tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16968982.post113911566967235965..comments2024-03-01T03:18:32.752-08:00Comments on susan denning: Sunday MorningSusan Denninghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03526001744503463733noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16968982.post-1139252805503875012006-02-06T11:06:00.000-08:002006-02-06T11:06:00.000-08:00Ah, but I said, would the script be any different....Ah, but I said, would the script be any different.. I don't know. I didn't say I knew. <BR/><BR/>No I don't believe you have to be part of something to discuss it. But outsiders are often portrayed by insiders, so that the outsiders still remain.. outside.<BR/><BR/>That's all.Susan Denninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03526001744503463733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16968982.post-1139248692459861412006-02-06T09:58:00.000-08:002006-02-06T09:58:00.000-08:00About Brokeback mountain: haven't seen it either -...About <I>Brokeback mountain</I>: haven't seen it either - which is a great start for discussing the movie I'm sure. <BR/><BR/>Actually, what is prompting this comment is not the movie itself, but the fact that you seem to think, or feel, that because a story about masculine homoeroticism is written or made into a movie by people who are not gay males, it is somehow suspect, or of less value. I'm probably distorting what you said here - but still: do you think that, in general, someone has to be part of something to talk about that something? <BR/><BR/>Please feel free to junk my comment if you feel it's got nothing to do here.Le Plumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06892807678626596310noreply@blogger.com