--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy: > > > > > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical > > > > > opinion about it, either (just as I have not > > > > > done so with either "The Sopranos" or > > > > > "Apocalypto," you see). > > Judy a few months ago (stuff in brackets in the > 2nd paragraph and all of the Subject title and > final paragraph: > > > > Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot > > > > > > > > ...If there were ever an apocalypse in the > > > > history of the Maya -- and herein lies the > > > > ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- > > > > it would be because of European contact. 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. > > > > > > I'm sure she doesn't consider any > > > of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure > > > how many people would agree with her. > > > > Of course they aren't "critical opinion." > > > > > As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair- > > > ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just > > > to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion" > > > > Obviously *not* "critical opinion." > > Thank you for redefining "critical opinion" > for us, Judy. > > I look forward to using the term "bigot" in > future posts here when referring to you, > secure in the knowledge that you (a profes- > sional editor, after all) have declared that > the use of this term is not critical.
Or perhaps, in light of the unprovoked attack you *started* this short week (for you, at least...you only have one post left) with, I should refer to you as "the pigot." :-) I'm making this post while you've still got one post left, in case you want to get the inevitable response out of your system before you take another "long weekend." That way you won't have to carry your anger around with you all weekend like you obviously did *last* weekend. Within two hours of your arrival back on FFF, you had made one post calling Vaj a liar, and another slamming me by bringing up a three-year-old grudge that you're obviously still fuming over. I'm pointing it out because sooner or later you're going to trot out the line that you resort to ad hominem here because you've been "attacked." You *weren't* attacked. *You* attacked. And you didn't have to. And you don't have to next week, either. During the time you're sittin' in the penalty box this weekend (whether you're really away for a long weekend or just pretending to be to cover the fact that you blew out of FFL so quickly the last few weeks), I'm not going to make even one post critical of you. I'll try my best not to make even one post critical of anyone else here, or of TM and Maharishi (although you know the latter is tough because they provide so many *openings* for critical remarks). So when you come back next Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday, or whenever you come back, there will have been no posts from me "attacking" you. If you make a post attacking *me* -- personally, I mean, not my ideas -- then it will be clear to everyone on this forum "who started it." I have *no problem* with you taking to task any of the *ideas* may present in any of my posts. Go to town. Rip them a new asshole...Googlebomb them back to the Stone Age. That's kosher. But the moment you segue from taking on the ideas to taking on *me* -- making personal ad hominem attacks against me -- then you have pretty much established *yourself* as the attacker in this scenario. This is Yet Another Opportunity to clean up *your* act, Judy. Curtis has urged you to stick to counter- ing or criticizing the *ideas*, not the person. So have a great number of other posters here. And yet you continue to attack *the person*. Everyone here knows the difference between attack- ing someone's ideas and attacking the person. So if you resort to the latter next week, you have blown your victim act forever. But this post *can* be legitimately perceived as an attack, so you have a free ride when responding to it. Go to town...and feel free to use ad hominem all you want. But if you do it next week, don't ever try to cry, "Victim" again, eh pigot?
