Starshines Unite! The official HAIR love thread... — Page 79

Leia, I agree 100%

ETA: I was referring to this comment :P

There are some times that I would love to talk about the deeper aspects of what HAIR stands for. But some times, I just want to have fun and be shallow and talk about everything else.

Updated On: 8/23/09 at 09:15 PM

Yeah, Leia. That's a great idea. It's so great you thought that up. (Sorry em. I tried. You know I tried.)

---

LOL Namo. Where could I have possibly gotten that idea from?? I was just reiterating the idea from the previous page, and apparently, the previous page was not read.

---

Namo, your efforts are greatly appreciated.

orangeskittles, I agree completely. It's quite sad that a show with such an important cultural and social message has been relegated to a fan base that only cares about where they can sit to get the most cast interaction or what the sexiest picture of the leading man is they can find.

It's all a part of this dismaying "fan girl culture," I suppose.

---

Updated On: 8/23/09 at 11:12 PM

I like both fangirling and deep discussion (and probably the latter more even if it seems I do more of the former. It's the show itself that drew me to see it first,not Gavin Creel), and definitely think both can live in the same thread, because I think we all have some of each in us. But I also think that would take cooperation and some sort of honor code on our parts, that you won't post schmexy Theo pictures in the middle of a deep discussion. So maybe two threads would be the best way to do it, just to minimize anger. But it would also make me sad, I think, because both are interrelated, and if we can't get along while discussing a show that champions peace and love, that would be pretty sad.

oh and someone mentioned on the other page how disappointing it would be to people who planned like months in advance to see the show to miss both leads, but it;s not like it was planned this way. Gavin should have been in, and I doubt once Gavin got hurt Will could have told the Mets no.

ETA: it DOES say HAIR LOVE thread, not DISCUSSION... though that's just me being picky.

---

Updated On: 8/23/09 at 11:32 PM

Well said, claudioislove.

---

ETA: it DOES say HAIR LOVE thread, not DISCUSSION... though that's just me being picky.

lol, are you serious? I don't even know how to respond to that. Is "love" limited only to squealing and sexy photographs?

For the record, I am certainly not angry. I just... for me, I really love this show. And I'm really moved by it, especially this production. But sometimes I have an unusually hard time articulating WHY that is, and in my experience, talking about it can be a big help in figuring that out. That was a big part of my initial experience with the Company revival, for example, which is to this day one of the greatest loves of my life.

Nobody's "not getting along." I voiced a frustration that I know others are feeling. Look, I don't want to start a fight, and I definitely don't want to be the bitch here or make anyone angry, because there's simply no need. But I want to hear what people have to say who experienced things I wasn't alive for. That's a huge part of what this show means because of its place in history. About a week ago, iflit posted something that I found utterly fascinating, and nobody even acknowledged it; everyone acted like it wasn't even there, and just went back to discussing like, pants. That disappointed me. And I'm sorry if this is something we disagree about, but... talking about things like that? That's love, too. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I don't know, it feels sort of silly to have to sit here and parse this all out, what's allowed and what's not. I've just never experienced anything quite like this, with such a resistant schism.

If you all really feel that discussing anything past the superficial is somehow toxic to your enjoyment, then, hey, you all started this thing and I suppose that's your choice to make.

---

Updated On: 8/23/09 at 11:55 PM

Oh, okay, good. I feel like some people unfortunately WOULD say that and mean it seriously, so I assumed and for that I apologize.

And of course, again, you totally don't have to defend having fun here. That's why we're here. I would just love to see a little bit more of the other side, too! There are a lot of smart, learned, articulate people around here, and that's one of the reasons I've always loved BWW. But I think it's important not to make people feel like if they aren't giggling about who pet their head, they won't be heard.

---

if we can't get along while discussing a show that champions peace and love, that would be pretty sad.

Let me put this in a way you will understand. Namo is like Sheila Franklin. You all are like George Berger. Both are a part of the hippy culture, but have very different ideas of what it means to them. That doesn't mean they don't get along, they just have different goals.


About a week ago, iflit posted something that I found utterly fascinating, and nobody even acknowledged it; everyone acted like it wasn't even there, and just went back to discussing like, pants.

Exactly. Those of you who claim to love "intelligent discussion AND fangirling" responded to iflit's amazing post about attending Woodstock and growing up in that era with:

"Well, it's been a pretty dull day on the starshines thread today"

"I tried to get the ball rolling earlier, but no one wanted to talk"

"umm trying to come up with nice things to say"

I don't understand how someone who is fascinated by the hippy culture could blatantly ignore that in favor of discussing the latest understudies and what Paris said on Twitter, but again- different goals. If there can be separate threads for both Will and Gavin, there's nothing wrong with having separate threads for discussing the different perspectives on the show.

---

Updated On: 8/24/09 at 12:23 AM

I honestly have no recollection of seeing this infamous post. I think I would've said something, because I find Woodstock totally fascinating. Like I just visited the museum a couple weeks ago while I was upstate, and was watching a bunch of tv specials about it. Granted, this doesn't make me an expert. Anyway, I don't you should crucify us all because we didn't respond to one post. Obviously you didn't either, or a discussion would have started.

ETA: oh and as far as the name goes, that only started because Gavin Creel was calling us Hairballs, and that's just terrible.

---

Updated On: 8/24/09 at 12:32 AM

claudio is love, I don't know if you're insinuating that I'm making up this post, or if you honestly didn't see it -- which is completely possible, because it truly got COMPLETELY glossed over and then totally buried. But obviously if I'm referencing it, yes, I saw it. And I DID acknowledge it when I saw it. Namo and I were the only ones who did so. But "obviously" I didn't see it because otherwise there would have been a discussion? It takes more than one person to create a discussion. I made a brief post thanking iflit for sharing what she did, and that was it; nothing came of it, it didn't catch on, the topic had already reverted to whatever it had been before. I'm not "crucifying" anyone, and I think you need to relax. Yes, it was one post, but it was just the general sentiment that made me kind of sad; all of the regulars in this thread just looked right past it. No, "Oh, wow, that's so cool, thanks," or anything like that, that you would think it would garner; people just acted like it wasn't even there. I found that disheartening; voicing that feeling is hardly crucifixion.

---

Updated On: 8/24/09 at 12:38 AM

It was on page 68. Three posts later, you posted to say you saw District 9 that day. Namo and Emcee both responded and were also ignored. By the time I saw it, it was buried under a dozen posts and I saw no use in responding, because it was impossible to carry on a discussion with the rest of the thread actively ignoring it.

---