|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: "None; but winter is only seven days gone" - Sheeesh! Even when you do respond you try to be evasive! posted by Audiophilander on December 28, 2005 at 15:38:29:
Plus you could just have said "recently", but no, you got specific so I was forced to take you at your word. Now I have learned... not to."Analogy time: It's like a certain politician telling the American people that there were WMDs in Iraq..." Oh, you mean the junior Senator from Massachusetts? Or the junior Senator from New York? Oh, I got it -- you mean President Clinton! Well, big of you to recognize what they said all along about WMDs.
Or... maybe that isn't such a great analogy after all?...
clark
PS Saw Batman Begins, Spidey II and maybe another before the winter began.
Follow Ups:
Winter was mentioned because most of the films we're discussing are being screened during the winter film season openning over the holidays. I was trying to keep it general so you would provide a broader list of films that you've actually seen. "Recently" is a word that allows even more weaseling as it can be interpreted to mean anything from a few days to a few months. The bottom line: I think that it's safe to say you haven't seen Peter Jackson's King Kong (yet?) based on the entirity of your dodgy comments.I rest my case.
...on it, although one of your ruder cohorts accused me of just that.
Technically, you're correct; you haven't issued an opinion, but I have some problems with it from an ethical standpoint.What you've done amounts to endorsing a second hand opinion without having any direct knowledge of your own. In a court of law that would probably be called heresay evidence and ruled inadmissable. Here, expressing an uninformed opinion through posting someone else's review may just be blowing smoke, and viewed as okay or par for the coarse, but I think of it as deceitful.
Why, you might ask?
Because failure to inform folks whether YOU have seen the film that you're posting a critical review about still leaves the misimpression that you've seen the film in question; it's this guilt of omission that I find most egregious, and it amounts to weaseling, IMHO.
You probably don't see it this way, and you're certainly entitled to that viewpoint, but I think that others probably will see where I'm coming from on this point. I'm calling you on this, as I've done occasionally before, not to be an arsehole, but because I think that it's patently unfair to rely on a surrogate critic's viewpoint to trash a film you haven't seen yourself.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: