Hunter S Thompson

shrike · Post by **shrike** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:21 pm

Until his death the best I could say about him was he was a self-indulgent

twerp.

Having just learned that he shot himself while being on the telephone

line to his wife the description 'egomanical monster' doesn't do his

tawdry and immensely, pointlessly selfish memory justice.

What an a*shole!

Regards,

shrike.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:58 pm

maybe. maybe not. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is an incredible work, regardless.

Also, it's Hunter S. Thompson.

shrike · Post by **shrike** » Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:01 am

anastrophe wrote: maybe. maybe not. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is an incredible work, regardless.

Also, it's Hunter S. Thompson.

Hello, anastrophe! Pleased to meet you.

F&LinLV is a self-indulgent piece of crap.

It's 'success', among acid-heads and counter-culture-layabouts who later

saw the error of their ways and settled down, expressed an empty zeitgeist

that vanished as quickly as a puff of smoke from a bong.

Oh, yes...and a real man doesn't kill himself over the phone while speaking to his wife.

I can't think of a more despicable 'Look at me! I'm more important than you!'

piece of ****.

Regards,

shrike.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:55 pm

well, you're certainly entitled to your erroneous opinion!

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 10:31 am

Hunter S was a different kind of journalist that tried to belong to the other culture in America. He not only did that but brought people to the awareness that it was a different culture. But like all American heroes he discovered that hero worship only lasted so long. Maybe he craved the limelight and maybe he didn't.

Regardless of that, he put an American perspective into the world. It must have worked because you don't even get his name right,

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:47 am

perhaps you should also consider the fact he was mentally ill, of course mental illness is unacceptable by the masses & therefore rather than educate themselves, they label him a (whatever) & do not take into consideration his literary contribution

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:57 am

buttercup wrote: perhaps you should also consider the fact he was mentally ill
this 'fact' can be corroborated where, pray?

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:26 am

hello!!!!!!!!! he shot himself whilst on the phone to his wife, if that does not show he was mentally disturbed, what does? what further proof do you require?

im not looking for a fight here, im just stating what seems obvious

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:59 am

buttercup wrote: hello!!!!!!!!! he shot himself whilst on the phone to his wife, if that does not show he was mentally disturbed, what does? what further proof do you require?

im not looking for a fight here, im just stating what seems obvious
he was in severe pain from medical problems, he was in his seventies, he'd spent time with his family immediately before - clearly as a last opportunity to be close with them before going, we *do not know* what they were talking about when he did it - they may very well have had an agreement that he would do it while he said 'goodbye' to her via the phone as she may not have been able to bear being there as it happened.

ascribing to mental illness what people do in the throes of extreme pain, in their 70's, based upon what 'facts' the media has fed to us, may provide a comfortable feeling of wellness for you or others, but it is most certainly not a "fact".

not looking to fight either, actually! just disagree strongly with your analysis.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:44 am

well hi there, its ok with me that you disagree, it would be an extremely boring world if we all agreed with each other

i respect your comments as you should mine

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:20 pm

buttercup wrote: well hi there, its ok with me that you disagree, it would be an extremely boring world if we all agreed with each other

i respect your comments as you should mine
i do, however, i will continue to insist that it is inappropriate to claim it is a 'fact' that he was mentally ill, absent other evidence.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:35 pm

i think that is fair comment, what is immediately obvious to me is not to you & thats fair enough, i take back anything i said about (proof) as it is my opinion, i was too eager in my reply initially, it was my defence of him that over-ruled as you call it 'fact' i have a high regard for his work & as medical reports are classified, we will never know for sure, interesting debate, thank you

MelBain · Post by **MelBain** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:52 pm

Hi there,

I went specifically looking through this forum for Hunter S Thompson conversation and I found it....

I like hearing both your opinions on him but in my opinion....he was a fine journalist.

His "gonzo" (Gonzo journalism is a style of storytelling that mixes factual events into a fictional tale.) style is really creative and witty....

The guy was, to say the least, unique and mysterious....

Some people glamourize Kurt Cobain for taking the sames actions but for different reasons.

It's cool to have an opinion on something but remember....it's not our life, let's not judge...

libertine · Post by **libertine** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:42 pm

Just out of curiosity and for my own edification, how old are you Shrike?? I am a RETIRED person (that's as close as you'll get to my actual age. :wah:)

The reason I ask is because I am interested in the age difference in the reactions to Hunter S Thompson.