--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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:
(Says Barry, having quickly gone back to the post he didn't read and scrambling to recoup his error.) > > 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. That's right, Barry, I was commenting on the review, which I had read, as well as Mel Gibson's well-known history of Christian bigotry, which the review makes clear is inherent in the film. (Other reviews have also commented on this, although not from the perspective of this writer's expertise in Mayan history and culture.) The writer of the review (which you'd know if you read the review) himself did a pretty good slam job on Mel Gibson, for wildly distorting the history of the Maya. And if you knew anything about the Spanish Conquest, you'd know the Spanish destroyed what was left of the Mayan culture and civilization in its attempt to covert the Maya to Christianity. Gibson's Christian bigotry, in other words, is unquestionably implicit in the review. If the writer didn't want to make it explicit, that's up to him (actually, the only thing he leaves implicit is the term "bigotry" to characterize what he describes). I chose to make it explicit not because I don't like Mel Gibson, but because I don't like Christian bigotry and am not afraid to speak out about it. I think Christian bigotry is eminently worth slamming, and I'll continue to do so whenever I come across it. It's rather odd for you to object to my slamming Christian bigotry when you just got done doing so yourself in your post about the woman who sued to have the Harry Potter novels removed from the school library. (Have you read the Harry Potter books, Barry?) And just as I'll continue to slam Christian bigotry, I'll continue to point out your hypocrisy, arrogance, and gross dishonesty. > If that's what you call "credibility," I am happy > to join Vaj in having less of it than you do. For you to even write the word "credibility" in reference to yourself is the height of absurdity. You don't just have *less*, you have *none*.
