 
|
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 |
216.196.176.121
In Reply to: Re: Oh, boy... posted by Victor Khomenko on May 18, 2006 at 16:42:10:
nt
Follow Ups:
I think it would be a good idea to stop now, you take time to see those other movies, to get some idea how the subject can be handled, then it would make some more sense.If all you know if Spielberg then many statements one sees here begin to make sense. If, after studying the great directors, you still conclude that Spielberg is the greatest, at least that opinion will carry more weight.
You write that Speilberg resorted to "trivial shock" in SL. You made an allegation. An accusation. Please provide the scenes in SL that qualify as "trivial shock." Please support your argument. Please do not write anything else in response. Please read the post. Please try to understand. Use a dictionary if you must. Grab a friend. A business associate. Try divine intervention. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. Or admit you make up an allegation, take your toys, and go home.
You seem to be under an impression that you somehow have some mysterious right to demand something from me, or to tell me what to do, including telling me pack my toys.Truth is, you have not set yourself up yet as such an authority, so you will just have to accept that some of your screams are met with ridicule.
Like everyone else here, I have an absolute right to express my opinion on any move I wish, without your kind permission. It matters about zero to me whether you will consider my statements "facts" or "opinions", while in fact ALL statements expressed by all participants here are opinions. It also matters zero to me whether you consider my statements "allegations" - if you do, I guess you will simply have to learn to live with that.
I know you missed my reference to Analog Scott's quote, but in reality it was important, as it demonstarted your hypocrisy in these matters - giving one opinion (expressed stronly and without any justification, BTW) a complete clean pass, while latchin on like a pitbull on another. If you consider yourself some sort of a watchman of opinions vs. facts, at least try to make your ridiculous statements in some consistent fashion.
So I do not feel like I owe you any further explanations. However, you seem to be fixating on what you call "scenes", while to me it is more the whole movie. Frankly, I got such a bad taste from SL that I am not too inclined to go into deep analysis of that marvel, much like his SPR - both films placed extremely low on my totem pole - another thing you will apparently have to learn to live with. I was talking about SS's consistent approach, as examplified by several of his works, not a particular scene.
Furthermore, during this discussion, you had commited several severe fallacies, for which you refused to take ownership - including the rather ridiculous references to veterans and repeated claims of my "not getting" something in SS's works. But as, unlike you, I am not prone to tantrums, you do not owe me any explanations in those regards, I am simply noting them here.
As I stated before, you position on SS and his films would have gained a bit more weight if it was supported by knowledge of great films that tackled the same subjects - namely the war and the Holocaust. Without that demonstrated knowledge your "opinion" (or "facts" is you wish) take on a rather shallow nature.
nt
Just go watch some good movies... will ya?
"Articulating a challenge" - that is a good one. I articulated a challenge, which you clealy understood, as demonstrated by your response stating that you did not feel compelled to respond to my challenge. So, lemme see if I understand this. You explicitly refuse to respond to my challenge, which you clearly understood, then claim I am not capable of articulating a challenge? Do you know what the word "articulating" means?Well, I probably should not come down too critically. English is not your native language.
When I write, I tend not to spell out the small details, expecting the correspondent fill the blanks... at least that is what I do with people I respect.You started making fallacies early in this exchange, jumping from one to another, unable to express your own feelings, hiding behind the vets here, SS's back there, not stating even your own feelings, just attacking mine.
All that set a rather low intellectual tone, I must say. During that time you had difficulty articulating your question - with all those side moves if there ever was any focus to your thought, it certainly did not come across, but what did, was the obnoxious demand at explanation... of what exactly did not matter, and as the subject of your behavior meant little, I kept ignoring it, running circles around you with faint ridicule, hoping you would suddenly realize the futility of your rather silly attempts, but you persisted, apparently angied by my rejection of your overtures, which, undoubtedly, fell flat on the far less than fertile soil of our relationship.
So while all the answers you have been trying to pull out of me with yout hot iron pliers have been in plain view all this time, your anger blinded your eyes, better than a fistful of sand, and with that sand still in your eyes you kept charghing, pushing forward like a mad bull, instead of simply reading what's already there, on that dirty table covered with broken teeth and tears, unfinished legs of lamb and spilled wine, and instead of simply stepping back, wiping the table clean and allowing your mind some simple exercise you insisted in the very kind of obnoxious behavior that's got you where you now are in the first place. The drunk hooker under the table is smiling at you with her broken tooth smile, she is lifting her skirt, inviting you to an orgy the likes of which you have probably not seen in your life, and I am sitting here, smiling from my corner, sipping my cheap beer and fantasizing about life among smart, intelligent and sensitive people who take their time to learn subject and create their own scale of values before jumping with both feet onto the shaky table with that hooker under it, in order to do their dance, with the sole goal being letting out their frustration, the frustration that the hooker could have cured in five long minutes, and that yoru hot irons could do nothing about.
Ну ни хера не понял...
You obviously do not know what logic means either. I did not attack anything. You attacked SL with a blanket condemnation. Moreover, you attacked another poster's opinion, and apparently feel no responsibility to support your critism of that poster's opinion. The playground must have been a lonely place for you growing up.Had you simply stated "I did not like SL", then the conversation is over. For while any moron can simply utter an opinion devoid of any explanation or basis, that statement would not invite further discourse. On the other hand, you wrote that SL resorted to "trivial shock." That is not a statement of opinion, rather one of fact. I innocently believed you to be something of an intelligent human being capable of supporting a statement of fact with the actual fact, or scene, or something. It appeared to be a simple enough question. Not difficult to answer.
While you may know circuits, you seem to have difficulty with understanding words. You, then, question me with another poster's comments, incorrectly ascribing those words to me, berating me for writing that SL was the best film on the holocaust ever made, and that I should see more holocaust films. Problem is, I never wrote, or even intimated, that SL was the best holocaust film ever. Please re-read your responses, because the heading of your first post bearing those words under this diatribe is a response to a post by TWB.
Victor, you show me where I wrote that SL was the best holocaust film ever made, and I'll drive to my nearest BAT dealer tomorrow and purchase, unheard, a BAT VK3-ix. If you can't, how about you send me one. A bet I do not expect you to take.
Re-read my first response, which succintly read "care to provide examples." An attack? If you think that is an attack, you need thicker skin. Picked on as a kid, were you? Fallacies? Unable to express feeling? You made a statement. I asked for support. You have refused to support your statement. Rather, you interjected other films, SPR, and a litany of other nonsense. Off topic. Re-read your meanderings. Perhaps in your circle of friends or colleagues no one questions Victor. Well, you are not there.
I could ask you to show me where I attacked you. What "fallacies" I wrote. I could ask you to show me where I wrote that SL was the best holocaust film ever. I could ask for you to show me where I, as opposed to you, brought SPR in this discussion. But why bother, Victor. Details, proof, evidence are not important to you. Keep with your mindless, baseless, empty opinions.
хорошо, этот xepa понимает совершенно хорошо.
Funny, for a man so stuck on details you missed that one by a long mile. If instead of expending all these words on different ways of saying "I never said SL was the best Holocaust film" you simply took pains in re-reading the exchanges, you would have **possibly** discovered, much to you horror, that I never stated you did.Bummer... so much verbal water down the drain.
So - this is what you have been arguing all along? No wonder your argument has been so incoherent, as you were simply lost between two posts. Not that I am too interested in analysing your blunder, but that was something truly unexpected to me, as I do expect some reading comprehansion from my opponent.
Do they really speak English in Ohio?
You almost surprise me. I don't know what is wrong with your logic skills, but I thought it was all stated as clearly as was possible.
PS. No need to play with on-line translators... most of the time they just get you in trouble... like this time.
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 ]
