
" professional shooter - Il Mercenario - 1968 "
"PARTNERS - Vamos a matar, companeros - 1970"
"Hail your death! - Viva la muerte ... tua! - 1971"
"My Name Is Shanghai Joe - Il mio nome e Shangai Joe - 1972"
"The Return of Shanghai Joe - Il ritorno di Shanghai Joe - 1975"
"Rope and Colt - Une corde, un Colt - 1969 "
" Face to Face - Faccia a faccia - 1967 "
" White, Yellow, Black - Il bianco, il giallo, il nero - 1975 "
" The Great Silence - Il grande silenzio - 1968 "
" Django - Django - 1966 "
" Django, the bullet for you - Pochi dollari per Django - 1966 "
" Django, shoot! - Se sei vivo spara - 1967 "
" Bastard Django - Django il Bastardo - 1969 "
" Satan Django - Un hombre vino a matar - 1967 "
" Texas, goodbye! - Texas, Addio! - 1966 "
" Return of Django - Django 2-il grande ritorno - 1987 "
" riddled Dollar - Un dollaro bucato - 1965 "
" Keoma - Keoma - 1976 "
" The last shot - Il venditore di morte - 1971 "
curiosities, of course, gulkin nose (even a bit ashamed ), but also touch on "spaghetti" was simply need to better lighting and more understanding of the totality of the phenomenon of "Italian Cinema", which in the 60's and 70's, in my opinion, was an incomparable with nothing "before" or anything "after."
Then probably back to go over every "genre" of European cinema. And, several times in a row. Fortunately, any decent miracle material has accumulated decent.
Viva Italia! Viva il cinema italiano!
Predveschennoe fulfilled. Our plans materialize. That is, laid out the same in "modest kinobloge" as blagoveschal earlier, a little fine, "spaghetti westerns". It took a little longer than I had hoped, but yes, okay "... For good cause, and "time" do not mind.
This time, however, all quite modestly (for example, "nothing special"):
"Rest in peace - Requiescant - 1967"
"Day of Wrath - I giorni dell 'ira - 1967 "
" God gun - Diamante Lobo - 1976 "
" The Return of Ringo - Il Ritorno di Ringo - 1965 "
" Gun for Ringo - Una Pistola per Ringo - 1965 "
" God forgives ... I - no! - Dio perdona ... Io no! - 1967 "
" Then it will be called "Magnificent" - E poi lo chiamarono il magnifico - 1972 "
" Genius, two fellow countryman and chick - Un genio, due compari, un pollo - 1975 "
" Sabata - Ehi amico ... c'e Sabata, hai chiuso! - 1969 "
" Return Sabato - E tornato Sabata ... hai chiuso un'altra volta - 1971 "
" Farewell, Sabata - Indio Black, sai che ti dico: Sei un gran figlio di ... - 1971 "
"10.000 bloody USD - 10.000 dollari per un massacro - 1967 "
" Stranger and arrows - El karate, el Colt y el impostor - 1974 "
" Choose the hard way - Take a Hard Ride - 1975 "
" Specialist - Gli specialisti - 1969 "
" Silver Saddle - Sella d'argento - 1978 "
" Colt sang death - Tempo di massacro - 1966 "
" My name is Trinity - Lo chiamavano Trinita - 1970 "
" I still call the Trinity - ... continuavano a chiamarlo Trinita - 1971 "
" My Name Is Nobody - Il Mio nome e Nessuno - 1973 "
" professional shooter - Il Mercenario - 1968 "
"PARTNERS - Vamos a matar, companeros - 1970"
"Hail your death! - Viva la muerte ... tua! - 1971"
"My Name Is Shanghai Joe - Il mio nome e Shangai Joe - 1972"
"The Return of Shanghai Joe - Il ritorno di Shanghai Joe - 1975"
"Rope and Colt - Une corde, un Colt - 1969 "
" Face to Face - Faccia a faccia - 1967 "
" White, Yellow, Black - Il bianco, il giallo, il nero - 1975 "
" The Great Silence - Il grande silenzio - 1968 "
" Django - Django - 1966 "
" Django, the bullet for you - Pochi dollari per Django - 1966 "
" Django, shoot! - Se sei vivo spara - 1967 "
" Bastard Django - Django il Bastardo - 1969 "
" Satan Django - Un hombre vino a matar - 1967 "
" Texas, goodbye! - Texas, Addio! - 1966 "
" Return of Django - Django 2-il grande ritorno - 1987 "
" riddled Dollar - Un dollaro bucato - 1965 "
" Keoma - Keoma - 1976 "
" The last shot - Il venditore di morte - 1971 "
curiosities, of course, gulkin nose (even a bit ashamed ), but also touch on "spaghetti" was simply need to better lighting and more understanding of the totality of the phenomenon of "Italian Cinema", which in the 60's and 70's, in my opinion, was an incomparable with nothing "before" or anything "after."
Then probably back to go over every "genre" of European cinema. And, several times in a row. Fortunately, any decent miracle material has accumulated decent.
Viva Italia! Viva il cinema italiano!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)