The Truth About Woodlawn

[Rick Munroe]

You know, one never can have enough threads devoted to Woodlawn. I just noticed that there are currently two of them, both instigated by bluenix. Well, it's time for a 3rd and this one will blow the others out of the water. I've found his website, and let me tell you something: (s)he's pretty! :* http://www.hollywoodlawn.com/

[Trixie]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if our very own Woodlawn turned out to be in fact the erstwhile Warholian starlette? A celebrity, right here in our midst!

If the photos on that site are currentish, I must say that Miss Holly has held up well. I wonder if she still has that coke bottle...

La Trix

[LovesYng]

OMG, Thanks Rick. Now we will all know the truth:P

 

When in doubt I whip it out:+

[VaHawk]

Love the site, love the old Lou Reed song. I still love that song! It is a classic rock song.

 

On the subject, Woodlawn, under discussion, I think people should not be castigating him about his time here on this site either time wise or number of posts wise. Look at yourselves before you cast stones. Says a whole hell of a lot about those criticizing his use of time, etc. when your time is obviously even more wasted that you have nothing better to do than to take the time to belittle someone who, imo, is a very valuable contributor to this site.

 

I may be dense, but I agree with wooodlawn, as I have never seen him post or engage in a "pissing contest" with anyone who did not start it first by attacking him first. I wholeheartedly agree with his position about not starting the pissing contest but refusing to back down when others attack him personally!

 

I just don't understand others animosity towards woodlawn, because in my time here, I have never seen him personally attack anyone, unless he was attacked first. Even though you disagree with his viewpoints, he definitely has a right to post his views and if you disagree with his views then state your opposition in a rational non-confrontational manner. Is that too much to ask?

[VaHawk]

BTW: My reply is not directed at Rick in anyway, as I meant it to be just a general observation on my part. As Rick said there is more than one thread about woodlawn, and this is the one that was at the top of the list at the time of my reply.

[jackhammer91406]

My tenure here is not as long as some. I have watched the various threads about Woodlawn with amusement. The reaction to his replies certainly swing to both extremes. Maybe that is true for all other posters as well. I dunno. I have gotten tangled in his logical thread webs a few times, once being last Novemeber when I posted a thread on the Homeland Security act. This was back when all threads regarding politics were still in the lounge. After what VaHawk said about Woodlawn not attacking people unless he was attacked first, I had to go back and reread that thread to see if I remembered it incorrectly.

 

In doing so, I found that while Woodlawn may not necessarily begin attacks, he does attack, and in my case without provocation I think. He twists other's words to MEAN his viewpoint assuming an intention that was NEVER meant. I guess that's what has always bothered me about him and others who use the same tactic. IT's like trying to have a logical, unemotional discussion and having someone come in and say how come you are so illogical and emotional? I guess I can't really explain it well.

 

USing the above stated thread, I posted an opinion that our country was politically polarized and I would like to discuss the proposed security act and the expected appointee to run it without an emtionally charged argument. In using the reference to George Orwell in the title, in Woodlawn's eyes, it opened up the thread to responses about anti government actions. I never said trash the program, simply discuss it. I offered a viewpoint that Poindexter was not the best choice.

 

Anyway, it was my first experience with the Woodlawn persona. I got so frustrated with his mis-characterizations that I dropped out of the thread because I felt my reponses to his attacks were not being listened to, but simply being used as a launch point for him. He seemed to characterize my dropping out as waffling...ok, fine.

 

I am someone who is persuadable by reason. If I see or hear a point of view that has credibility and is founded on truth, I can change my mind. Changing my mind on an issue doesn't mean I am weak minded, it simply means I have included other information in my decision. What eventually bores me about Woodlawn is that while he may have a point of view that has merit, it seldom comes without all the negative baggage attached. Does the fact that he eventually bores me require that he be removed? Certainly not. Is he entitled to post whatever he wants? Of course, as am I and anyone else.

 

I have on occasion invited him to skip over my posts, (an idea I have seen him use on others from time to time). The fact that he or anyone else is unlikeable doesn't matter a hill of beans. He can post here, so can I. Do we all have to read each other's posts? Are you kidding?

 

So what is the big deal? Some people don't like other people...So NEW?

 

I will say, his often stated argument that none of us know anything about him doesn't hold water...We know a great deal about the kind of person he is. Even if his persona here is made up, what does that say about who he is?

 

Just my opinion which I am allowed to express.

 

}(

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>Love the site, love the old Lou Reed song. I still love that

>song! It is a classic rock song.

>

 

I thought that was Brook Benton??? The original anyway.

[axebahia]

>I have on occasion invited him to skip over my posts, (an idea

>I have seen him use on others from time to time). The fact

>that he or anyone else is unlikeable doesn't matter a hill of

>beans. He can post here, so can I. Do we all have to read

>each other's posts? Are you kidding?

 

I agree. Leave my home boy alone. I rather see him post as Woodlawn than Oren!

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Butcha 'R

 

>

>

>I may be dense, but I agree with wooodlawn, as I have never

>seen him post or engage in a "pissing contest" with anyone who

>did not start it first by attacking him first.

 

Quite mistaken. A simple search, while time-consuming, will indicate this simple but true fact.

 

>I just don't understand others animosity towards woodlawn,

>because in my time here, I have never seen him personally

>attack anyone, unless he was attacked first.

 

This person has attacked, as have others, under the guise of different "personalities" and names, Hawkster. He has also responded to a reasoned (or unreasoned) argument about a topic with a personal attack on the individual, as opposed to an attack on his logic (or lack thereof). He has also baited individuals, posted on threads, and made comments purely for the purpose of starting or creating problems, rather than advancing an argument or discussion, or in defense of his position. While it is true that it is rare that Little Woodie attacks purely to attack, like Donnie or Doug69 or others, attack he does and he most certainly NEVER limits his comments to the subject matter of a thread.

[bluenix]

RE: Butcha 'R

 

>>I have never

>>seen him post or engage in a "pissing contest" with anyone

>>who did not start it first by attacking him first.

>

>Quite mistaken. A simple search, while time-consuming, will

>indicate this simple but true fact.

 

Link?

[woodlawn]

RE: Queen Victoria's Secretary Again?

 

I hesitated to join this thread at first. One should never laugh at one's own jokes, after all. But one or two things need to be added to the record to make it accurate.

 

>He has also

>responded to a reasoned (or unreasoned) argument about a topic

>with a personal attack on the individual, as opposed to an

>attack on his logic (or lack thereof).

 

Considering the many personal attacks you have engaged in here, it is beyond ironic that you think yourself qualified to lecture others on the evils of personal attacks. Clean up your own filthy behavior before you tell the rest of us how to behave.

 

 

>He has also baited

>individuals, posted on threads, and made comments purely for

>the purpose of starting or creating problems, rather than

>advancing an argument or discussion, or in defense of his

>position. ... and he most certainly NEVER limits his comments

>to the subject matter of a thread.

 

Whatever the truth of that may be, there is one thing of which I have never been guilty. Unlike you, I have never attempted to use this message board as a means of free advertising for a business from which I personally profit. One of the oldest traditions of Internet message boards and newsgroups is to deprecate those who attempt to use those forums for commercial gain. I honor that tradition.

 

Another distinction between us is that unlike you, I have not used this board to boast about my own abilities or accomplishments, nor have I created dozens of posts that are nothing but self-serving rationalizations of my own behavior or posed as an expert on a subject for which none of us has anything but a small quantum of anecdotal evidence. You are guilty of all those things.

 

Personal attacks are a matter of individual taste. I choose not to engage in them with those who do not subject me to them. My conversations with the few people here who never use them, such as giovoni and phage, are free of such attacks on either side. I could as easily choose not to engage in them in any circumstances. So could every other poster here. Very few make that choice, and I don't care to be lectured on the subject by one, such as you, who has not.

 

And as for you, Rick Munroe, take this:

[Will]

The Real Holly Woodlawn

 

Is dead, my dears, dead for years, and not of AIDS. Whatever else one may say or think about Our Woodie, one thing is sure: he is very much alive.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Queen Victoria's Secretary Again?

 

>And as for you, Rick Munroe, take this:

 

I accept.

[Doug69]

RE: The Real Holly Woodlawn

 

>Is dead, my dears, dead for years, and not of AIDS. Whatever

>else one may say or think about Our Woodie, one thing is sure:

>he is very much alive.

 

Actually, Holly Woodlawn, like our little Woodlawn, is not dead - not at all. She is very much alive, living in a small WeHo apartment, and is currently at work filming a documentary of her extraordinary, quite influential life.

 

Although virtually every one of the central members of that Warholian circle is very much dead - and most of them not from AIDS - she survived the drug overdoses of the 70s; AIDS in the 80s; and, in the 90s, the relative old age, intense alocholism, and general physical decay which accompanies that lifestyle -- maladies which killed off most of her peers.

 

Your report of her death is quite premature.

[Doug69]

RE: The Real Holly Woodlawn

 

>Is dead, my dears, dead for years, and not of AIDS. Whatever

>else one may say or think about Our Woodie, one thing is sure:

>he is very much alive.

 

Actually, Holly Woodlawn, like our little Woodlawn, is not dead - not at all. She is very much alive, living in a small WeHo apartment, and is currently at work filming a documentary of her extraordinary, quite influential life.

 

Although virtually every one of the central members of that Warholian circle is very much dead - and most of them not from AIDS - she survived the drug overdoses of the 70s; AIDS in the 80s; and, in the 90s, the relative old age, intense alocholism, and general physical decay which accompanies that lifestyle -- maladies which killed off most of her peers.

 

Your report of her death is quite premature.

[Will]

RE: The Real Holly Woodlawn

 

I'm very glad to learn that, but who, then, IS dead? I could have sworn that I'd seen pictures of Holly Woodlawn on her deathbed, that she was dying of cancer, or something -- years ago, certainly as early as the '70s. Am I thinking of someone else? Some other glamorous drag queen who hung around the Factory and appeared in a number of Warhol films? (Not Edie Sedgwick.) Or -- and this is probably it -- was I mislead all those years ago by some typically Warholian send-up? In any case, thanks for the good news.

[Doug69]

RE: The Real Holly Woodlawn

 

>I'm very glad to learn that, but who, then, IS dead? I could

>have sworn that I'd seen pictures of Holly Woodlawn on her

>deathbed, that she was dying of cancer, or something -- years

>ago, certainly as early as the '70s. Am I thinking of someone

>else? Some other glamorous drag queen who hung around the

>Factory and appeared in a number of Warhol films? (Not Edie

>Sedgwick.)

 

Yes - exactly. Based on what you just described, you are thinking of Candy Darling, the other "Warhol superstar" who appeared in all of his movies, including Trash. She died young of cancer in the 70s.

[Bilbo]

RE: a sleepy vision

 

This came to me as I was trying to go back to sleep after a potential client woke me up twice at 3:45AM. The first time I told him that since my dog bit me a week and a half ago (on the hand, and I feel that it was my fault as much or more than his) I wasn't up to doing bodywork and checked and made sure that he wasn't enough into leather that that could be the whole session. The second time he started out by asking me if he had already called me. I wound up by suggesting to him that if he were to take a 3 - 4 hour nap, he would find many more body workers, including my Cub, Maverick, available in the morning. So, maybe this won't make a lot of sense, but:

 

It seems to me Woodlawn that a lot of the posters around here try to start each thread as a new conversation, a new chance at pleasantries and civility. From your post above, it seems that perhaps you operate less that way than some. That perhaps you view it more as different parts of one large conversation. (Guesses as to motivation are offered here from an actor's viewpoint.) That way, it would make sense if you come off as cranky earlier in the conversation (in their viewpoint) since for you it is actually later in an earlier conversation. This would affect the way that it seems to some people that you move to insult someone or stifle conversation first, since for them it might be first in that specific conversation and for you it would be second (third, etc.) in the overall conversation.

 

That said, one has to say that there are more people now thinking your way about the thread conversations than there used to be. Perhaps having been trained to do so by yourself and similar others. I view askance and with some alarm the profusion of attacks upon you this week in which people have been attacking you in the title of the thread, let alone the first posting in said thread. It would try the patience of a saint. And you have shown admirable restraint in the face of it.

[+ Lucky]

RE: The Real Holly Woodlawn

 

Then it is not Holly Woodlawn haunting woodlawn's house?

[woodlawn]

RE: a sleepy vision

 

>It seems to me Woodlawn that a lot of the posters around here

>try to start each thread as a new conversation, a new chance

>at pleasantries and civility. From your post above, it seems

>that perhaps you operate less that way than some. That perhaps

>you view it more as different parts of one large conversation.

 

That's very perceptive of you.

 

Frankly, given the frequency with which a relatively small group of people who post here discuss the same or similar issues over and over again, it's difficult for me to view each conversation as separate and discrete. We are not goldfish, whose memory of an event lasts for five minutes or less. When I see someone take a position or use an argument that is at odds with a post of his that I distinctly recall from a previous thread, am I supposed to pretend that the previous post never existed?

 

Wouldn't that be rather like the world Orwell described in "1984," in which an entire government department is dedicated to revising previously published newspaper articles so that they will conform to whatever the government's current position on an issue may be and any contradiction will be eliminated? How dreadful!

 

>I view askance and with some alarm the

>profusion of attacks upon you this week in which people have

>been attacking you in the title of the thread, let alone the

>first posting in said thread. It would try the patience of a

>saint. And you have shown admirable restraint in the face of

>it.

 

Many thanks for those kind words. You remind me of a phrase from a popular song that I have seldom heard but that sticks in my mind and will not go away: "In the end, only kindness matters."

 

Your kind words notwithstanding, I can't very well take the position that everyone here is entitled to post whatever opinions he holds on any issue and that people who don't care for those opinions are free to skip them, while at the same time I complain that people are expressing opinions I don't like. If we remove all of the lines from a tennis court, how can we tell what is happening in the game? If we remove logic and consistency as the guideposts of argument, it becomes of little value.

[Will]

RE: The Real Holly Woodlawn

 

That's right! Now I remember. Many thanks. Candy Darling, RIP.

[jackhammer91406]

Such tempting bait

 

> We are not goldfish,

>whose memory of an event lasts for five minutes or less. When

>I see someone take a position or use an argument that is at

>odds with a post of his that I distinctly recall from a

>previous thread, am I supposed to pretend that the previous

>post never existed?

>

>Wouldn't that be rather like the world Orwell described in

>"1984," in which an entire government department is dedicated

>to revising previously published newspaper articles so that

>they will conform to whatever the government's current

>position on an issue may be and any contradiction will be

>eliminated? How dreadful!

 

Hmmm, the bait is sure enticing. Temptation, thy name is Woodlawn.

 

> "In the end, only kindness

>matters."

 

Well Spoken...(Sung)

 

 

[Bilbo]

RE: Thanks

 

To have two of the better, more recognizable contributors both singing to me demands, IMHO, more than silence, but the best answer I can think of is to sit here and blush.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Thanks

 

You are so cute in that color. IT becomes you.

 

Have a great day Bilbo

[+ Lucky]

RE: More wood

 

"Personal attacks are a matter of individual taste. I choose not to engage in them with those who do not subject me to them. My conversations with the few people here who never use them, such as giovoni and phage, are free of such attacks on either side. I could as easily choose not to engage in them in any circumstances. So could every other poster here. Very few make that choice, and I don't care to be lectured on the subject by one, such as you, who has not.

 

And as for you, Rick Munroe, take this:"

 

 

Take what?