--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > That makes what we say a *valid* matter of opinion, > > > one based on our own personal experience. Compare > > > and contrast to someone who chooses to actively > > > trash a film they've never seen, just because some- > > > one *told* them it was bad. And who will almost > > > certainly never see the film in question out of > > > fear of finding out differently. > > > > Again, Barry is afraid to use my name. > > This is going to be fun. I just love it when > what's-her-name gets so angry at me that she > has to resort to lying or making things up.
Translation: Barry's been caught lying again, and that makes him so angry and afraid that he's about to tell more lies to distract attention from the first. > > I never said, of course, that "Apocalypto" was > > "bad." > > You'll notice what's-her-name's use of quotes > above. She places them around the word "bad" > as if I had attributed that word to her as a > direct quote. Yup, here we go with the new lies. As Barry (and anyone with a modest degree of literacy) knows, my putting "bad" in quotes does not imply that Barry had attributed the word to me as a direct quote. It indicates that I'm quoting *him*. If he had attributed the word to me as if it were a direct quote, and I were quoting him, I'd have had to put the word in single quotes and enclosed the whole thing in double quotes: "'bad.'" I did not. I said that she had > "trashed" the film because someone *else* told > her it was bad. Nobody told me the film was "bad," nor did I suggest anyone did. Another lie from Barry. > I stand by the word "trashed" "Trashed" is fine. "Trashed" can refer to many different types of criticisms of a film, including *but not limited to* its artistic quality. "Bad," in contrast, virtually always refers only to the artistic quality. You *must* have seen the film to comment legitimately on its artistic quality. You *need not* have seen the film to make other types of criticisms that are included in the "trashing" category. Every review I've read acknowledges that the artistic quality of the film is very high. Quite a few of these reviews have also *trashed* it for various reasons, including its excessive violence, its historical inaccuracies, and its bigotry (both religious and ethnic). > (even though she never said it) because when > the person told her what to believe, she did > so unquestioningly, and immediately started a > thread here on Fairfield Life entitled, "Mel > Gibson, Christian bigot." That choice of title > was her own; it was not mentioned in the article > she quoted from, if I am not mistaken. > > In that same post (that *she* started), in addition > to quoting from the article, she added the final > piece of her *own* commentary at the end: > > * 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. > > All of this without ever having seen the film. Right. And unless the review I quoted, and all the others I've read, have been lying about the facts of *what happens* in the film, there's no need for a person to see it to comment on those facts. <snip> > > Unlike Barry, who pronounced judgment on > > Lynch's film, calling it "stupid," without having > > seen it, I don't critique the quality of films I > > haven't seen. > > Now we get to the FUN part. I challenge what's- > her-name to come up with a quote here on Fairfield > Life in which I referred to David Lynch's "Inland > Empire" as "stupid." As Barry knows, he's made this impossible, because he deleted the post in which he said it shortly after he made it--but not before I'd seen it. The post 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.) See post #126474 from me concerning this incident. Not surprisingly, Barry chose not to reply to it. (Note that I said I had seen it "early morning Wednesday"; I meant "early morning Thursday." The missing post is #126412.)
