Thats the way it is
I have to put in my two cents worth here…first of all, I agree with everything everyone is saying regarding the cleaning lady and the lawyer. But, here’s the deal-the cleaning lady will probably always have menial jobs that she will probably always hate. Maybe not, maybe she loves being a cleaning lady. I doubt it. But, if she in fact hates her station in life, without education, she has very little chance of changing it. I say an education can open doors(maybe to more happiness) that might otherwise be closed. Education can be a tool and we all need as many tools in life as we can get. Whether you use your degree or not.
Cheers for that ;D
True… I don’t find that being “well off” or “lucky” guarantees any form of happiness- but how to say what I’m thinking without getting too long winded… perhaps, “there are no working class philosophers” ?
I have my moments 
.
Not at all , its beautiful
Indeed!
Hmmm.
“I” … The philosophical I, certainly in these postmodern times, and particularly post Lacan, is usually viewed as fragmented or fractured. However, even if we were to adopt an earlier understanding of “I” as in “Cognito, ergo sum – I think therefore I am” as our approach, this being the foundation of Cartesian (and Western) philosophy, then it still makes your premise problematic. Descartes’ proposal, that even should a lying god be deceiving him with a false belief about his existence, then paradoxically he must still exist in order to be deceived, holds - and this gives you some sort of philosophical backing for your conceit of “I”. However, this only means that you have proven your existence only unto yourself. We would have to think your existence real for ourselves – and not on your Cartesian propositional self-evidence, but by a more empirical induction or by deductive logic. And we would have to be fully convinced that your ‘reality’ was somehow a bearded actor called Josef Egger playing a character called “The Prophet” in a ‘false’ reality of a film called For A Few Dollars More, who we also realize as ENNIOO. I’m afraid that it’s a confusing and a somewhat preposterous existence that you are asking us to believe in. How can we really know that you are “I”?
Then there’s the problem of the “moments” that we are expected to believe in. Everybody knows, particularly post the climatic showdown at the end of the aforementioned film, that the concept of ‘time’ is highly problematical as well – particularly when two pocket watches are involved. As you are fully aware Ennioo, temporality exists outside of phenomenology, and your “moments” are but fragments (yet again) in an analytical philosophical ‘flow of time’. As Derrida said in his laconic epitaph of Aristotle’s philosophy of temporality “In a sense, it is always too late to talk about time.”
So, Ennioo, you cannot “have my (your) moments.” You can only have had your moments. To have them now is not, as Derrida alluded to, possible. They, unlike physical historical relics (say, in a museum) are displaced into the past of time. Your existential thoughts and experiences – these “moments” - have lost a purity of origin and cannot be proven. At most they are but fragments of existence born of your fragmented body’s experiences, hung upon fragments of time. They are qualitively different from the “moment” they happened. They are memory, and no longer moments – with all the problems associated with such. Even if one takes the usual ‘causal process’ to connect the past representation to a subsequent recall, then there will be ‘slippage’ in the process. So how can you, let alone us be expected to have any faith in your premise “I have my moments ;)”?
Please explain.
(I trust I’m not too off topic.)
[quote=“Reverend Danite, post:128, topic:1455”]Hmmm.
“Cognito, ergo sum – I think therefore I am”
(I trust I’m not too off topic.)[/quote]
Not at all, but it’s cogito, ergo sum, or, even better: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum - I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am
He probably said it incognito
The rest of your small essay is flawless
Testing forum members to see if my errors were spotted 
.
Yes, I read through it several times trying to come up with an argument against and only came up with trivial stretches. Nice one ;D
what is all this?
A spagho-analytic view on all not worth mentioning
Clearly a discussion of the hidden special features on the Big Gundown DVD… you haven’t found the easter egg yet?
Hey guys, I found a copy of The Big Gundown on an upload site and I am trying to figure out which version it is. It is titled “1966 The Big Gundown”, and the length is 1:45:37. I believe the audio track is the one Franco Cleef made. According to the screen-shots on cultcine.com, the quality of the copy I have is better than Franco Cleef’s but not as good as Cultcine’s, and the resolution of my copy doesn’t match either of them. Are cultcine’s images accurate? Their screenshot should be identical to Koch’s and autephex’s versions right? I’ve included a link to all 3 screenshots.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9117/biggundowncomparrison.jpg
So does anyone know what version I have? thanks a lot for the help guys 
[quote=“evilxelvis138, post:135, topic:1455”]Hey guys, I found a copy of The Big Gundown on an upload site and I am trying to figure out which version it is. It is titled “1966 The Big Gundown”, and the length is 1:45:37. I believe the audio track is the one Franco Cleef made. According to the screen-shots on cultcine.com, the quality of the copy I have is better than Franco Cleef’s but not as good as Cultcine’s, and the resolution of my copy doesn’t match either of them. Are cultcine’s images accurate? Their screenshot should be identical to Koch’s and autephex’s versions right? I’ve included a link to all 3 screenshots.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9117/biggundowncomparrison.jpg
So does anyone know what version I have? thanks a lot for the help guys :)[/quote]
I think they used the Italian Mondo Home DVD as source, but I’ll have to check the running time
Colours on the Italian DVD are less vibrant than on the Koch disc (and there are noticeable differences in consecutive scenes), more like on your third screenshot
[quote=“evilxelvis138, post:135, topic:1455”]Hey guys, I found a copy of The Big Gundown on an upload site and I am trying to figure out which version it is. It is titled “1966 The Big Gundown”, and the length is 1:45:37. I believe the audio track is the one Franco Cleef made. According to the screen-shots on cultcine.com, the quality of the copy I have is better than Franco Cleef’s but not as good as Cultcine’s, and the resolution of my copy doesn’t match either of them. Are cultcine’s images accurate? Their screenshot should be identical to Koch’s and autephex’s versions right? I’ve included a link to all 3 screenshots.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9117/biggundowncomparrison.jpg
So does anyone know what version I have? thanks a lot for the help guys :)[/quote]
Cultcine’s screens are incorrect. At least about the FC DVD…The screen the call FC’s is actually from the a horrible bootleg print sold by Luminous… So they might be intentionally misleading customers to get them to buy his own. Cultcine’s version is the same as Autephex’s, Koch media video, witht eh Franco Cleef fandub synced to it… The upload you found is just the original Franco Cleef DVD, probably the most seen version… Franco Cleef used the Italian Mondo DVD for his…
Bottom shot looks like Jerksi’s dvd-r as well, don’t know where he got his sources from, I haven’t seen the Franco Cleef version.
cool thanks for the quick replies guys. That is a shame about cultcine, but i kinda had the suspicion they were lying to gain customers… Always a bad apple in the bunch. I gotta say though…Spaghetti Westerns rock! I’ve only seen the Man With No Name Trilogy and a few others and i am enjoyin’ every minute of them 
Why dont us region 1 fans have a english freindly legit dvd yet? Its beside me.
sean