He is clueless. I'm sure he's the kinda guy that has millions of mates but not one true friend.

Or Bisnark telling the German people that they were great and nothing happened at all to make that true.

Sorry you lost me you merged to posts together one of mine and one of suzis.

But I shall try and respond. He is a manipulative and acts dumb when caught out. The reason he is caught out is ... He is not as smart as he thinks he is.

I think you are right.

I obviously didn't lose you because you managed to work out that I copied two posts.

I'm sorry I didn't pick it up either  It is a story (allegory) about corruption, but it applies to both Communist/Socialist and Fascist/Nazi states, and depends on what your teacher tells you to look at or what you believe for yourself. So if I were marking Ben's GCSE paper I'd give him a B 

Sorry you lost me?? that his words alone made them great?? Can you expaline it to me.

Aw Don't criticise him too much.....they probably taught the sanitised version in the public school he went too, where Boxer the horse secretly sold crack to baby piglets and all the hens claimed massive benefits for all their eggs and sat around the coop all day watching Trisha

wow.

Suzy I was always told that is was Russia, but I mnaged to make up my own mind. 1984 is a good follow-up, possibly just as ambigous though.

Nathan's seen the film

OOOOO See it thin he lost the basic premise... and I am a socialist and see my self as being VERY different from a communist. LOL

Ahahahahahahahah

Some don't. Like a few African dictators.

Well it wouldn't be the final BB without someone bringing up George Orwell, followed by us FM's having a bit of a  ding dong, and for that Ben I salute you.

I was told the same, but for me that about 20 years ago. Yeah, 1984 is a good read 

see that's where reading books gets you.

i stick to the beano, myself

not really necessarily true. In my experience they work better in packs and are all lily livered wooses when  you get them on their own

I don't think they are socialists. I think they are corrupt and cherry pick the bits they like.

Maybe he's re-enacted some of it too.

Well, they say they are...and they are obviously doing the same as Ben, in your view. Good thread ding dong.

heheheheheheheeee

Some one I know found a copy of that in there 70+ parents dvd collection

Thank you  Its been a laugh.

Not in the kitchen I hope

Ooooooh God, you'd not be able to look them in the eye again

If anything, I would say "1984" is even more ambiguous!
I totally agree with you that the beauty of "Animal Farm" is that it can be associated with many different "real world" circumstances (e.g. there was a production of it as a play in China a few years ago that drew similarities with Mao and the Cultural Revolution.)


What I would say though is that the reason you were always told it was about Russia is probably because that's how it was interpreted when it first came out. Orwell actually wrote the book in 1943/44: i.e. while Britain and Russia were allies. Four publishers turned-down the book after being warned-off by officials at the Ministry of Information (*ahem*), who were concerned that it would offend the Russians. Orwell was only able to get published after the war ended.

Oh dear Gok

what eye?

*faints*

 

I am confused. Someone posts a thread saying 'has ben even read animal farm' implying he has made it up to suit him. We agree on that. We agree that people pick and choose things to suit them. JUST LIKE THE PIGS!! How Orwellesque and what a circle we have woven. Are we  not all in the bosom of agreement then? or is it a case of 4 legs good 2 legs better? ie we are now in the very act of changing the thread to suit us? *faints at the spirals of eternity twinkling before own eyes*

YAY *expoldes*

mwah! Leccy! Nice to see you xxx

*smooches* You too xx

I'm actually just off to my bed, but it's good to see you! I'm sure we'll catch up again on here soon.

Aye, will do, see you later!

He may have got it confused with Chicken Run.

 

I disagree, he has read Animal Farm and put a paternalistic class based superiority interpretation on it.



Fair point, it's a critique of socialism/Stalinism/communism/marxism but his interpretation draws a conclusion that there's an inherent superior class who won't mess things up like the misguided, hypocritical and intrinsically flawed socialists.



He's way off on that assumption!  And immensely superior and rather thick in his summary which doesn't modify animal examples with people exmples.

In short, he's a Tory.