|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
'); } // End --> |
In Reply to: The analogy is fine; by removing the words "...in order to get support for a war" you changed the context. posted by Audiophilander on December 31, 2005 at 10:40:55:
...on it, although one of your ruder cohorts accused me of just that.
Follow Ups:
Technically, you're correct; you haven't issued an opinion, but I have some problems with it from an ethical standpoint.What you've done amounts to endorsing a second hand opinion without having any direct knowledge of your own. In a court of law that would probably be called heresay evidence and ruled inadmissable. Here, expressing an uninformed opinion through posting someone else's review may just be blowing smoke, and viewed as okay or par for the coarse, but I think of it as deceitful.
Why, you might ask?
Because failure to inform folks whether YOU have seen the film that you're posting a critical review about still leaves the misimpression that you've seen the film in question; it's this guilt of omission that I find most egregious, and it amounts to weaseling, IMHO.
You probably don't see it this way, and you're certainly entitled to that viewpoint, but I think that others probably will see where I'm coming from on this point. I'm calling you on this, as I've done occasionally before, not to be an arsehole, but because I think that it's patently unfair to rely on a surrogate critic's viewpoint to trash a film you haven't seen yourself.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: