--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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*.
Back in 1988, I took the train into New York from Pound Ridge, where I lived, to see Martin Scorcese's "The Last Temptation Of Christ" on its opening day. To do so I had to cross a picket line, manned by dozens of people waving Bibles. I made a point of stopping and talking to them, asking them point-blank if they had seen the film. Not one of them had. But they were willing to try to convince other people it was somehow bad because they had been *told* it was bad, and were stupid enough to just believe what they had been told, without checking it out for themselves. I see no difference between these people and you. When you speak so disparagingly of religious bigotry, along with many others on this forum I find myself shaking my head in wonder that you can't see that you are describing yourself.
