Regeneration- part 1

Part 1 of the movie Behind the Lines based on Pat Barker's novel Regeneration.

I saw quite a few people were looking for this movie and yet it can't be found anywhere online, so i thought I'd solve that because its such a good film. Plus, if like me, you do English literature AS level, then its coursework, too. So enjoy :)

DISCLAIMER: I do not own the footage.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Regeneration
• Behind
• the
• Lines
• Pat
• Barker
• Siegfried
• Sassoon
• Wilfred
• Owen

[fahrenheit45one]

Thanks for loading this up. It is one of my favourite films.

[fahrenheit45one]

@charlotteyeo1993.... hmmm i think maybe you need to stay in :(

[Usernamesarebunk420]

Ty for upload, good movie I can't seem to find, ony on TV once in a blue moon.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@THthefirst

As I said, whining about 'evidence' while being quite unable to sustain an exchange of any scope or provide any intelligent observation at all makes you just another boring and frustrated youtuber I have no interest in. Take your non-conversation somewhere else, find someone as petty & empty-headed as you are. Get the picture: your inflationary slurs and petty aggression BORE me, lay off, I've got more interesting exchanges going on and don't owe you anything.

[THthefirst]

@suddenlyitsobvious Even if (which I dispute) it could be spelled

"formulas", it certainly is not spelled as you put it, "formula's". Look up how to use apostrophes. In terms of offering anything else, I refer you to the below, when I simply asked you what evidence you have for your various, glib statements. You have none.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@THthefirst

'By the way, the plural of formula is formulae'

And if you're petty and intellectually frustrated enough to vent your hang-ups using this kind of substandard bitching about semantics (have you got anything else -NO), make sure you get it right, hmmm?

You're WRONG, the plural can be spelled both ways. He he he.

THE END.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@THthefirst

'very little'

I think you got the point. You're inflated, and have got nothing to show for it, which is why I'M THE ONE not interested in exchanging with you -which is why you're blocked.

[THthefirst]

@suddenlyitsobvious Yawn....you make a lot of (virtual) noise but say very little of any worth. I'd say it's mere prattle. If you want to make glib statements yet admit you have no idea of whether you have any evidence or not to back them up, then that is going to leave you open to criticism. By the way, the plural of formula is formulae. I grow bored of this sub-sixth form level debate with you. Cheerio. 

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@THthefirst

...a wider set of intellectual skills, experience and erudition. Quick formula's and generalizations don't cut it for exchanging on issues such as sex, evil, or the nature of society.

At any rate, your essential mistake is that you failed to create the required conditions for a meaningful exchange.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@THthefirst

...have seen no problem exploring the issue. Your inflated, unsubstantive posts, that are merely aiming to establish an intellectual superiority that simply isn't there do NOT engage me.

You state again:

'If you are right, then you are corrupt too, so why should I listen in any event?'

This conclusion doesn't follow logically from its premise in all cases.

The problem here appears to be the delusion that you'll get somewhere using sterile logic alone in the absence...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@THthefirst

'The onus is on you, as the one making the assertion, to at least provide some credible evidence'

Another misconception; I don't have to provide anything, and I'll debate whom and when it's convenient and appealing. Perhaps you thought that sending a few slurs and irritated questions would provoke a flurry of explanations and justifications from my part?

If anyone had sent me an inquiry as to what precisely I meant or disagreed in an intelligent fashion I would...