Re: Saying they're mass market is meaningless.

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on April 3, 2006 at 10:11:20

In Reply to: Saying they're mass market is meaningless. posted by Donald on April 3, 2006 at 06:48:12:

Well, we seem to have made progress. You now admit (after seeing some numbers) that it is not Ebert's opinions of films that you disagree with, it is the way he writes. The purpose of writing is to communicate ideas, not to try to appeal to your intelligentsia friends. But we have made progress.

Specifically: "it would be more amazing if they didn't occasionally like the same thing. For every one film they agree on, one could cite many more where they don't."

Well, wrong again. First, as the numbers show, they agree far more than they disagree. Even when confronted with the numbers, you still make incorrect statements. One could cite many where they don't agree? Care to be specific? But then, why start now? Pontificating is easy, proving allegations is work. Why work when you can be a blowhard?

Although, have now made progress: Donald : "He's not getting soft, he's always been a philistine and a champion of mediocrity."

When confronted with the facts, you have now modified your tune. How about we play a game of logic, a class that many people who have college degrees were required to take: If Ebert champions mediocrity, and if Sarris and Rosenbaum generally champion the same films as Ebert, then Rosenbaum and Sarris also champion mediocrity. See. That was easy. Which explains why you still have yet to demonstrate why Ebert champions mediocrity. Because you cannot.

Donald writes: "Giving a thumbs-up to a genuinely deserving film once in a blue moon scores him few bonus points. He's a hopeless middle-brow, respected only by others with similarly undemanding sensibilities and questionable critical faculties."

Questionable critical faculties? Does this also apply to the same films Rosenbaum and Sarris review in which they agree? Or are the approximate 70% of the time they agree inconsequential in comparison to the 30% they do not agree?

"The fact is Rosenbaum, Sarris, et al. write considerably more intelligently and with more insight than the average critic,"

Odd you would use "fact" in a sentence, in that you would not know a "fact" if it jumped up and bit you on the petard. I know I am setting myself up for disappointment (not really, but it is more dramatic), how about providing some facts which support your argument (chuckles as he types, muttering "yea, right" under his breath)?

"You've spent an inordinate amount of time looking at the things that don't matter."

Well, it mattered enough for you to comment twice in your posts that Ebert champions mediocrity, then when I point out that Rosenbaum and Sarris generally champion the same mediocrity, you then claim that these things do not matter. We call that backtracking where I come from. I have spent time on this little topic. When I make an allegation, and cloak it as a fact, I generally feel I should provide evidence to support my statements. It is work. You should learn the meaning of the word.

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

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - TopPop 10:32:09 03/29/06 (29)

Agreed, Carey was excellent and proved, when he's well - tinear 15:59:50 03/29/06 (27)

Hey Clark, you'll want to read this....... - jamesgarvin 16:30:28 03/29/06 (26)

Out of context alert, out of.... nt - tinear 06:55:58 03/30/06 (0)

Leave the film commentary to those who have a clue, thank you very kindly. - Donald 04:34:28 03/30/06 (24)

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." -- Eric Hoffer nt - clarkjohnsen 06:45:03 03/31/06 (1)

Do you post that as an explanation for your weak missives? -nt- - Donald 20:58:36 03/31/06 (0)

Re: Cliff, leave the film commentary to those who can read - jamesgarvin 06:00:03 03/30/06 (21)

Re: Cliff, leave the film commentary to those who can read - Donald 07:05:40 03/30/06 (20)

I could ask for specifics, but then... - jamesgarvin 07:38:00 03/30/06 (15)

Sorry, I missed your stats proving Ebert the aesthetic and literary equivalent of Rosenbaum. - Donald 07:44:02 03/30/06 (14)

Re: Sorry, I missed your stats proving Ebert the aesthetic and literary equivalent of Rosenbaum. - jamesgarvin 08:47:08 03/30/06 (13)

"You are the Cliff Claven of these boards." But Cliff was an amusing chap... nt - clarkjohnsen 06:47:22 03/31/06 (0)

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)

Dude, you are a joke. Is the comicbook guy your role model? - Analog Scott 07:28:52 03/30/06 (3)

Consider changing your monicker to JGD. - tinear 04:31:47 03/31/06 (1)

Still waiting for an intelligent reply.nt - jamesgarvin 08:19:44 03/31/06 (0)

Worst. Flame. Ever. -nt- - Donald 00:05:32 03/31/06 (0)

I agree on all points (nt) - Doug Otte 10:40:33 03/29/06 (0)

Follow Ups

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)

You can not post to an archived thread.