--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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. :-)
Well, you don't know what I have or haven't experienced, so this sure is a moot point, not to mention a non sequitur. <snip> > > > 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. :-) Did somebody say Hillary had won the nomination, or did you make that up? > > ...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. I most certainly did. You're lying. You quibbled over the word "reviewed," > and called people liars for using it, as you are > still doing. They're still lying, and it isn't a quibble. There's a big difference between commenting and reviewing. > 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? There's nothing to "settle," Barry. This was never in dispute, and it's a lie for you to suggest it was. > Answering this question with a "Yes" would be not > avoiding the issue. Any other answer is avoiding > the issue. It was never in dispute, sorry. > > 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. Non sequitur. Please document that anything the expert said was inaccurate, either about Mayan history or about the film. > Excuse me, but isn't that the SAME thing you have > been berating people for over the things they say > about Hillary Clinton? No. > 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? Please document where I ever said that forming an opinion about Clinton based on what many writers have said about her is "not acceptable" to me. > 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? Uh, no, that's about as bogus an analogy as I've ever seen. <snip> > 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 Hillary Clinton's "fifteen minutes of fame"?? That would be from, let's see, 1992 through 2008, right? <snip> > > 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? The *content* of the film, right, the events portrayed in the film, as opposed to the film's artistic merit--in other words, *facts* as opposed to *opinion*. > > 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. Odd that you deleted the post shortly after making it, then, ain't it? Actually, of course, Barry's lying again. His comment wasn't about the excerpt but about the film itself. The post Barry quickly deleted dumped on Lawson for defending, before seeing the film, what Barry then referred to as a "stupid movie"--although he hadn't seen it yet either. (And Lawson hadn't even been defending the film, only the creativity of the test film available on YouTube, which he *had* seen.) <snip> > > 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. :-) Those who value my word, obviously, don't *need* to go look at the threads. > > > 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. Since it never was an active case, and has been very thoroughly shredded, Barry doesn't have much choice but to "rest" it. Once again: The only "case" Barry could possibly have here would be to document that the article I quoted *misrepresented the facts* of what Gibson put in the film. Given that he hasn't been able to do anything of the kind, and that these facts were also noted in a slew of reviews of the film, Barry simply has no 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? You knowingly misrepresent what I've said in this context; and as I noted, your analogy is utterly bogus. What I've said about Hillary is that one needs to seek out alternative views for the sake of balance (when it comes to opinions). As to facts, in most cases it's possible to determine whether what are presented as facts about Hillary are accurate by consulting other sources; and if the facts remain uncertain, at least one knows there are competing claims, and hopefully what the case is for each of them. What's *not OK* is to read only one side and swallow it whole. <snip> > > > (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. Please cite and quote from the review. I've already (as you know) quoted and cited a number of interviews with Gibson in which he makes very different claims about what he intended with the film (see post #131738). You also got the criticism of the film's historical accuracy completely backward; and you erroneously claimed there were no historical "markers" in the film to tell the viewer when it was supposed to be taking place. And you made lots of other bloopers. <snip> > 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." Well, given that I've documented any number of lies from you, and you haven't been able to document a single one from me, I'm perfectly willing to let readers decide which of us is more honest and which of us is the "joke."
