--- 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: > > > > > > > > --- 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.)
I had forgotten the level of paranoia and insanity I was dealing with. My apologies to FFL for having made that mistake, yet again.
