--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > Some things have been said here recently about > > "credibility," and that some who post here have it > > and some do not. > > > > It seems to me that MDixon's review of "Apocalypto," > > him having seen the film, might just have a little > > bit more credibility than the other "review" posted > > here recently, by someone whom I'll bet had not -- > > and *still* has not -- seen the film. 'Nuff said. > > The review I posted was by someone--a scholar > of Mayan civilization, no less--who had indeed > seen the film (as was, of course, entirely > obvious to anyone who actually read it). > > Ooops! Another goof from Barry in his > increasingly desperate anxiety to make a > putdown (speaking, you know, of credibility). > > Dance, Barry, dance!
The "review" I was speaking of consisted of the thread title, "Mel Gibson, Christian bigot," and the following inserted editorial opinion (in brackets) and sentence, which if I am not mistaken were written by you: > But in the movie, after two hours of excess, > hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent > the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] > to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and > bigotry--JS] is devastating. > To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves > implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and > mangled history for the purpose of exalting the > purported superiority of Christianity. Perhaps the writer of the original article, who had obviously cared enough to *see* the film he was commenting on, "tactfully left implicit" a few things in his review because he wasn't intent on doing a slam job on somebody he didn't like, like you were. Your comments were nothing less than a smear job against Mel Gibson, because YOU don't like him. You *can't* be commenting on his film, because YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT. If that's what you call "credibility," I am happy to join Vaj in having less of it than you do.
