 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.248.55.199
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
Follow Ups:
I mean, that condescension is still your middle name.As for "full of yourself" I've found some remarks about a certain auctioneer who certainly seems to be!
It's a pity someone has to be so high-handedly dismissive of his betters' attempts to create discussion. Over on Music it's quite common (for those who are ladies and gentlemen) to discuss the posted views of a critic who speaks up on, for instance, performance practice. But you're not having any of that , eh?
clark
> > > "I mean, that condescension is still your middle name." < < <There is no use trying to be polite or appreciative because you'll always interpret complimentary remarks as condescending. Okay, I give up; if you want to be a jerk then far be it from me to stand in your way.
> > > "As for "full of yourself" I've found some remarks about a certain auctioneer who certainly seems to be!" < < <
You probably had to look no farther than your own postings, but some folks might find such self-serving rhetoric suspiciously biased.
> > > " It's a pity someone has to be so high-handedly dismissive of his betters' attempts to create discussion. Over on Music it's quite common (for those who are ladies and gentlemen) to discuss the posted views of a critic who speaks up on, for instance, performance practice. But you're not having any of that, eh?" < < <
"Betters" huh? Okay, I yield to your superior ego. ;^)
As for comparing discussions of music criticism to film criticism, m'thinks it's an apples and oranges analogy due to the inherent nature of marketing of both products. The narrow window of opportunity to see films in a theater provides a much different dynamic for discussion and criticsm. Of course you already knew that because we've covered this turf before at greater length. Unfortunately, you seem disinclined to acknowledge those discussions or perhaps you're just claiming memory loss.
In regard to the "for those who are ladies and gentlemen" insertion, I'd rather ignor that bit of egotistical smarmery and drop it in the rhetorical dust bin along with other misdirected slap-down attempts coming from professor Johnsen's word-wrestling arena. "Betters" indeed! ;^D
Never let it be said that your posts aren't entertaining, Clark!
Kindest regards,
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
