In Reply to: "No condescension intended, but is that clear enough for you, Clark?" Condescension alert! posted by clarkjohnsen on December 15, 2006 at 08:50:56:
>>> "You have set up a straw-man argument, pretending that I discuss things about films I haven't seen; I do not, I simply post pointers, for both good and bad." <<<Actually, what I've set up is more akin to a "great Oz" argument since you're apparently a humbug. You would like folks to believe that you're a very good man and I would not contest that, but you've proven time and again that you're a very bad Wizard.
Again, I don't believe that anyone has questioned your critiquing films you HAVE seen; that has NEVER been an issue, AFAIC. This is about linking second-hand opinions of those films which you apparently have NOT seen.
You claim that posting a critic's comments provides a sound basis for discussion, but I beg to differ. Posting "pointers" without first-hand knowledge provides no basis for discussing a film's merits, good or bad, and idle speculation makes for a rather flaccid argument.
>>> "You're so full of yourself." <<<
Another example of an uninformed opinion, since you don't actually know me. ;^)
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- How can one supply "pointers" for films admittedly unseen? - Audiophilander 10:12:08 12/15/06 (2)
- "You're apparently a humbug." Thanks, teach, that's good to know. - clarkjohnsen 12:17:56 12/15/06 (1)
- Well, if you're not full of yourself, then lets take a look at your half-empty glass: - Audiophilander 09:51:54 12/17/06 (0)