Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

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

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

"'Speaking' directly, man to man, as a normal person would..." LOL!

Posted by clarkjohnsen (R) on July 24, 2003 at 15:08:14

In Reply to: LOL! Talk about smug: This writer, that writer, c'mon Clark! Apparently you're still having difficulty ... posted by Audiophilander on July 24, 2003 at 10:48:32:

"This writer, that writer..." Yeah, sure. But just say "you" and one gets attacked for ad hominem
or whatever else suits the mood.

(Notice how one properly says "one", and not "I", to divorce the writer from the person.)

But there is better -- just listen:

"...posting dismissive comments in the 3rd person as if speaking
for a larger group denouncing one lone dissenting voice suggests
a megalomaniacal self-absorption on your part that reeks of pettiness, IMO."

One begs the writer's pardon! What was that all about?

"Wrapping strained observations in that trademark dismissive vernacular
(i.e., the condescendingly indirect "the writer" rhetoric) may be
suitable for curt editorial commentaries, but it does little to
promote dialogue from where I sit."

Stand up and be heard then! And speak plainly. Please

"Well, Mr. Johnsen, I'll endeavor to ignore your condescension and
respond politely, if only to correct your misimpressions and poorly drawn conclusions."

The writer is so very kind...

"Have I seen the film? Of course not!"

I knew it, I knew it!

"I'm basing my impressions on the rather troubling news report
from Lloyd Grove in the Washington Post"

That report was *meant* to be "troubling" -- to the gullible.

"...and the fact that the hand-picked audience to which Mel screened
his film happened to be a who's who of the far right!"

Q: Who's in the near right and who's in the mid right? (I mean,
it's always "far right", so one must wonder.)

"This provides more than a clue to the film's agenda."

Hmmm... The "Christian far right" is another freely tossed-out
phrase. Could it be that these people were invited because they
were *Christians*, not because of their (coincidental) political views?!

"Why were no representatives from the Jewish community invited
even though attendance was requested by Abraham Foxman, National
Director of the Anti-Defamation League? Why only those known to be devout Christians?"

Aha! There's the answer already! Because they were *Christians*.

"I used the word 'contoversial' out of politeness, as I am not opposed
to controversial films and would not be dissuaded from viewing ANY
film for that reason alone. However, my added points about religeous
zealotry, crazed cultists, and allegorical fables were intentionally
included to weigh heavily here because I sense other manipulations
at play. This isn't a discussion of censorship, but rather, conversely,
this is about an effort to build an audience in the Christian community
through careful screening and exclusion before public protests about
purported anti-semitism can be levied against the film."

Geez Luiz. Now we have ourselves a society where Christians can't
entertain Christians without someone should cry Exclusion!

And in such stuffy language too...

"As for your comments about the hilarious aspects of 'Life of Brian',
the reason I find that film applaudible is the fact that it's NOT
santimonious, but rather a parody. Any film which can laugh at life
and our fierce devotion to sacred cows that True Believers can ever agree on is okay in my book."

Fine, but they still didn't dare laugh at Jews. That makes it sanctimonious.

It was censored, plain and simple. Semper fidelis Hollywood.

clark

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

Schiit Audio

---

[ 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 ]

---