 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: A Testament to Clark's hurt feelings. posted by Audiophilander on August 21, 2002 at 23:14:45:
Not a need! I was simply pointing out that you seemed to have no knowledge outside the guided confines of the "documentary". Indeed that does now appear to be the case.Was I off-topic? Shivver me timbers, that's never happened *here* before! However, I must inform you that my initial comment, which so raised everyone's hackles, had to do with an indefinite antecedent in someone's post. It was simply a wry interpretation of unclear writing.
clark
For my views on "documentaries" see
Follow Ups:
Your research; your sources, are any first hand? Were you an observer during the Holocaust? Of course not! You rely on the written word and photographic evidence provided by experts and testamonies of survivors. FYI, film documentaries are no more prone to inaccuracies and biases than published opinions. I'm not intimating that there aren't biased or fictionalized documentaries produced, but filtering is part of the process of acquiring useful information. Conversely, refusal to view ANY potential source of information is anathema to the process of "broadening knowledge."While we're on this subject, one more point begs consideration: Agendas, speculations and biases may be present in print sources just as they are in film. Reading a scholorly treatise is no guarantee that one is going to be provided with a clearer picture of events just because the reader wants to believe it. OTOH, film documenteries CAN and often do get to the heart of issues in ways that print media can't, as on-camera interviews convey physical behaviors that transcend words.
> > > "Was I off-topic? Shivver me timbers, that's never happened *here* before! However, I must inform you that my initial comment, which so raised everyone's hackles, had to do with an indefinite antecedent in someone's post. It was simply a wry interpretation of unclear writing." < < <
*Indefinite antecedent!* LOL! Is that your ergot infected rye interpretation? ;^)
AuPh
And with that obtuse digression, our Mr. A. Philanderer bids farewell to rational discussion.clark
PS The "indefinite antecedent" was "they".
...obviously being facetious (and no, that doesn't mean he was wearing tacky uniforms and goose stepping).You weren't even an observer of the documentary in question, yet you are "someone who has studied the" -oh,wait, I'm laughing again - "entire background." Oh, there's that giggle creeping in again...
KP
and your running circles around him, he won't get it. I think you give him way too much credit. Sometimes it's difficult for intellectual people to understand that there are some who are incapable of grasping a concept in a logical way.As my dad would say, I think Clark is talking to hear his "head roar."
By the way,
I admire your intellect and your tenacity.mp
IMHO, Clark likes to push buttons, but when things get heated he reminds me of a little kid who sets off a stink bomb in class then tries to pretend it's the other guy's fault. I've found that humor is the best defuser of errant stink-bombers. :o)> > > "I admire your intellect and your tenacity." < < <
You are too kind, but I guess I am a bit tenacious; it comes from going long rounds with Clark & others debating various political issues Outside. The Film Asylum is rarely as contentious.
Cheers,
AuPh
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 ]
