We have been following the investigation into the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. The shooter, George Zimmerman, 28, has not been charged and reported a suspicious character to 911. Martin was returning from a 7-11 after buying Skittles. He was carrying the candy, a small amount of cash, and an iced tea. The family and many others have called for the arrest of Zimmerman, though the accounts of the shooting have been murky. Previously, we discussed the need to hear the 911 tapes, which have now been released and are linked below.
Zimmerman is reportedly a habitual caller into the police and is heard on one of the tapes complaining that ““These a**holes always get away.” Zimmerman states on the call that Martin appeared “up to no good . . . It’s raining. He’s just walking around, looking about . . . He’s just staring looking at all the houses.” Zimmerman says on the call that it is Martin who confronts him: “Something’s wrong with him. He’s coming to check me out.” However, he later admits that he is following Martin, which the police dispatcher discourages.
Police Chief Bill Lee said the 911 calls show that the incident was not a case of racial profiling. He said Zimmerman could not say whether the suspect was black or white. However, on the tape you hear Zimmerman say “He looks black” and then a few moments later, “He’s a black male.” While he is at first equivocal, he does identify his race. That does not mean that this is a case of profiling, of course.
However, family member have been critical of the handling of the case by the police and what they view as the police bending over backward to defend Zimmerman. The family had to file a lawsuit to get these tapes. After a hearing, the police finally relented.
The tapes certainly contradict some statements by the police. However, I am not sure that they substantially alter the status in the case. The evidence still is largely based on Zimmerman’s account, though such contemporary records are generally admissible. The tapes both help and hurt Zimmerman.
The statement by Zimmerman that “these a**holes always get away” certainly shows animus and he clearly follows the youth. However, that does not translate into evidence of intent to kill. I am more interested in the level of force used by Zimmerman and the two gunshots heard on the tape. It is possible that audio creates a misleading impression of two shots but that would seem an important forensic question. It is hard to believe that Martin would allegedly continue any confrontation of Zimmerman after a warning shot unless the shot was fired in the midst of a struggle over the gun. Zimmerman can cite the tape for his statement that he believed that Martin had something in his waistband and appeared on drugs. He can also cite his contemporary description of Martin approaching him.
Putting aside the complaints regarding the handling of the case by the police and the conflicting statements given by officials, there remains the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to base a charge against Zimmerman. I would like to see the coroner’s report on the trajectory and distance of the gunshot wound as well as audio analysis of the gun shot or shots. I would also like to see evidence of the abrasions on both men. Zimmerman was reportedly bleeding from the struggle but we have not heard many details on Martin’s other injuries.
Zimmerman would be wise to secure criminal counsel. There is probably enough here for an indictment. The most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.
What do you think about the state of the evidence?
Here is the Zimmerman tape: 911 Tape (Zimmerman)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (1)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (2)
Source: CNN
Woosty, Fritz Perls is not easy slogging on the written page. Go with Jaynes, then read up on some of the other Gestalt Therapy writers. There are several videos of Fritz Perls working. You can ferret them out and watch, but may not make a whole lot of sense without some guidance as to what you are seeing.
Mike S., you’ve quoted Jaynes and now Fritz…which do you suggest is most pertinent to the zeitgeist of today? If both, which would you read first?
Does anyone propose a seamless whole between the right and left brain activity? (or would that be Campbell and the action potential of the synapses created by ‘Myth’ and ‘story’…? ).
@Wootsy – Bazingga’ (LOL) However Sheldon is a strict atheist unlike his mother who is a Fundie.
@Blouise – OK I will lok the up when I get time. I have even more homework from Professor Spindell. And I don’t mind Mike. This stuff prevents Alzhiemers. (LOL)
@Mike Spindell – The Fundie definition of faith is 1 of 2. They adopt: “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” Me on the other hand is #1: “Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.” So I am saying that my “big picture” involves taking all those complex/interdependent smaller parts (i.e. human immune system, vision, hearing, circulatory, central nervous system, muscular system, the order of the Universe, etc. etc. etc.) and see something unusually evident that an SSA must be at play here. When you look at the minutiae of snails under stress for a few moments in time (versus millions of years) and have the temerity to say this is definitive empirical proof of NatSel in action is ludicrous – at least to me.
Everytime I read this Science web site about the human muscle contraction system and I read about the EXTREME complexity of the “myosin crossbridges” (please press Play on the animation there) and other stuff I am simply floored that any one could think this stuff was not designed by a super-natural/meta-physical entity and not just accidental happenstance of chaos. Just think this stuff happens in your eyes, fingers, and forearms every time you read this and type on your keyboard to reply to me. And this is just ONE small part of a larger whole (or die gestalt) ignored by people today. I just hope that can somehow be changed somehow. Organized Religion is NOT my goal as I severely disagree with it. Please don’t confuse them with me.
I will do my assignments ASAP Professor! But I want a A+ from you (LOL)
Mike, this conversation jogged some cobwebs in my brain. I was driving home one evening and heard Jaynes being interviewed on NPR. If memory serves correctly, that was in the late 1980’s. It was a very long interview and ended up being one of those NPR “driveway moments,” because when I got home I sat in the car to listen to the interview all the way to the end. Some folks just grab your mind and hold on. Jaynes was one of those people
“Some folks just grab your mind and hold on. Jaynes was one of those people”
OS,
I was in training at the Gestalt Center in NYC when Jaynes book came out. I had already been in my own psychotherapy for five years and was thoroughly immersed in Fritz. What impressed me so much with this book, which I’ve kept for 35 years through various moves, was not just the theory but the mental associations the theory evoked.
Fritz’s “Top Dog/Under Dog” notion not only dovetailed with it, but here was an explanation of the actual mechanics involved. As I remember it from that time my colleagues at the Center were surprisingly unimpressed by it, to the point of not even bothering to read it. Such is ever the attitude of many mentors and acolytes of any discipline who are reluctant to expand its horizons even when
presented with mind-bending information that can actually clarify their belief.
In that respect, one night I asked the Center Director whether we are in effect a modern form of Shaman. This came to mind because I was also heavily into
Joseph Campbell at the time. She dismissed the question with a curt “no” and by my colleagues faces I could see that they were shocked that I even asked the question. Whether via ego, pigheadedness, or remaining true to what therapy had taught me, I trusted my own judgment rather than theirs.
Jaynes work remains brilliant in its ability to stimulate thoughts on how our
organisms control themselves. For instance perhaps a dividing point between
humans and other animals is that humans have the possibility of overriding the instructions from the right brain. My one point of contention with Jaynes is that I think there is much evidence that the dividing line was much earlier than 1200 BCE based on religious artifacts discovered. That is a minor quibble that doesn’t distract at all from the innovation of his work, but actually expands it.
“you’ve quoted Jaynes and now Fritz…which do you suggest is most pertinent to the zeitgeist of today? If both, which would you read first?”
Woosty,
My own preference would be to read Perls autobiography “In and Out of the Garbage Pail” since it is a fun read and got me started on my Gestalt path. Both books are relevant today because they can be helpful to a thoughtful person working out their own sense of the human condition. It might be interesting for you to kow that even though I still retain a close affiity to Gestalt philosophy, were I to become a therapist today I would study Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) because I have personally seen its effectiveness in treating some of the most disabling of mental disorders. It fits in well with both Perls, Jaynes and Campbell.
“And oh yes, he was very conversant with the works of both Joseph Campbell and Julian Jaynes as well as Alan Watts.”
OS,
Great story about your cousin. As you well know all of those guys are on the same continuum, as are we.
SoTB,
Was not attempting rancor when I suggested the Ebionites. At the worst I was piling on the homework. Knowledge of them is helpful in a discussion (nix the word debate) of this sort … but not at all necessary. 😉
bazingah!
@Mike Spindell – Darn it Mike you gave me MORE homework! 🙂
You are brutal! Were you ever a college professor? But anyway tell our friends we ARE NOT debating. We are only having a friendly conversation.
OK here we go… I hope the Rancor doesn’t get pissed and piss all over us but what are ya’ gonna’ do? Here goes
BEWARE LOGGERIA ON!
====================================================
—————
To Readers: all scriptural references can be looked up here if you don’t have a bible: http://www.biblegateway.com
—————
“SoTB,
One of the reasons that I waited to respond until home was so that I could do so with the “Pentateuch and Haftorahs” edited by Dr. J.H. Hertz and published by The Soncino Press. That way linguistically and translation wise I am dealing with the original version of the Torah. The following are some of the “inconsistencies” I see that you ascribe to reader misunderstanding.”
[Me] No I have more deference to Orthodox Jewish Scholars. I was under the false impression that you were a member of the benighted Fundamentalist Christians. Sorry.
“1. God rested o the 7th Day. Obviously an allegory since the eternal omniscient creator of the Universe does not need to rest. However, as an allegory explaining man’s need of a day of rest it makes sense.”
[Me] Let’s remember that Moses was working with a self-admitted cognitive-deficit (See Exodus 4:10). So we must use discernment in translating his words into Modern English. Genesis 2:2 “And he proceeded to rest.” Hebrew: wai.yish.both′. The verb is in the imperfect state denoting incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress. So it does not mean relaxation due to human-style exhaustion.
“2. God created Eve from Adam’s rib. Really SoTB? This is pure allegory in scope used to justify man’s position above women.”
[Me] Again Moses had no POR (point-of-reference), with his ancient Egyptian education, while viewing via divine external thought-induction to his brain from YHVH (i.e. via auditory suggestions, dreams, portents, trances, etc. See Daniel 2:19; 7:1 for example of inspired dreams, etc.). So he had no POR to Deoxyribonucleic Acid, which is obviously what Moses, was viewing at Genesis 2:22 but did not know the word DNA as word wasn’t invented yet. The divine process ostensibly not much unlike the VERY *rudimentary* version of this divine event called human-cloning today. Furthermore, a recently deceased scientist at Harvard U proved that external electronic induction of suggestions to a human subject’s mind is possible. Men are not more important to God than women. What you refer to by men is Biblical misinterpretations by sexist men NOT YHVH’s intention at all. Women are venerated in the Bible and males are instructed to be kind caregivers to wives and daughters (et al) NOT senseless moronic chauvinist-pigs like many men today.
“3. Genesis II, 18 [Gen 2:18] “I will make him a help meet for him.” In the commentary of this we see that the Rabbinic interpretation of this is that celibacy is contrary to nature. This is inconsistent with the fact that later after eating from the “tree [of knowledge]” Adam hides his nakedness. Doesn’t make sense in context unless as an allegory regarding how to arrange society. What if Adam and Eve didn’t eat of the “Tree”? What was the society contemplated?”
[Me] Actually YHVH said at Genesis 2:9 that He planted several trees in GoE that were “…good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.”. He gave them a SIMPLE instruction at Genesis 2:16,17: “…From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the [TOK] tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die [eventually].” Brackets added by me. They never got to the other tree, which would have arguably guaranteed them everlasting life – THANK GOD! Now why is it that these trees are so pivotal to organic life? Could there be some technical or scientific secret not easily seen by readers here? Obviously God put some sort of block or impetus to their natural cognitive reasoning centers of their brains making them little more than children in thinking. Allegedly they were created as full-grown adults, so that tracks. However, if the TOK had very attractive fruit that was LOADED in AO (antioxidants) to the level that would poison us imperfect (i.e. wholly flawed) humans today, what would theoretically happen to that artificial brain-blockage? Would then their “…eyes of both of them became opened and they began to realize that they were naked…”? Well if God had implanted some basic SM (social morays) – like cover yourself up! – into their PRE-BLOCKED parts of their brains, could a massive antioxidant slightly mitigate it enough for those instinctual SM’s to kick in? What is one of the oldest conifer trees in the world that has pretty golden-colored fruit that has massive amounts of toxic AO’s but the harmless leaves are excellent for augmenting mental cognition? Food for thought. All just theories…
(BTW God intended for for them to eventually partake of TOK if they passed a simple binary-obedience-trial a child could follow,which they obviously deliberately failed.).
“4. So then expelled from the Garden and having sex three sons are born, one killed. Who did Cain and Seth marry? Where did their wives come from?”
[Me] Well a lot of Bible readers miss this passage: Genesis 5:4 – WHAT!!! You’re suggesting incest SotB!!! Wouldn’t Cain and Seth’s children be retarded? No! Since Adam and Eve were reported by Moses to be created PERFECT (or without flaws), this would make this particular incest medically OK. How about morally? When did incest become socially and morally wrong? When people got more and more removed from the original perfection and the empirical evidence was awful birth-defects, the human authorities then said STOP or else! Evidently that came pretty quickly: See Leviticus 18:6, 23. Since there was no other women on Earth ANYWHERE what choice did they have? The animal kingdom obviously has absolutely NO problem with incest.
“On another point you refer to your belief that the writings of the Torah were perverted by Roman Catholicism. I don’t disagree, but you do seem to imply that prior to the Council of Nicaea, etc. there was a truer strain of Christian though regarding the Torah. I dispute that. To my way of thinking Christianity was a Pauline concoction that had little to do with Jesus, or his followers. Much of my belief of this is based on the writings of Hyam Maccoby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyam_Maccoby , all of whose books I’ve read. Beyond that at one point you allude that the Torah predicted Jesus and I dispute that as well.”
[Me] Well I say that 4th c. CE Emperor Constantine or EC (et al) perverted more than just the O.T. (old testament) but both OT and NT the entire Bible! Was there a BETTER form of Christianity before that? Yes the ORIGINAL 1 c. CE one taught by the Messiah prophesized by Isaiah, namely Yesuha ben Yoseph (Jesus Son of Joseph of Nazareth). Almost NOTHING seems to match between his new religion by JC and what EC created in the4th century (i.e. Roman Catholic Church). Example: The concept of Peter starting Catholic Church, The Trinity, Crucifix, Christ’s Deity, Hell Fire, immortality of the soul, unlimited heavenly access, etc. was COMPLETLEY foreign to 1st century Christians. Yes. Isaiah did prophesize the Messiah just not by name though.
“The subject of Christianity, Judaism and Jesus has been a lifelong avocation of mine. I avoid going into it too deeply because it is neither my place, nor my desire to impact upon others religious viewpoints, as long as they don’t impact on mine. Suffice it to say that when you make a statement about the Sanhedrin condemning Jesus, I see that as incorrect. There was nothing of Jesus teachings in the Gospels that was offensive against Jewish belief and besides that the Sanhedrin did not have either the power of condemnation and/or execution. Jesus was executed by the Romans because he had declared himself of the Davidic line and thus “King of the Jews”. This was treason under Roman Law since only the Emperor could declare Kingship. Israel was in constant turmoil against Roman Occupation and Jesus was probably a revolutionary leader.”
[Me] I agree with you that it was the ancient Italians (aka Roman) that pulled the trigger on the Messiah Jesus. But how do you account for this passage (1 of many BTW): Matthew 27:12-14 – What is your definition of Sanhedrin other than “…chief priests and older men…”. I speak of CONTRIBUTORY manslaughter, by peer BETRAYAL not condemnation, not directly like how the Romans did. He was also not a Pharisee as he knew far more about the law and contemporary and possible future events than any of them. He (disciples and apostles too) differentiated himself from all of them (John’s words at Matthew 3:7 reflected JC’s POV too)
“I write the above not to start a debate with you, since denying each others beliefs is a futile process and we each have to come to our own decisions on what we believe and how it informs our life. However, in your statements you seem to imply a lack of depth of understanding on my part and that is certainly not the case. My life has been a search for meaning and truth, not only personally, but also in the Gestalt of things. I write that with a smile, since I doubt that you also know that I am a Institute Trained Gestalt Psychotherapist and was licensed to practice Psychotherapy for 25 years until a retirement forced by disability.”
[Me] I agree with you but what’s going on here is that people are locked into their rote education and narrow paradigms that they feel no one is allowed to coin expressions and use loan words from official theories and teachings. Well… let me correct that now… when I say GESTALT I am not referring to any teaching, theory, or science. I am simply using the German noun “die gestalt” which simply means: “An organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.” So what am I talking about? I’m talking about basic human common sense not some vaunted theory! I like to call gestalt “the big picture”. I hate it when people pontificate on the PARTS of a whole like that is the “be all end all” answer. I want them to see the gestalt not the parts that will confuse some people’s big picture or “gestalt of our existence”.
“On the larger point of this sub-argument, which devolves around evolution, I again state that the overall theory and its various proofs make sense to me, but like any piece of science all its inconsistencies have not been resolved. On the other hand ID is a fraud and plainly neither scientific, nor intelligent. That I believe in the possibility of a Creator, is merely a belief of mine, not science.”
[Me] OK I accept that. However, I too reject ID, but not in it’s entirety. Of course I coined SSA (or super-sentient-architect) to explain it my way. But I refuse to discuss it here, as the answers I would posit are too deep and lengthy. Whether they are right or wrong is subjective just as much as that other science-theory you mentioned is subjective and not objective as adamantly suggested as an absolute earlier. Empirical observational-error makes it subjective in my opinion.
============================================
OMG I think I smell the fact-Rancor waking up!!! All stations prepare for out of contexts attacks!!! 🙂
SoTB,
Really? When you say that you hate it when people debate over the sum of the parts, rather than the whole, you are in fact talking about Faith. In that context you are starting from an accepted premise and rationalizing any inconsistencies along the way. An example is when, with no evidence except your own Faith you claim that Jesus was not a Pharisee because he knew much more. What do you base that statement on? Are you aware that Jesus “Golden Rule” was also formulated by Rabbi Hillel the great Pharisee sage from the same era. Hillel was merely teaching what was accepted thought by the Pharisees for years before either man existed. That formulation was not unique having also been used by Confucius and The Buddha half a millenia prior.
In any event I’m not into debating this with you since I wouldn’t want to disparage your beliefs. Suffice it to say that from my perspective you are somewhat less than a Torah scholar. No doubt you feel the same about me. Let’s call it an agreement to disagree. I would like to point out though that at times your attitude dips into being condescending and can be annoying. This is a pity because you obviously have much to contribute. You have to realize though that there are a lot of smart people here, many I consider more erudite than myself, so being condescending often brings on onslaughts of facts you hadn’t considered or entertained. This is why I find that respect for others is returned in kind.
I made the points you disparaged as merely representing my opinions. They were cursory and terse, though they are informed by a lot of thought and study,, perhaps more than your own.
Gene,
I can readily admit when I am incorrect….. And here I do….. I was incorrect about Einstein actually working on the Manhattan Project…… He did write a letter to FDR…… That may have got the ball rolling…..
I think I also may have a spare cc of Origins. I’ll check in when/if I locate it.
It should be more readily available than it is, of course.
Mike Spindell, other as well, I have a very deficient Jewish education but some parts of it (from now-unidentifiable sources) are dovetailing in. What I have “heard” or read about Jesus: He was born to parents who were not both KNOWN biological parents of his, that is, his mother conceived with someone other than Joseph while she was engaged to Joseph. Although the Hebrew law had no “illegitimate child” doctrine, it had a law called something like “Mumzeruth” which meant that since your parentage was questionable, you could never marry. (Not knowing who your father was, you could not rule out anyone, and thus, your prospective wife’s father might be your own and that would make an incestuous marriage which was forbidden. Mumzerim, however, were not allowed to be subjected to any civil disabilities other than marriage and they were not allowed to be discriminated against in other ways. Jesus was born under the stigma of Mumzeruth and reached age 33 without marriage — unheard of for anyone from his socioeconomic group in that time. So, I was told (and believed) when it became commonly known that he was among the top scholars of his day, he should have had a seat on the Sanhedrin. To deny him that position was discrimination and there arose the natural tension between the done-to and the doers-to. (Need we go THERE, here — I think not.)
Many of the conflicts that arose between Jesus and the Establishment were as public as his conflicts with the Romans. Had his own tribe condemned him, however, they probably would have stoned him rather than the Roman crucifiction. But I lose track around there.
I love the Greek choral music, Kyrie Eleison. None of it gives me any real religious feeling. People are the same now as they ever were, and if Jesus were to return I think he’d get himself killed again. Probably his killers would have bumper stickers saying “WWJD?” on them. I KNOW he’d be frightened by all those crosses on top of all those buildings in the nicest part of town. Would suffer from PTSD if there is memory in the afterlife. (I sure hope there ISN’T!)
But anyway, where I was going with this was that I can remember from a few years of actual study that there was no real need to “Believe” in the Hebrew law. Man was not saved by belief (a la Luther) but by the law. The first law was not (as in our constitution) about freedom of speech and petition, but it was an exclusionary rule: YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.
OK, the competitions are ended. For you to be MY PEOPLE, you have to forsake all others, and no more of that friendly sacrifice to other folks’ gods when you go through their territory. You’re mine, I’ll give you what’s YOURS (Canaan) and you LISTEN TO ME.
It’s pretty patriarchal, when you get right down to it. I don’t think Jesus had a problem with that at all. He was probably preaching with John the Baptist and with Judas, and he was doing his thing the way Socrates had done his thing, and there are others, and they met similar fates if their preaching was threatening to the authorities of the day. Jesus was preaching a branch of Judaism, and of course, the underlying Hebrew organizational myth was the story of the slave rebellion. Still is. “The Lord stretched out his hand and took us out of slavery.” Not a very palatable curriculum for the Romans — to this day!
I have heard Central American priests talk about Jesus having represented a “liberation theology.” Sounds right to me. It couldn’t work, of course.
So subtly and not so subtly, the “liberate us from those who clobber us over the heads with ‘our sins,'” it came to be, ‘He died for our sins.” Although not, perhaps, for mine. Except perhaps for the sin of ignorance, for which so many of us have to die.
Gene, Malisha etc.,
“you find something you never saw before, ” … aahhh, yes, indeed.
I attended two lectures. I have two books because one is so well used I was afraid it would fall apart in my hands and I’d lose all the notes I’d written. Right now all I can find is the well used one but I will keep on looking. Spring housecleaning begins in a couple of weeks and I will instruct everyone to keep an eye out for it if I haven’t found it by then.
Blouise,
Part of the reason I comment here is the quality of the crew. In all the years since I first read Jaynes I never ran into anyone who either read him or was interested in his work. Just on this thread we have at least five.
Gene H, Blouise, do you have the experience that each time you read it you find something you never saw before, and you think, “HUH, how did I miss THAT?”
I do that with Hundred Years of Solitude too. And I read that book aloud onto a CD so someone who “couldn’t slog through it” (!?&*#^$??) would have the opportunity to try it by ear.
You should check into the Julian Jaynes Society — it’s $25 for life!
Awesome, Blouise. Thanks!
Gene,
I have two … I’ll look around and if I find the second one I’ll send it to you.
SoTB,
You might also want to look at the Ebionites before debating Mike.
sonofthunderboanerges1, April 17, 2012 at 5:47 pm
….. (Yes Wootsey I do sound like Sheldon sometimes but I prefer the voice of reason of Leonard (LOL)). Your gonna’ make me cite Biblical scripture invoking the resident Turley Blog fact-Rancor (time-stamp 02:18)
Watch this 4 minute YouTube of Star Wars animation and the infamous Rancor at 02:18. While I dust off my Torah (uhhh I mean Bible)…
——————————-
I KNEW IT!!!!!
…a hard shelled grumpy giant …..;)
Don’t get me wrong , Sheldon is one of my favorite characters….my step-Dad was an astrophysicist and both Sheldon and Leonard share a bit of that spark.
It’s Woosty. 😉
Mike,
I read Jaynes in college and it was one of those weirdly lucent transcendent experiences of understanding. A truly transformational experience. Once learned, it changes the perspecitive on everything. Yeah, he is highly underrated alright. I need to get a new copy though. I misplaced mine on a move. Such is the nature of books.
Mike Spindell1, April 17, 2012 at 5:36 pm
————————
Mike…..yup, everythings connected 🙂
Malisha,
I find it delightful that you bring up Jaynes. I read his book with excitement when it first came out and feel he made a great contribution to the understanding of the human mind. There is much in what he wrote, as OS pointed out, that is compatible with my training in Gestalt Psychotherapy. I did follow the society for awhile, but not being a joiner, lost track of it. Nevertheless, I believe Jaynes to be under appreciated.
SoTB,
For me the beauty of “Star Wars” was the original three movies. To me the prequels were raging bores.:)