Films/DVD Asylum

The analogy is fine; by removing the words "...in order to get support for a war" you changed the context.

67.173.212.229

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

Audiophilander

(A)

In Reply to: "What do I have to do, hand you a friggin' Aztek calendar?" Language, language! posted by clarkjohnsen on December 30, 2005 at 09:22:24:

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.
AuPh

Follow Ups:

What matters it to you whether I have or haven't? I have not issued an opinion... - clarkjohnsen 12:09:02 12/31/05 (1)
...on it, although one of your ruder cohorts accused me of just that.
clark
- "I have not issued an opinion..." - No, you just issue someone else's and then add that you usually agree with him. - Audiophilander 02:26:16 01/01/06 (0)
  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.
  AuPh

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

Parts Connexion

You can not post to an archived thread.