--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > You know, Rick, you really should include on the home > > > page that this "spiritual" forum welcomes liars and > > > that honesty is not held as a value. > > > > I agree, Rick. Please include in the rap that > > such liars are welcome to comment on films > > they have never seen, > > See below about Barry's comments on Inland Empire. > > > and to call the creator > > of a film they have never seen a "bigot." That > > certainly shows a devotion to honesty. > > It's not necessary to see "Apocalypto" to know that > Gibson is a Christian bigot. It's pretty widely > acknowledged and has been since long before he made > that film.
It seems to me, Judith, that your relationship to this film is the same as your relationship with enlightenment and your willingness to debate its fine points. That is, you've never actually *experienced* either, but you know what's what because other people have talked about both, and you've read what they've said. :-) > > > Damn right I didn't "review" the movie, as the post > > > in question clearly shows. For Barry to believe he can > > > actually reproduce the post *and still claim that I > > > "reviewed" it* is a truly massive exercise in solipsism. > > > > In ALL of the subsequent discussion of this gaffe, > > Judy has studiously avoided the real issue, which > > is that she commented on a film she has never seen, > > going so far as to call the filmmaker a "Christian > > bigot." > > No, Barry's lying again. There was no "gaffe,"... Yeah, right. And Hillary just won the nomination. :-) > ...and I > certainly didn't avoid the "issue" that I had commented > on a film I hadn't seen or called Gibson a Christian > bigot (which I stand by). Let me get this straight -- you stand on calling Mel Gibson a Christian bigot and the film that you've never seen an example of bigotry, is that right? > That's what the subsequent > discussion was *about*, of course, and I addressed > both "issues" in detail, as Barry knows. You did not. You quibbled over the word "reviewed," and called people liars for using it, as you are still doing. Let's settle it. Did you or did you not make rather scathing comments about a filmmaker and his film, which you had never seen? Answering this question with a "Yes" would be not avoiding the issue. Any other answer is avoiding the issue. > I have no problem with someone saying I *commented* > on the film. They were very brief comments and were > based on a Mayan expert's analysis of the film's > historical accuracy... In other words, they were based on believing what someone else said, rather than going to the source. Excuse me, but isn't that the SAME thing you have been berating people for over the things they say about Hillary Clinton? Why is it that forming an opinion about Hillary Clinton based on what many writers have said about her is not acceptable to you, but *you* forming an opinion based upon what one writer said about Mel Gibson's movie is acceptable? Aren't you proposing a bit of a double standard here? It's fine when you do it, but not when anyone else does it? > ...which analysis there is no > reason to doubt (among other reasons because he > was hardly the only person to mention them, as I > documented in the original discussion). There is very little reason for me to doubt what *hundreds* of columnists have written about Hillary Clinton, her lack of ethics, and her abrasive per- sonality. I've even got numbers on my side, because more columnists -- some of whom know her personally and have for years -- have said these things than have said more positive things about her. So why is this bad when I or someone else who thinks Hillary Clinton is a joke whose fifteen minutes of fame expired some months ago does it, but it's OK when you do it with regard to a movie you've never seen? I'll wait. > What I did was very different, as Barry and Vaj > are well aware, from "reviewing" the film. Words > *do* have meanings. You'd think Barry, who fondly > thinks of himself as a writer, would know that. Word nitpicking again. In this post, as *you said you had no problem with* above, I am suggesting that you *commented* on this film, and commented by calling Mel Gibson a "Christian bigot." Is this not true? In your *comment*, you said, "Gibson has slandered the Maya and mangled history for the purpose of exalting the purported superiority of Christianity," did you not? That sounds a lot to me as if you are commenting on the *substance* of the film. Did you see the film? > Barry might also want to remember that he branded > Lynch's "Inland Empire" a "stupid movie" without ever > having seen it, in a post that he subsequently > *deleted*, cowardly hypocrite that he is--but > unfortunately for him, not before I'd seen it. Barry commented on an excerpt of the film that was posted here and that I watched, not on the film itself. Having subsequently wasted several hours of my life seeing it, my original comment of "silly," based on the excerpt, was fully borne out in the film itself. It was silly. Did *you* ever see "Inland Empire," Judy? Based on your track record with comments about films, I'd like to hear your review...oh, excuse me... comments about this one. :-) > The "gaffes" in the discussion of "Apocalypto" were, > in fact, all Barry's, and were too numerous to > mention. If anybody's interested, the main threads > were titled "Mel Gibson, Christian Bigot" and > "Finally saw 'Apocalypto.'" Barry brought it up in > other threads, despite having made an utter fool of > himself in the main ones, as he's doing here; just > do a search for "Apocalypto" to find the posts. As if anyone here values your word enough to do so. :-) > <snip> > > Judy, do you *still* believe that Mel Gibson is > > a "Christian bigot" (your term) for making the > > film "Apocalypto?" > > Not for making the film, but for what he put in > the film. Which you have never seen. I rest my case. I continue to believe that Hillary Clinton is com- pletely without ethics and has an abrasive personality that is unsuited for high office, and that she would be better suited to a career as a fishmonger than as President. And I believe this for the *same* reason you believe what you said above -- I read a great number of comments about her and how she conducts herself, written by people who knew her well and have worked with her closely over the years. Is that the same thing as having known her and worked with her myself? Absolutely not. But why is is OK for you to slander Mel Gibson, his motives, and his film (which, again, you have never seen) based on what someone has written about it, and it's not OK for me or others to believe what we believe about Hillary, based on what *many* people have written about her? > > Please cite examples from the > > film you've never seen to illustrate. > > Just refer to the original post. > > > (The orig- > > inal author of the piece you quoted and believed > > without seeing the movie got several of his > > examples *wrong*, so I wouldn't use them if I > > were you.) > > No, Barry, it was you who got things wrong, > including your utterly ludicrous notion that it was > fundamentally intended as a "love story," something > Gibson would find hilarious. You made a bunch of > other howling bloopers as well. That "ludicrous notion" came from an interview with the film's director, Mel Gibson, spoken by himself. If you had ever seen Mel's movies, you would know that pretty much every one he makes is a love story. (Which he also said in the interview.) That's just what he *does*. He's a sap. :-) Bottom line, Judy, is that you have presented no reason in any of your three posts this morning why I and others should not consider you a joke, *especially* when it comes to the issue of "honesty." You are willing to slander someone and their film without ever seeing it, and you are later willing to stand on that assessment, still without ever having seen the film. The next time you lambaste someone for believing what they read about Hillary Clinton, I think you're going to hear the howls of laughter all the way to New Jersey.
