Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (68156)	12/22/1999 4:26:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

It's a mistake to let Charlton Heston play a serious role where the hero is a conflicted person. Charlton is the original one-dimensional man. More was not a masculine hero, but an ink-and-sin-stained intellectual. (I've always regretted that I never saw Adlai Stevenson play the role.) You recall that he was involved in destroying Richard III's reputation with his hatchet job of ghost-writing for the old archbishop. He was a time-serving sycophant (very much I imagine, in truth, like the plays' Richard Rich). More's greatness, IMO, comes from the fact that he was able to rise above principle and human loyalty, destroy himself and his family, and accomplish absolutely nothing worthwhile by his sacrifice. (To toss his life away like a slipper). His wife (that's "Lady More" to you, churl!) was in terms of the world quite correct. Saints should try to stay single and childless and not give hostages to fortune (as Bacon pointed out). Most practical people have laughed behind More's headless back at his life. Too bad. He was a very funny man. I always use him as a counterpoint to Machiavelli in my management classes. Almost everyone (reluctantly) thinks Machiavelli is the better model but the lesser man.