Don’t call me a troll because I don’t buy into meaningless ideas.
"Gaikowski was in Europe!"
"Blaine is the source of his information!"
Spreading misinformation is what trolls do.
So you have no evidence then. 
This is pointless without anything of substance. I’m out.
So you have no evidence then.
So I guess I need to explain that obviously if there was evidence the case wouldn’t be unsolved.
Joining a discussion about a suspect only to say "that’s not proof!", and to repeat misinformation, is what trolls do.
Your game is old and anyone can play it. Thankfully most choose not to.
My ‘game’ was to point out that your significance of the connection of phrasing used by (probably) 2 different people is flawed. That’s it.
What if some dudes dirty old uncle used to head to the local San Fran whore house on a Friday night. On his way out he would shout “right, I’m off out to go get my rocks off!”, as he jumped in his brown Chevy 
“But but you are making that up, now you are trolling”
Right, but the point is someone could have done that. The phrase as I first said was probably used by thousands of people in the vicinity. Until you know of all these cases and people, you can’t apply any significance to any one person. You are finding significance without the complete information, and probably not even 1% of it. That isn’t science.
Richard printing the words in a paper doesn’t mean anything either. If it was a commonly used phrase of his then there is a good chance he will use it in written form at some point. Especially being a journalist.
So what you are left with is a potentially interesting observation which needs backing up with a LOT more. That’s fine. That’s the way it should be. It’s not something to get defensive over. I would be very happy for you to prove me wrong. But to do that ideas need to stand up to challenge and scrutiny. Or they at least need significant back up. Peace.
Stretching. Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is a deeply nihilistic film. The first quote you have there is describing the actions of Alex. The latter is an acute observation about the themes of Kubrick’s film which is that the only way for an oppressive, capitalistic society to be fixed is to tear it down. He prefaces his thoughts by saying "from this viewpoint" as in that of the film. Yes, Alex and Kubrick flirt with the notion of anarchy and violence as a solution to civilizations woes. Maybe Kubrick is the Zodiac?
Clockwork Orange is not a nihilistic book, and if the film had included the last chapter this would have been incredibly clear.
The story has heavy religious and moral implications woven throughout, making it the opposite of a nihilistic tale.
Its a story about faith in the essential decency of the human soul. It also heavily implicates the idea that "God gives us a choice" and to take away that choice is an act against God.
I have not read the book, or watched the film since I was around 14 years old, but I remember the implications of the book being very clear to me, while others were so caught up in the controversial content or bizarre manner of speech that they seem to completely miss this.
Any way, I still stand by my first post:
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
The book is a linguistic work of art, blending Russian, cockeney, and fabricated language into a James Joyce styled read that is as rich in language as it is in novelty.
I remember writing a paper on this book in 8th grade, and I remember I got an "a" on the paper, I detailed all of the philosophical, religious, and moral themes of the book, but that was a long time ago, and my memory has faded on topic since then.
Yes I’ve read the book and seen the film. I didn’t mention the book because of course like all of Kubrick’s adaptations he changed the source material. I think his version is extremely nihilistic.
The film?
Stan really did not change very much, all and all it is incredibly close to the book, in most cases it is word for word.
The book was written in a manner where the language and dialogue in itself is a linguistic art form, and Stanley had the decency to realize this. Stan was a smart, smart, guy, and I feel he did a good job, minus leaving out the final chapter of the book in his film. He ends the film with Alex waking up "cured" with all manner of "ultra-violence" running through his mind, as if he had not changed at all, it completely destroys the point of the story if Alex doesn’t change on his own.
…though Perhaps we are defining nihilistic in a different manner.
nihilistic = rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless.
…I see the book, and film, as centered on religious and moral principals, namely that God gave man the right to choose, and when you take away man’s God given right to choice you are left with "a clockwork orange" (a mechanical orangutan).
Yes, there is incredibly violent and disturbing content included, but it was not for the sake of depravity or violence itself, it was included to demonstrate the moral, philosophical and religious principals which the story was founded on.
However, I can understand, though I still respectfully disagree.
*it appears that zodiac enjoys playing with language, we see this in the misspellings in his letters, which were in all likelihood intentional, so zodiac probably would have enjoyed the book and film on this basis, I’m sure he also enjoyed the violence. So, if your POI was a fan of this book or film it may lend a small amount to the theory.
Lets all try to remain respectful of one another, even if we can not agree.
If an individual supports the "gyke POI theory" that is their personal choice. I think it all comes down to being respectful of one another when we disagree. Cooperation and mutual respect are key to productivity and progress.
The phrase as I first said was probably used by thousands of people in the vicinity.
Not in newspapers.
You are in such a rush to play the skeptic. Imagine if I joined the Sullivan discussion to downplay his connection to the library where Bates was last seen. I don’t think Sullivan was involved but a connection is a connection.
Both Zodiac and Gaikowski got that phrase in newspapers in the Bay Area during the same time period. Both Zodiac and Gaikowski shared their flippant attitudes about murder and mayhem in newspapers in the Bay Area during the same time period.
If such things were so normal and common you should be able to find examples from other than Zodiac and Gaikowski.
I won’t hold my breath.
Voight strikes again… not surprised…Someone doubted Gaik as Zodiac…we might as well pack it in and accept Gaik was the guy so voights nerd rage doesn’t come out again…
New rule: Everone who doubts Gaik as zodiac will be considered a troll
Voight strikes again… not surprised…Someone doubted Gaik as Zodiac…
Have you read the posts? We are discussing a phrase used and the likelihood of such phrase getting published in newspapers at the time.
Do you have anything to offer? Probably not.
Yeah yeah the “rocks off” thing…I’ve used that quote years ago…I’m not zodiac…so has everyone else
Yeah yeah the “rocks off” thing…I’ve used that quote years ago…I’m not zodiac…so has everyone else
Did you get it published in a newspaper? Because Zodiac and Gaikowski did.
Way to follow along.
Not that big a deal
Common phrases are used more than once in newspapers…cmon you can do better
Common phrases are used more than once in newspapers
Find me an example. You can’t.
