In Reply to: Re: Sorry, I missed your stats proving Ebert the aesthetic and literary equivalent of Rosenbaum. posted by jamesgarvin on March 30, 2006 at 08:47:08:
I remember that thread, but you must've come back to post your stats or whatever after I thought the discussion was over.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I didn't forget your post, I never saw it to begin with. Please learn to read. - Donald 00:04:51 03/31/06 (11)
- Well, now you have another opportunity.nt - jamesgarvin 08:18:41 03/31/06 (10)
- How so? I don't see any stats or facts, just limp assertions that Ebert's as good. - Donald 20:55:47 03/31/06 (9)
- Weren't you the dork whining about others needing to learn to read? - Analog Scott 08:18:08 04/01/06 (8)
- But their views are in diametric opposition, as anyone who reads them can see. - Donald 21:41:07 04/01/06 (7)
- Indeed, you do need to learn to read. - Analog Scott 09:47:48 04/02/06 (6)
- There's no shovel big enough to haul away the amount of bullshit in James's post. - Donald 05:01:37 04/03/06 (5)
- Re: There's no shovel big enough to haul away the amount of bullshit in James's post. - jamesgarvin 06:39:06 04/03/06 (4)
- Saying they're mass market is meaningless. - Donald 06:48:12 04/03/06 (3)
- Re: Saying they're mass market is meaningless. - jamesgarvin 10:11:20 04/03/06 (2)
- I certainly do disagree with his opinions, not just with the way he writes. - Donald 12:19:12 04/03/06 (1)
- Re: I certainly do disagree with his opinions, not just with the way he writes. - jamesgarvin 15:34:30 04/03/06 (0)