Films/DVD Asylum

• Re: "How they use their own faulty logic..." - Mrs. Piggy 08:45:44 08/19/02 (4)
  In Reply to: "How they use their own faulty logic..." posted by clarkjohnsen on August 19, 2002 at 07:06:39:

  I am talking about the misguided person the documentary is about.
  Ruined his own life/career to actually try and prove there were no death camp gassings. In the end, you don't feel sorry for him, he had several oportunitites to detour from the path he was on, but didn't. So clouded is this guy's mind, or tainted, he can't understand why he is no longer taken seriously.
  mp
  
  

  ---

  • Leuchter was a local guy... - clarkjohnsen 13:34:15 08/20/02 (3)
    In Reply to: Re: "How they use their own faulty logic..." posted by Mrs. Piggy on August 19, 2002 at 08:45:44:

    ...so there was considerable coverage of him. Now I haven't seen the movie, but judging from the comments I've read here, it bears little resemblance to the facts of the situation. But what do you expect of a filmmaker who calls his subject "Dr. Death"?

    clark
    
    

    ---

    • Re: Leuchter was a local guy... - TA 08:51:58 08/21/02 (1)
      In Reply to: Leuchter was a local guy... posted by clarkjohnsen on August 20, 2002 at 13:34:15:

      You're trying to form an opinion without having seen the movie. See my post above about what the movie means to me.
      
      

      ---

      • Silly you.... - Mrs. Piggy 12:18:33 08/22/02 (0)
        In Reply to: Re: Leuchter was a local guy... posted by TA on August 21, 2002 at 08:51:58:

        Why would he need to read your post to respond to your arguments? He doesn't need to have first-hand knowledge of something in order to critique it. He has special mind powers.

        mp
        
        

        ---
    • Re: Leuchter was a local guy... - brewthunda 14:03:31 08/20/02 (0)
      In Reply to: Leuchter was a local guy... posted by clarkjohnsen on August 20, 2002 at 13:34:15:

      He's called "Mr. Death" because his entire career was based around designing better execution equipment.

      It's actually a brilliant movie. In typical Morris style, Leuchter is allowed to talk for minutes at a time without interruption. It's a little creepy because Morris interviews his subjects using a teleprompter (Morris's face appears on a two way mirror over the camera, so the subject looks directly into the camera when he's talking to Morris). So it seems like Leuchter is talking directly at you, the viewer.

      Definitely worth renting.
      
      

      ---
• I'm pretty sure that that's not what she meant, Clark (your attempted sarcasm notwithstanding). - Audiophilander 07:56:45 08/19/02 (11)
  In Reply to: "How they use their own faulty logic..." posted by clarkjohnsen on August 19, 2002 at 07:06:39:

  It's apples & oranges, dude; science has absolutely nothing to do with revisionism! As you should know, those who don't want to believe in scientific evidence often employ pseudo-science to promote their agendas. I've seen this film myself and it is indeed fascinating on several levels. In some ways it's analogous to watching a VH-1 documentary of __________ (you-name-it, fill in the blank) band's stratospheric rise to fame followed by a "nightmare descent into drug and alcohol abuse." Errol Morris (Mr. Death) was certainly a mixed bag and unique character.

  AuPh
  
  

  ---

  • "Science has absolutely nothing to do with revisionism" - clarkjohnsen 13:29:22 08/20/02 (10)
    In Reply to: I'm pretty sure that that's not what she meant, Clark (your attempted sarcasm notwithstanding). posted by Audiophilander on August 19, 2002 at 07:56:45:

    That's a good one! Science (true science, anyway) is *constantly* revising its ideas, to arrive at better truth.

    So too is history. The operating definition of revisionism is, "To bring written history into accord with the facts." But woe to most of those who try!

    clark
    
    

    ---

    • Scientific theories can be revised, but scientific method remains constant... - Mrs. Piggy 14:58:46 08/20/02 (3)
      In Reply to: "Science has absolutely nothing to do with revisionism" posted by clarkjohnsen on August 20, 2002 at 13:29:22:

      No one faults his ideas, just on principle alone (but it is a good starting point). His "methods" are flawed. They are scientifically flawed.

      Maybe you should see the documentary before commenting on it.
      mp
      
      

      ---

      • "His 'methods' are flawed." - clarkjohnsen 07:30:43 08/21/02 (2)
        In Reply to: Scientific theories can be revised, but scientific method remains constant... posted by Mrs. Piggy on August 20, 2002 at 14:58:46:

        Easy for a mere moviegoer to say! But do you mean, the locations chosen? His sampling criteria? The physical analytical techniques later employed? The gas-decay math? The nature of the molecules found?

        What?

        clark
        
        

        ---

        • All four, yes... - Mrs. Piggy 14:05:37 08/21/02 (1)
          In Reply to: "His 'methods' are flawed." posted by clarkjohnsen on August 21, 2002 at 07:30:43:

          are you certain you didn't see this documentary?
          
          

          ---

          • good answer for... - The Killer Piglet 18:14:59 08/21/02 (0)
            In Reply to: All four, yes... posted by Mrs. Piggy on August 21, 2002 at 14:05:37:

            "a mere moviegoer."

            Here' I'll Anoint Thee Reviewer, you are now Wiser Than The Rest And Fit To Comment On Things You Have Not Seen Nor Read.

            *poof*

            KP
            
            
            

            ---
    • Well Clark, that depends upon one's interpretation, I guess. - Audiophilander 14:02:44 08/20/02 (5)
      In Reply to: "Science has absolutely nothing to do with revisionism" posted by clarkjohnsen on August 20, 2002 at 13:29:22:

      There are two entirely different contexts for revision dependent upon the criteria one chooses. The legitimate criteria is based upon "new verifiable evidence" while doctrinaire revisionism is based upon reinterpreting evidence or "creating" new evidence to fit preconceived notions in order to alter the established facts and rewrite history/science.

      > > > "Science (true science, anyway) is *constantly* revising it's ideas, to arrive at better truth." < < <

      "Better truth" or more factually accurate? ;^)

      AuPh
      
      

      ---

      • "doctrinaire revisionism" - clarkjohnsen 07:26:16 08/21/02 (3)
        In Reply to: Well Clark, that depends upon one's interpretation, I guess. posted by Audiophilander on August 20, 2002 at 14:02:44:

        Oh, now we have a whole new category! How many more must there be?

        Nor do these objections address the physical evidence. It will not do, simply to assert that because it accords with preconceived notions it must *ipso facto* be wrong.

        Instead of "better truth" BTW, I should have said "higher truth".

        clark
        
        

        ---

        • So, the bottom line is that you agree with Errol Morris's revisionist history, right? - Audiophilander 08:13:59 08/21/02 (2)
          In Reply to: "doctrinaire revisionism" posted by clarkjohnsen on August 21, 2002 at 07:26:16:

          BTW, not to suggest that you're blowing smoke, but some of us might be curious as to what you mean by "higher" truth as well! ;^)

          AuPh
          
          

          ---

          • Wrong. - clarkjohnsen 08:23:00 08/21/02 (1)
            In Reply to: So, the bottom line is that you agree with Errol Morris's revisionist history, right? posted by Audiophilander on August 21, 2002 at 08:13:59:

            I clearly stated that I had not seen the film. My sources are all in print.

            And you know what "higher truth" means, however unwilling you may be to admit to such a condition.

            clark
            
            

            ---

            • Well, I have seen the film and who knows what higher truth means from your perspective. - Audiophilander 10:24:03 08/21/02 (0)
              In Reply to: Wrong. posted by clarkjohnsen on August 21, 2002 at 08:23:00:

              Not to be critical of your attempted liguistic exercise here, but if you haven't seen the film then poetic waxing over the minutiae (i.e., the meaning of revisionism) seems a trifle moot, does it not? Of course everyone's entitled to express an opinion, whether informed or originating from one's nether regions, but it would behoove you to investigate the source material at least once before drawing critical conclusions or playing semantics games, don't you think?

              Respectfully,
              AuPh
              
              

              ---
      • Very nicely said... - Mrs. Piggy 19:10:31 08/20/02 (0)
        In Reply to: Well Clark, that depends upon one's interpretation, I guess. posted by Audiophilander on August 20, 2002 at 14:02:44:

        I think your right on the money!

        
        mp
        
        

        ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---