In Reply to: First you lied about clark, now you are lying about me... can't you stay with facts? Apparenlty not. posted by Victor Khomenko on December 22, 2003 at 08:06:06:
ROTFL! That's more than meager pretentiousness, that's pure unadulterated chutzpah! ;^D>>> "I didn't see Clark say it was a bad film..." <<<
No, Clark weaseled out of that by using other critic's opinions, those in the vast minority, in order to reflect his own preconceived notions. Pretty silly approach to criticizing a movie if you ask me, but that's Clark for you!
>>> "Then I didn't say that either..." <<<
But you did, Victor. The fact that you tried to weasel out of it by employing a very weak caveat (i.e., having no inclination of wasting your time based on the other two films, which BTW, is rather disingenuous since you haven't seen either of the previous films except in bits and pieces) doesn't alter the fact that you're placing a value judgment on the film without having seen it.
Heck, I even tried to sit through the Solaris (Russian), which is the most boring film this side of Robert Altman's Pret-a-Porter, before passing judgment.
>>> "But now you are down to pure lies... this is intellectually insulting." <<<
If there's any "intellectual insulting" going on around here, most folks now KNOW from whence it originates; let me give you a hint... it aint comin' from your's truly! ;^)
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- LOL! ...Wow! You accuse me of lying when I place YOUR OWN QUOTED REMARK smack-dab in front of you! - Audiophilander 08:37:13 12/22/03 (2)
- Sic 'em boy, sic 'em! n/t - Troy 08:52:25 12/22/03 (1)
- Like a junkyard dog! (nt) - Audiophilander 11:17:37 12/22/03 (0)