He does seem like a sweet guy! I would like to get a better sense of the context of these comments, is the entire review on your site somewhere?

He does seem like a sweet guy! I would like to get a better sense of the context of these comments, is the entire review on your site somewhere?

Yeah, I posted it years ago.

The first quote was his description of the film. The second quote was how it made him feel.

Thanks man, I will check it out. It’s not that the quotes sound ambiguous or that I fear you are misrepresenting his comments, I just want to get a better sense of how he discusses these kinds of issues in print.

Thanks man, I will check it out. It’s not that the quotes sound ambiguous or that I fear you are misrepresenting his comments, I just want to get a better sense of how he discusses these kinds of issues in print.

No worries.

Between August 1969 and when Gaikowski’s movie review was published a couple of years later, I dare say no other examples exist of a San Francisco newspaper printing anything about getting rocks off.

Thanks man, I will check it out. It’s not that the quotes sound ambiguous or that I fear you are misrepresenting his comments, I just want to get a better sense of how he discusses these kinds of issues in print.

No worries.

Between August 1969 and when Gaikowski’s movie review was published a couple of years later, I dare say no other examples exist of a San Francisco newspaper printing anything about getting rocks off.

That is worth a ponder!

He’s doing an ‘edgy’ review of an ‘edgy’ movie in his ‘edgy’ magazine. So?

I’m yet to see anything of any real substance to put Gaik on the suspect list. As fun as it is to ponder.

Same goes for all the well known suspects though I suppose. No real evidence for anyone.

When it comes to "a clockwork orange" I think leaving the last chapter out of the film ruined the point of the book.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the film as well as the book, but when you remove that last chapter it completely changes the message and meaning of the tale.

In the last chapter of the book "Alex" is cured from the damage done by his government treatment and is released. He runs into one of his "droogs", this droog is with a woman and has obviously grown up, he mocks Alex’s childish slang and dress, and conveys to Alex that he has obviously changed for the better, This leads Alex to question his lifestyle, it allows him to grow, and to truly change, on his own.

While the film, which leaves this out, would lead you to believe that Alex was just as evil as before. The film gives the impression that people can not change, while the book gives the message that even the worst of us can become good people.

…perhaps if the film included the last chapter it would have been less appealing to psychopaths.

He’s doing an ‘edgy’ review of an ‘edgy’ movie in his ‘edgy’ magazine. So?

Gaikowski wrote for all to see that he felt murder was good. Have you ever done that? Under any circumstances?

I think you’ve got to consider that California (and in particular San Francisco) in the late 60’s to early 70’s was a little different to how things are half a century on.

Psychedelic drugs, Vietnam, the hippy culture, anti-establishment sentiment, racial riots, etc were all part of a turbulent society and it was quite “cool” for people to tune into this and act like they didn’t give a sh*t. Don’t think we can really compare the writings of cutting edge people of the time with how the average person acts today, especially given the number of snowflakes out there who go the press or the police if you say the word negro or make a joke about the mother in law.

Having said that, only an hour ago I was reading the comments and replies on a Facebook news thread about a mentally ill woman who had killed a friend. There must have been hundreds of comments from mothers, grannies, teenagers, etc who said they’d “burn the evil witch”, “torture her for days” or “kill her slowly”, etc. These angry rantings are either just the modern day equivalent to the anarchic writings of the counter culture or we have a disturbing number of homicidal mums and grannies out there.

Gaikowski wrote for all to see that he felt murder was good. Have you ever done that? Under any circumstances?

I’m not a writer and have no public works. Richard has many thousands of words available to see and there’s bound to be a few ‘comparisons’. Small world and all that.

The guy ran an anarchist hippie style magazine. I’m not surprised he had some twisted views. Doesn’t mean he was Zodiac.

Don’t think we can really compare the writings of cutting edge people of the time with how the average person acts today

Then lots of other examples must surely exist? By all means, point me to them, because I’ve been looking a long time.

I’m not surprised he had some twisted views. Doesn’t mean he was Zodiac.

Didn’t say it did.

In your world it’s apparently normal to be stimulated to the point that rape and murder is ok. Gotcha. I have never reached that point.

I think you’ve got to consider that California (and in particular San Francisco) in the late 60’s to early 70’s was a little different to how things are half a century on.

Virtually all of the Zodiac suspects were Californians from the late 1960s. Now, how many discussed being stimulated to the point that murder was a good thing, or anything even close to that? The percentage would be extremely low. Therefore, the "oh but it was normal back then" doesn’t hold water.

Didn’t say it did.

In your world it’s apparently normal to be stimulated to the point that rape and murder is ok. Gotcha. I have never reached that point.

What, lol.

They are his words not mine. You quoted them in the OP, remember?