|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Branson cameo
| Branson cameo [message #295641] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 01:15 |
|
Thanks to mi6 for this one:
http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_21_branson.php3? t=&s=
Ugh. Not good, and an unpleasant combination of gimmicky casting and
product placement. While neither are at all unprecedented in Bond
films (or even books), it still strikes me as a bad idea. Here's
hoping Branson's cameo in CR goes the same way as Sammy Davis' in DAF.
Best
Phil
(Am I prepared to damn the whole project in advance on the basis of
this? No f***ing way.)
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295642 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 01:31 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Thanks to mi6 for this one:
>
> http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_21_branson.php3? t=&s=
>
> Ugh. Not good, and an unpleasant combination of gimmicky casting and
> product placement. While neither are at all unprecedented in Bond
> films (or even books), it still strikes me as a bad idea. Here's
> hoping Branson's cameo in CR goes the same way as Sammy Davis' in DAF.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
> (Am I prepared to damn the whole project in advance on the basis of
> this? No f***ing way.)
It's a gritty Bond film with Richard Branson grinning as he makes his
cameo:
"Hey, look mum, I'm in a Bond film!"
Hee hee.
MMS
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295647 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 02:32 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Thanks to mi6 for this one:
>
> http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_21_branson.php3? t=&s=
>
> Ugh. Not good, and an unpleasant combination of gimmicky casting and
> product placement. While neither are at all unprecedented in Bond
> films (or even books), it still strikes me as a bad idea. Here's
> hoping Branson's cameo in CR goes the same way as Sammy Davis' in DAF.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
> (Am I prepared to damn the whole project in advance on the basis of
> this? No f***ing way.)
--- Maybe not prepared to damn the whole project in advance, but maybe
beginning to see it precariously come apart at the seams as it appears
to return to its idiot level from which EON hasn't been able to
extricate itself much since DAF?
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295650 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 02:39 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Thanks to mi6 for this one:
>
> http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_21_branson.php3? t=&s=
>
> Ugh. Not good, and an unpleasant combination of gimmicky casting and
> product placement. While neither are at all unprecedented in Bond
> films (or even books), it still strikes me as a bad idea. Here's
> hoping Branson's cameo in CR goes the same way as Sammy Davis' in DAF.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
> (Am I prepared to damn the whole project in advance on the basis of
> this? No f***ing way.)
SPOILER
It's a contextual cameo as I believe it is during the airport sequence
Bond destroys a (Virgin?) hanger and aircraft.
--
-- Mac
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295651 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 03:01 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- Maybe not prepared to damn the whole project in advance, but maybe
> beginning to see it precariously come apart at the seams as it appears
> to return to its idiot level from which EON hasn't been able to
> extricate itself much since DAF?
On the basis of what will undoubtedly amount to ten seconds' worth of a
two-hour movie which none of us has seen yet, assuming in addition that
those ten seconds don't get cut? Fuck, no.
Take off your rose-tinted spectacles and you might notice that EON and
even Fleming did some equally questionable stuff during the 'Golden
Age' to which you constantly and tiresomely hark back.
Branson's cameo is a bad idea. There have been individual and fleeting
bad ideas in great Bond films and books since 1953. So what?
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295652 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 03:07 |
|
Mac wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPOILER
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's a contextual cameo as I believe it is during the airport sequence
> Bond destroys a (Virgin?) hanger and aircraft.
I presume there will be a disclaimer at the end of the movie pointing
out that this doesn't happen *often* to Virgin aircraft.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295653 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 03:20 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Thanks to mi6 for this one:
> http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_21_branson.php3? t=&s=
>Ugh. Not good, and an unpleasant combination of gimmicky casting and
>product placement. While neither are at all unprecedented in Bond
>films (or even books), it still strikes me as a bad idea. Here's
>hoping Branson's cameo in CR goes the same way as Sammy Davis' in DAF.
It says it features the Airbus A340-600. Is that one of the enormous ones?
How could there be a need to fly such an aircraft to Kingston?
Perhaps the product being placed is Branson himself. Is he shopping for a
new wife?
>(Am I prepared to damn the whole project in advance on the basis of
>this? No f***ing way.)
Thank you WQ.
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295657 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 03:27 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Maybe not prepared to damn the whole project in advance, but maybe
> > beginning to see it precariously come apart at the seams as it appears
> > to return to its idiot level from which EON hasn't been able to
> > extricate itself much since DAF?
>
> On the basis of what will undoubtedly amount to ten seconds' worth of a
> two-hour movie which none of us has seen yet, assuming in addition that
> those ten seconds don't get cut? Fuck, no.
--- I love how you take things so unnecessarily personally. But to
merely even think about adding something like that Branson bit, never
mind *actually* adding it, is just bad enough in my book.
> Take off your rose-tinted spectacles and you might notice that EON and
> even Fleming did some equally questionable stuff during the 'Golden
> Age' to which you constantly and tiresomely hark back.
--- I'm willing to give books a wider latitude, I'm stricter when it
comes to films. The 'Golden Age' was just fine with me in how they
went about it, it was all much more subtle compared to now. It all
started to get clumsy with DAF 9 years into the series.
> Branson's cameo is a bad idea. There have been individual and fleeting
> bad ideas in great Bond films and books since 1953. So what?
--- If someone knows it's a bad idea, why would they even entertain
possibly including it in the finished product? I wouldn't. A bad idea
is a bad idea, something that should always be expunged before it grows
into a worse idea. It's almost as if you're defending the
inevitability of a bad idea rearing its ugly head on screen. Sorry if
I don't sit back and say yeah, sure, bad idea, so big deal if they do
it, it's been done before. If it's bad, recognize it and kill it is
what I say.
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295659 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 03:28 |
|
Adam wrote:
> It says it features the Airbus A340-600. Is that one of the enormous ones?
> How could there be a need to fly such an aircraft to Kingston?
Now I'm confused. I thought the scene in question was supposed to take
place at Miami airport according to the initial script reviews? I
suspect I've missed or forgotten something here.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295660 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 03:46 |
|
Stuffed duck attached to headpiece of scuba suit as an effective means
of disguise.
Perfectly pressed dinner suit under scuba gear.
'Heroin-flavoured bananas'.
Spotting the reflection of an adversary in an onlooker's eye.
The first five minutes' worth of footage. Outright stupid and as
gimmicky as hell. Not at all sophisticated, clever, or logical.
Didn't kill GF.
Branson's cameo is a bad idea. Literally hundreds of others have been
seen on screen over the last forty-odd years.
You argue that those of us who are enthused about CR are overly
forgiving, and yet you're prepared to cut at least an equal amount of
slack to the '60s movies and forgive their illogicalities, gimmicks,
and inconsistencies.
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295661 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 04:07 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- I love how you take things so unnecessarily personally.
Given than you can't accept that anybody could hold a different opinion
to yours regarding Craig and CR without being gullible, ignorant, in
denial, or hormonally confused, it's hardly surprising.
I don't give a flying fuck who anybody on this list considers their
favourite Bond, Bond film, or type of Bond or Bond film: in fact,
that's what keeps the list alive. However, accusing others of
stupidity because they don't share your opinions, and spinning wild
conspiracy theories about the people who've made a new Bond film
because it doesn't coincide with your own tastes.. well, those are
pretty close to being direct personal attacks, and you can't get prissy
if people respond in kind.
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295662 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 04:43 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Stuffed duck attached to headpiece of scuba suit as an effective means
> of disguise.
> Perfectly pressed dinner suit under scuba gear.
> 'Heroin-flavoured bananas'.
> Spotting the reflection of an adversary in an onlooker's eye.
> The first five minutes' worth of footage. Outright stupid and as
> gimmicky as hell. Not at all sophisticated, clever, or logical.
> Didn't kill GF.
>
> Branson's cameo is a bad idea. Literally hundreds of others have been
> seen on screen over the last forty-odd years.
>
> You argue that those of us who are enthused about CR are overly
> forgiving, and yet you're prepared to cut at least an equal amount of
> slack to the '60s movies and forgive their illogicalities, gimmicks,
> and inconsistencies.
--- The difference being that you're viewing of the 60s films, if I'm
correct, was not in the 60s. Mine was. And if you were there in the
60s, you'd know that there was a campiness to the times when it came to
film, TV, music, art, literature - it was a pop art era. If you lived
through that era, you were of that mindset, something you could not be
if you never lived through it and seen the 60s Bond films outside of
that era. Sure, all that was a bit silly in GF, but it fell perfectly
in tune with the campiness of the times. In fact, so perfectly that if
you compared FRWL and GF, released a year apart, you could see how the
former reflected one era of the 60s, which actually ended in 1963, and
how the latter reflected the tone of the beginning of the second era of
the 60s in 64, with that era actually ending in 67. These were
societal, cultural and political shifts that happened at the time that
can be further seen by how different DN and FRWL were in tone and style
in 62 and 63 compared to GF, TB and YOLT between 64 and 67. Uniquely,
OHMSS in 69 arrived at what could be seen as the apex year of the 60s,
which arguably lasted till the end of 1970. After that, the 60s were
officially dead and, in a lot of original creative respects, the Bond
series, too. So all the illogicalities, gimmicks and inconsistencies
of the 60s films were much more perfectly in line with the surreal
mindset of the times than they have ever been in any decade after that,
and in that sense one was more likely to buy into the nonsense.
There's an incongruity to Bond in the 70s, 80s, 90s and now that's
probably difficult to overcome because each of those decades have been
markedly different from the 60s. Either the decades that followed just
haven't been that interesting to reflect on any level or the producers
just simply lost their handle on how to make Bond work for each decade,
humour-wise and otherwise, so what we ended up getting has been a lot
of clunky and awkward bits of supposed gags that really didn't reflect
the humour of any of those other decades, and you had to have lived
through those decades to remember the kind of humour that existed then
to recognize that.
The only thing that can save CR and Craig is if the movie and he
somehow manage to reflect these times through a style and sense of
humour that captures what is pervasive now. The question is, though:
unlike the 60s when its style and humour was inescapably palpable, it's
still a mystery - certainly to me it is - as to what is so palpable
about this decade that Bond can possibly play off of, in terms of
humour or cheesiness, in a way that people can buy into without
squirming in their seats? As you say, using Branson is a bad idea, and
if they actually go ahead with it, are we then supposed to believe this
is the best idea for a whimsical scene that this decade can offer Bond?
Sad decade we live in if it is.
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295663 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 05:00 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- I love how you take things so unnecessarily personally.
>
> Given than you can't accept that anybody could hold a different opinion
> to yours regarding Craig and CR without being gullible, ignorant, in
> denial, or hormonally confused, it's hardly surprising.
>
> I don't give a flying fuck who anybody on this list considers their
> favourite Bond, Bond film, or type of Bond or Bond film: in fact,
> that's what keeps the list alive. However, accusing others of
> stupidity because they don't share your opinions, and spinning wild
> conspiracy theories about the people who've made a new Bond film
> because it doesn't coincide with your own tastes.. well, those are
> pretty close to being direct personal attacks, and you can't get prissy
> if people respond in kind.
--- Methinks thou dost readeth much too much in what I write. Sure, I
expect people to stand up for what they believe in with good, hard,
longwinded if necessary, arguments. If they can't, then yeah, what am
I to believe other than they're just nothing but hot air. I'm supposed
to take hot air seriously? Nobody has to share my opinions, just prove
yourself right or prove me wrong or just call it a stalemate, but at
least put up a good verbal fight, that's all I ask. Too many posters
around here think they're clever when they throw out some lame quip to
satisfy their own sense of smug superiority rather than prove their
stance. One only gets my respect when one puts up a good fight,
otherwise one is little more than just a dime-a-dozen voice that adds
nothing of meaningful substance to any discussion. Believe it or not,
you've got my respect, Phil, because you stay in the fight. I just
wish you'd unload yourself of feeling personally attacked whenever
discussing things. Discuss the topic intellectually and leave your
feelings out of it - feelings only get in the way of a rational
discussion. You don't see me getting personally offended while
discussing Bond. And I keep saying it: it's *only* Bond. Detach
yourself from yourself and then, believe me, you'll be able to carry on
an objective discussion without feeling personally attacked over a
fictional figure.
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295664 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 10:28 |
|
WQ wrote:
> Discuss the topic intellectually and leave your feelings out of it -
feelings
> only get in the way of a rational discussion.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
--
-- Mac
"On the other hand, if he gets more (than 8 close ups in the film
trailer),then you really know Barb has got the hots for him."
-- WQ 4/7/06
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295665 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 14:26 |
|
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> said:
>I don't give a flying fuck who anybody on this list considers their
>favourite Bond,
<<blink>> But...but...not even me?
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295666 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 14:28 |
|
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>The only thing that can save CR and Craig
You keep saying that as if they need to be saved. They don't. They're not
in any kind of trouble.
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295667 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 14:32 |
|
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>Detach yourself from yourself and then, believe me, you'll be
>able to carry on an objective discussion without feeling
>personally attacked over a fictional figure.
So what's keeping you from having one?
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295668 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 14:34 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> said:
>WQ wrote:
>> Discuss the topic intellectually and leave your feelings out of it -
>> feelings only get in the way of a rational discussion.
>LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
>Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Bingo. This WQ guy fancies himself an intellectual, which clearly he's
not...he fancies himself objective, which clearly he's not...and he fancies
himself above being clouded by personal feelings, which very clearly he's
not
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295669 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 15:06 |
|
Rich Handley wrote:
> "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> said:
> >WQ wrote:
> >> Discuss the topic intellectually and leave your feelings out of it -
> >> feelings only get in the way of a rational discussion.
> >LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
> >Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
>
> Bingo. This WQ guy fancies himself an intellectual, which clearly he's
> not...he fancies himself objective, which clearly he's not...and he fancies
> himself above being clouded by personal feelings, which very clearly he's
> not
--- Here's the difference between me and Phil when it comes to personal
feelings. Phil comes across all serene and gentlemanly like on the one
hand, but suddenly you see his nasty side when he lets his fuck this
and fuck yous thrown about when he thinks the other person is a dolt.
I never use the fuck word in my discussions, no matter how much the
other guy is an idiot. I also get very suspicious of people like Phil
who end off their little posts with 'Cheers' when things go their way,
but edit out that 'Cheers' when their pissed off. Either you always
use the 'Cheers' or you never use it to maintain a consistency in your
discussion, whether your pissed off or not, because in always using the
'Cheers' you're in effect saying 'no hard feelings' regardless of
what's said . His editing of the 'Cheers' when he is pissed clearly
shows that there are hard feelings with him, that he does take things
personally and really isn't discussing the topic on a strictly detached
and intellectual level. And this is only with something as banal as
Bond as the subject. Imagine what he must be like with graver issues.
Now, when it comes to me, point out to me one instance when I didn't
argue something in a detached and intellectual way, whether you agreed
with it or not, point out when I felt like my feelings got hurt or I
was being personally attacked. And let's not confuse defending
personal opinons, or personal point of view, with feeling personally
attacked. Unlike with some of Phil's posts, I don't think you'll find
that instance in any of my discussions on Bond. But I'll give Phil
credit for getting scrappy with me and hanging in the fight longer than
most wimps around here.
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295670 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 15:48 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- Here's the difference between me and Phil when it comes to personal
> feelings. Phil comes across all serene and gentlemanly like on the one
> hand, but suddenly you see his nasty side when he lets his fuck this
> and fuck yous thrown about when he thinks the other person is a dolt.
> I never use the fuck word in my discussions, no matter how much the
> other guy is an idiot. I also get very suspicious of people like Phil
> who end off their little posts with 'Cheers' when things go their way,
> but edit out that 'Cheers' when their pissed off. Either you always
> use the 'Cheers' or you never use it to maintain a consistency in your
> discussion, whether your pissed off or not, because in always using the
> 'Cheers' you're in effect saying 'no hard feelings' regardless of
> what's said . His editing of the 'Cheers' when he is pissed clearly
> shows that there are hard feelings with him, that he does take things
> personally and really isn't discussing the topic on a strictly detached
> and intellectual level. And this is only with something as banal as
> Bond as the subject. Imagine what he must be like with graver issues.
>
>
> Now, when it comes to me, point out to me one instance when I didn't
> argue something in a detached and intellectual way, whether you agreed
> with it or not, point out when I felt like my feelings got hurt or I
> was being personally attacked. And let's not confuse defending
> personal opinons, or personal point of view, with feeling personally
> attacked.
Excuse me, but how am I to supposed to take the first paragraph above
as anything other than a personal attack? You're making decisions (or
accusations) about my personality and character based solely on your
interpretation of my postings to you on this NG.
You don't know anything about me, WQ. Got that? You don't have the
information on which to base those judgements.
Also, I reserve my right to express exasperation and frustration when
trying to argue my opinions against anybody who I feel is stonewalling,
delberately misinterpreting my views, employing Alice in Wonderland
logic, or plain not listening. If that means saying 'fuck' once in a
while, so be it. I never figured you for such a prude.
> Unlike with some of Phil's posts, I don't think you'll find
> that instance in any of my discussions on Bond. But I'll give Phil
> credit for getting scrappy with me and hanging in the fight longer than
> most wimps around here.
I presume the word 'wimps' is not to be taken personally by anybody
either.
Finally, and I really don't care how personally you take this, you
might want to ask yourself why you, almost alone among posters to this
NG, inspire such reactions in otherwise placid and polite people.
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295673 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 17:00 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Here's the difference between me and Phil when it comes to personal
> > feelings. Phil comes across all serene and gentlemanly like on the one
> > hand, but suddenly you see his nasty side when he lets his fuck this
> > and fuck yous thrown about when he thinks the other person is a dolt.
> > I never use the fuck word in my discussions, no matter how much the
> > other guy is an idiot. I also get very suspicious of people like Phil
> > who end off their little posts with 'Cheers' when things go their way,
> > but edit out that 'Cheers' when their pissed off. Either you always
> > use the 'Cheers' or you never use it to maintain a consistency in your
> > discussion, whether your pissed off or not, because in always using the
> > 'Cheers' you're in effect saying 'no hard feelings' regardless of
> > what's said . His editing of the 'Cheers' when he is pissed clearly
> > shows that there are hard feelings with him, that he does take things
> > personally and really isn't discussing the topic on a strictly detached
> > and intellectual level. And this is only with something as banal as
> > Bond as the subject. Imagine what he must be like with graver issues.
> >
> >
> > Now, when it comes to me, point out to me one instance when I didn't
> > argue something in a detached and intellectual way, whether you agreed
> > with it or not, point out when I felt like my feelings got hurt or I
> > was being personally attacked. And let's not confuse defending
> > personal opinons, or personal point of view, with feeling personally
> > attacked.
>
> Excuse me, but how am I to supposed to take the first paragraph above
> as anything other than a personal attack? You're making decisions (or
> accusations) about my personality and character based solely on your
> interpretation of my postings to you on this NG.
--- Never mind the first paragraph about you, which isn't a personal
attack at all, unless you view truth as a personal attack. What was in
it that isn't true? You take things personally when discussing Bond,
you only append 'Cheers' to your posts when you're happy, not when
you're miserable, and you have this schizoid personality of being very
gentlemanly when people are on your good side and foul-mouthed when
they're not. This is no secret, so I don't know what you're trying to
hide or defend. But that's not the real point about the first
paragraph. The real point is why do you take any Bond discussion
personally? That's my real question. It's almost as if you feel you
have a vested interested in the character and you'll protect the
character from any divergent views till your dying breath, that you
refuse to accept anything less than a positive or optimistic or
sacriligeous take on the franchise. At least that's how it comes
across in your posts with me. And you're not the only one among this
politically correct crowd either.
> You don't know anything about me, WQ. Got that? You don't have the
> information on which to base those judgements.
--- Well, that tone alone gives me plenty of information.
> Also, I reserve my right to express exasperation and frustration when
> trying to argue my opinions against anybody who I feel is stonewalling,
> delberately misinterpreting my views, employing Alice in Wonderland
> logic, or plain not listening. If that means saying 'fuck' once in a
> while, so be it. I never figured you for such a prude.
--- I'm not a prude, but again you're missing the point. A real
detached and intellectually pursued discussion on a subject does not
include flying fucks as a form of self-defense against any perceived
personal attack while discussing something that has absolutely nothing
to do with you personally.
> > Unlike with some of Phil's posts, I don't think you'll find
> > that instance in any of my discussions on Bond. But I'll give Phil
> > credit for getting scrappy with me and hanging in the fight longer than
> > most wimps around here.
>
> I presume the word 'wimps' is not to be taken personally by anybody
> either.
--- Why should it? I've been called worse here and do you think I
care? If somebody can't handle being called a wimp in a newsgroup
post, then what's that person doing being alive in the first place?
Think of how that person would totally collapse under a more brutal
verbal assualt in a real-life situation. Wimp is nothing.
> Finally, and I really don't care how personally you take this, you
> might want to ask yourself why you, almost alone among posters to this
> NG, inspire such reactions in otherwise placid and polite people.
--- The politeness I don't mind, it's the placidness that makes a lot
of people in this group read like yesterday's bland porridge. I guess
bland porridge only wakes up when it sees bacon and eggs with sliced
tomatoes accompanied by orange juice and a cup of freshly brewed coffee
competing against it for breakfast, which yesterday's bland porridge
knows it just can't compete against. So it vainly tries to bubble up
some cold fury to call attention to itself as a feeble way of trying to
prove that bacon and eggs with sliced tomatoes and juice and coffee are
not worth the salt and pepper. And no, I don't take it personally.
After all, I'm bacon and eggs with sliced tomatoes and juice and coffee
- with salt and pepper too, of course.
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295675 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 17:20 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- Never mind the first paragraph about you, which isn't a personal
> attack at all, unless you view truth as a personal attack. What was in
> it that isn't true? You take things personally when discussing Bond,
> you only append 'Cheers' to your posts when you're happy, not when
> you're miserable, and you have this schizoid personality of being very
> gentlemanly when people are on your good side and foul-mouthed when
> they're not. This is no secret, so I don't know what you're trying to
> hide or defend. But that's not the real point about the first
> paragraph. The real point is why do you take any Bond discussion
> personally? That's my real question. It's almost as if you feel you
> have a vested interested in the character and you'll protect the
> character from any divergent views till your dying breath, that you
> refuse to accept anything less than a positive or optimistic or
> sacriligeous take on the franchise. At least that's how it comes
> across in your posts with me. And you're not the only one among this
> politically correct crowd either.
It's nothing to do with the opinions being presented and everything to
do with the manner in which they're presented. If you could present
your anti-Craig views without finding it necessary to imply that those
who disagree are ignorant, gullible, in denial, or indeed possessed of
a vested interest, then I and many others around here wouldn't have a
problem.
> --- I'm not a prude, but again you're missing the point. A real
> detached and intellectually pursued discussion on a subject does not
> include flying fucks as a form of self-defense against any perceived
> personal attack while discussing something that has absolutely nothing
> to do with you personally.
In my book, a 'real detached and intellectually pursued discussion'
does not include unfounded allegations, outlandish conspiracy theories,
rhetoric, hyperbole, or questions about the sexuality, sanity,
integrity, gullibility, or intellectual capability of those who
disagree with you.
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295676 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 17:25 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- The politeness I don't mind, it's the placidness that makes a lot
> of people in this group read like yesterday's bland porridge. I guess
> bland porridge only wakes up when it sees bacon and eggs with sliced
> tomatoes accompanied by orange juice and a cup of freshly brewed
> coffee competing against it for breakfast, which yesterday's bland
> porridge knows it just can't compete against. So it vainly tries to
> bubble up some cold fury to call attention to itself as a feeble way
> of trying to prove that bacon and eggs with sliced tomatoes and juice
> and coffee are not worth the salt and pepper. And no, I don't take it
> personally. After all, I'm bacon and eggs with sliced tomatoes and
> juice and coffee - with salt and pepper too, of course.
I think you're also like a waffle every now and then. :)
Yes, you can raise the "cheap thrill shot" shield for that one, but I
really couldn't help it.
--
-- Mac
"The only bird I like comes in a bucket."
--Jack Wade in BEAK OF THE PTERODACTYL
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295677 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 17:36 |
|
WQ wrote:
> Now, when it comes to me, point out to me one instance when I didn't
> argue something in a detached and intellectual way, whether you agreed
> with it or not,
When you state as fact (and continue to do so) Craig got the lead role in
a $140m studio tentpole franchise because the people responsible for his
casting were women thinking purely with their genitalia and that other
parties were bribed to halt their objections.
> point out when I felt like my feelings got hurt or I
> was being personally attacked.
Every time you accused me of a "cheap thrill shot" response.
--
-- Mac
"Man, they're some wings on that thing, Jimbo, imagine 'em in
a crispy coating..."
--Jack Wade in BEAK OF THE PTERODACTYL
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295678 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 17:39 |
|
WQ wrote:
<snips>
>
> --- Methinks thou dost readeth much too much in what I write. Sure, I
> expect people to stand up for what they believe in with good, hard,
> longwinded if necessary, arguments.
But in the end, we're discussing works of art--pop art, to be sure, but
art nonetheless--not quantum physics. Our reactions to art are not
always logically defensible. I love TLD and LTK, two Bond films
frequently torn apart by others. Someone could dissect them point by
point, providing evidence at every step, and I could agree that their
'good, hard, longwinded' arguments are valid. But I would still love
those two films, and may not be able to explain why, other than there's
something about Dalton's performance and the tone of the films that
appeals to me.
If they can't, then yeah, what am
> I to believe other than they're just nothing but hot air. I'm supposed
> to take hot air seriously? Nobody has to share my opinions, just prove
> yourself right or prove me wrong or just call it a stalemate, but at
> least put up a good verbal fight, that's all I ask.
It's not about proving someone right or wrong. Could I really *prove*
that TWINE belongs in the upper echelons of the 007 series? I think it
does; many don't. How can you *prove* your emotional connection to a
film? You can explain why you feel that way, but you can't *prove* it.
I think this is the heart of why I sometimes find your posts a tad
tiresome. You seem hell bent on 'proving' your point intellectually and
at great length. But I find it more enjoyable when someone discusses
what worked for them, and their emotional reactions to the films. Again,
we're talking about art, not laying pipe (to rejig a line from "Dead
Poet's Society").
(Oh, and for god's sake use some *paragraphs* will ya? :-)
Too many posters
> around here think they're clever when they throw out some lame quip to
> satisfy their own sense of smug superiority rather than prove their
> stance. One only gets my respect when one puts up a good fight,
I'm not here to 'fight' -- I'm here to discuss the 007 films and books
and what I love about them with fellow enthusiasts.
--
==007===
“My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.”
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295680 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 17:55 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Never mind the first paragraph about you, which isn't a personal
> > attack at all, unless you view truth as a personal attack. What was in
> > it that isn't true? You take things personally when discussing Bond,
> > you only append 'Cheers' to your posts when you're happy, not when
> > you're miserable, and you have this schizoid personality of being very
> > gentlemanly when people are on your good side and foul-mouthed when
> > they're not. This is no secret, so I don't know what you're trying to
> > hide or defend. But that's not the real point about the first
> > paragraph. The real point is why do you take any Bond discussion
> > personally? That's my real question. It's almost as if you feel you
> > have a vested interested in the character and you'll protect the
> > character from any divergent views till your dying breath, that you
> > refuse to accept anything less than a positive or optimistic or
> > sacriligeous take on the franchise. At least that's how it comes
> > across in your posts with me. And you're not the only one among this
> > politically correct crowd either.
>
> It's nothing to do with the opinions being presented and everything to
> do with the manner in which they're presented. If you could present
> your anti-Craig views without finding it necessary to imply that those
> who disagree are ignorant, gullible, in denial, or indeed possessed of
> a vested interest, then I and many others around here wouldn't have a
> problem.
--- So in other words, you'd want me to be like yesterday's bland
porridge. But what's wrong with saying that someone is in denial when
they are and refuse to admit it? What's wrong with saying someone's
gullible when you read how one just blindly gobbles up the EON
publicity machine hook, line and sinker without looking past the face
value of it all or merely questioning anything about it? And if one is
being overprotective of a franchise, can't that be equated with some
sort of vested interest in it, as an analogy if not in a real sense?
In other words again, you'd rather not see color in the posts, you
prefer black and white or worse yet, only shades of grey. Sorry if I
come in brilliant, lustrous technicolor.
> > --- I'm not a prude, but again you're missing the point. A real
> > detached and intellectually pursued discussion on a subject does not
> > include flying fucks as a form of self-defense against any perceived
> > personal attack while discussing something that has absolutely nothing
> > to do with you personally.
>
> In my book, a 'real detached and intellectually pursued discussion'
> does not include unfounded allegations, outlandish conspiracy theories,
> rhetoric, hyperbole, or questions about the sexuality, sanity,
> integrity, gullibility, or intellectual capability of those who
> disagree with you.
--- In my book, just prove me wrong and I'll admit it. That's what
discussion is all about. I've already admitted some of my faux paux
with you and others in the past when there was an oversight or error or
an absence of details on my part. You've read my review of the CR
script and I think you know just from that alone I can balance things
out quite well in a pretty detached and objective manner - bacon and
eggs style.
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295682 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 17:56 |
|
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- The politeness I don't mind, it's the placidness that makes a lot
> > of people in this group read like yesterday's bland porridge. I guess
> > bland porridge only wakes up when it sees bacon and eggs with sliced
> > tomatoes accompanied by orange juice and a cup of freshly brewed
> > coffee competing against it for breakfast, which yesterday's bland
> > porridge knows it just can't compete against. So it vainly tries to
> > bubble up some cold fury to call attention to itself as a feeble way
> > of trying to prove that bacon and eggs with sliced tomatoes and juice
> > and coffee are not worth the salt and pepper. And no, I don't take it
> > personally. After all, I'm bacon and eggs with sliced tomatoes and
> > juice and coffee - with salt and pepper too, of course.
>
> I think you're also like a waffle every now and then. :)
>
> Yes, you can raise the "cheap thrill shot" shield for that one, but I
> really couldn't help it.
--- Actually, that was a good one. I like that. 2 points for you.
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "The only bird I like comes in a bucket."
>
> --Jack Wade in BEAK OF THE PTERODACTYL
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295684 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 18:01 |
|
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > Now, when it comes to me, point out to me one instance when I didn't
> > argue something in a detached and intellectual way, whether you agreed
> > with it or not,
>
> When you state as fact (and continue to do so) Craig got the lead role in
> a $140m studio tentpole franchise because the people responsible for his
> casting were women thinking purely with their genitalia and that other
> parties were bribed to halt their objections.
--- Huh? What? Hey? It's not fact? Well, we'll just wait and see if
he gets more than 11 close shots in the official CR trailer. If
anything will settle that argument, that'll be it.
> > point out when I felt like my feelings got hurt or I
> > was being personally attacked.
>
> Every time you accused me of a "cheap thrill shot" response.
--- You get points when they're not cheap, I just gave you 2 for the
waffle shot.
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "Man, they're some wings on that thing, Jimbo, imagine 'em in
> a crispy coating..."
>
> --Jack Wade in BEAK OF THE PTERODACTYL
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295687 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 18:31 |
|
Paul Clarke wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> <snips>
> >
> > --- Methinks thou dost readeth much too much in what I write. Sure, I
> > expect people to stand up for what they believe in with good, hard,
> > longwinded if necessary, arguments.
>
> But in the end, we're discussing works of art--pop art, to be sure, but
> art nonetheless--not quantum physics. Our reactions to art are not
> always logically defensible. I love TLD and LTK, two Bond films
> frequently torn apart by others. Someone could dissect them point by
> point, providing evidence at every step, and I could agree that their
> 'good, hard, longwinded' arguments are valid. But I would still love
> those two films, and may not be able to explain why, other than there's
> something about Dalton's performance and the tone of the films that
> appeals to me.
--- I like Dalton too. But at the same time, I felt he was misused in
both films. It seemed like they really didn't have the right handle on
how to project him as Bond. They were shooting for something more
grounded, but either Dalton was misreading the script or the script
misread what Dalton wanted to do with Bond. Everyone may've been
harmoniously on board as to how to do both films, but one gets the
feeling that something was always amiss. That said, I prefer TLD to
LTK. However, LTK had a potential about it that was captured in some
very good moments and scenes but could never really get much beyond
that. I view his tenure as Bond as being more like "nice well-meaning
try while it lasted, but it just didn't quite fully click." But that's
simply my take on him and those two films.
> If they can't, then yeah, what am
> > I to believe other than they're just nothing but hot air. I'm supposed
> > to take hot air seriously? Nobody has to share my opinions, just prove
> > yourself right or prove me wrong or just call it a stalemate, but at
> > least put up a good verbal fight, that's all I ask.
>
> It's not about proving someone right or wrong. Could I really *prove*
> that TWINE belongs in the upper echelons of the 007 series? I think it
> does; many don't. How can you *prove* your emotional connection to a
> film? You can explain why you feel that way, but you can't *prove* it.
--- Well, by prove it, I mean prove it where it can be proved, of
course. Sure, somebody can think TMWTGG is the best Bond ever, but can
it be proved? In terms of emotional connection, no, of course not.
Intellectually or as cinematic art, well, then that person had better
have some pretty good arguments as to why TMWTGG is the best Bond ever.
> I think this is the heart of why I sometimes find your posts a tad
> tiresome. You seem hell bent on 'proving' your point intellectually and
> at great length. But I find it more enjoyable when someone discusses
> what worked for them, and their emotional reactions to the films. Again,
> we're talking about art, not laying pipe (to rejig a line from "Dead
> Poet's Society").
--- Sometimes people just don't get it or misread what I write, which
is why I find myself having to go to great lengths to try to precisely
explain what I mean. I think I should do something more constructive
with my time.
> (Oh, and for god's sake use some *paragraphs* will ya? :-)
--- I'm trying. It's a learning curve for me.
> Too many posters
> > around here think they're clever when they throw out some lame quip to
> > satisfy their own sense of smug superiority rather than prove their
> > stance. One only gets my respect when one puts up a good fight,
>
> I'm not here to 'fight' -- I'm here to discuss the 007 films and books
> and what I love about them with fellow enthusiasts.
--- No harm in that. I only throw the 'fight' in for those who want to
make a point so as to know why they make that point, especially when
they're countering my comments with their own 'controversial' and/or
opposing views. It's about getting to the heart of the matter when the
views don't mesh. Some stick with the fight, others give up. Those
who give up only leads me to believe that they weren't that convinced
by their own views to be able to defend them properly. Either that or
they tire easily of the discussion. If they tire easily, they
shouldn't even engage in the fight in the first place.
>
>
> --
> ==007===
> "My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
> drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
> That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit."
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295688 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 18:45 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- So in other words, you'd want me to be like yesterday's bland
> porridge. But what's wrong with saying that someone is in denial when
> they are and refuse to admit it? What's wrong with saying someone's
> gullible when you read how one just blindly gobbles up the EON
> publicity machine hook, line and sinker without looking past the face
> value of it all or merely questioning anything about it? And if one is
> being overprotective of a franchise, can't that be equated with some
> sort of vested interest in it, as an analogy if not in a real sense?
All of those are matters of your very singular interpretation, not
matters of fact. You are making assumptions about people with no
earthly way of proving they're true.
How do you know, for example, that the people you label 'gullible'
*haven't* questioned EON's publicity? The fact that they've come to
the conclusion that EON aren't lying in no way means that they haven't
thought critically about the issue. All of us have access to the same
information and evidence, and believe me, the people on this list are,
for the most part, neither stupid nor credulous and are more than
capable of critical thinking. Read the fierce debate which took place
after DAD and then tell me whether the regulars on this list are EON
stooges who think everything Mike and Babs do is wonderful.
What your stated position amounts to saying is 'You don't agree with
me? Then there must be something wrong with you.' When it comes right
down to it, it reads as if you're implying that no intellectually
honest person could hold views opposed to yours. Such an attitude
comes across as patronising at best and personally insulting at worst,
and you're in no position to cry foul when people respond in kind.
If you want a 'detached and intellectually pursued discusssion' you
argue established facts, not assumptions about the personalities of
your opponents: ad hominem attacks, no matter how subtle or sly, do
nothing to advance debate, but instead just annoy those on the
receiving end.
(Please note also that you've been guilty of giving credence to many
tabloid rumours which have subsequently been proved to be utter BS. In
my book, believing or giving the benefit of the doubt to every
outlandish press or internet rumour is a pretty gullible act in
itself.)
> --- In my book, just prove me wrong and I'll admit it.
This is part of the problem, WQ: all too often, you shift the burden of
proof from where it should be, which is with you. Rather than making
any effort to prove something is true, you ask anybody who disagrees
with you to prove that what you're saying is false. Note for example
that I wasted a lot of time over the frankly trivial issue of whether
Craig was being 'hidden' in the CR teaser, where it should have been
down to you to check out the evidence available before making such a
point.
You've made and repeated a lot of unfounded allegations and
speculations, some of which it's been possible to disprove (eg 'the
crane chase will probably end with a helicopter rescue'), some of which
it's impossible to disprove (the tedious 'Babs has the hots for DC'
stuff). However, it shouldn't be down to those of us who don't believe
this stuff to have to prove it's false: you should be the one
presenting credible evidence that it's true.
One reason some of us get frustrated is because it's bloody annoying to
have to do this repeatedly.
> You've read my review of the CR
> script and I think you know just from that alone I can balance things
> out quite well in a pretty detached and objective manner - bacon and
> eggs style.
And when I think back to that review makes me wonder whether it was
written by the same person who's come out with a lot of the rabid
EON-can-do-nothing-right hyperbole which you've spouted over the last
few months.
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295689 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 18:49 |
|
WQ wrote re the tired old 'Babs and Amy have the hots for DC'
allegation:
> --- Huh? What? Hey? It's not fact?
No, it's not. Where's your evidence to prove that it is fact?
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295693 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 19:29 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- So in other words, you'd want me to be like yesterday's bland
> > porridge. But what's wrong with saying that someone is in denial when
> > they are and refuse to admit it? What's wrong with saying someone's
> > gullible when you read how one just blindly gobbles up the EON
> > publicity machine hook, line and sinker without looking past the face
> > value of it all or merely questioning anything about it? And if one is
> > being overprotective of a franchise, can't that be equated with some
> > sort of vested interest in it, as an analogy if not in a real sense?
>
> All of those are matters of your very singular interpretation, not
> matters of fact. You are making assumptions about people with no
> earthly way of proving they're true.
>
> How do you know, for example, that the people you label 'gullible'
> *haven't* questioned EON's publicity? The fact that they've come to
> the conclusion that EON aren't lying in no way means that they haven't
> thought critically about the issue. All of us have access to the same
> information and evidence, and believe me, the people on this list are,
> for the most part, neither stupid nor credulous and are more than
> capable of critical thinking. Read the fierce debate which took place
> after DAD and then tell me whether the regulars on this list are EON
> stooges who think everything Mike and Babs do is wonderful.
--- All of us [if you mean in this group only] may have access to the
same information and evidence, but not each and every one of us logs
into that very same information and evidence that's available, nor at
the very same time either. That's why there will always be different
perceptions of things. You may rely on two dozen sources, I may rely
on just a dozen sources, half of which may be the same as what you rely
on, which then actually only ends up to a quarter of the total you rely
on. So you're reading stuff that's different from what I'm reading
that has different interpretations. Couple that with one's own
personal evolving views on Bond over the years and you can begin to see
how there can be a clash of perceptions between two points of view.
Never mind the age factor between the two parties which can also affect
one's perceptions.
> What your stated position amounts to saying is 'You don't agree with
> me? Then there must be something wrong with you.' When it comes right
> down to it, it reads as if you're implying that no intellectually
> honest person could hold views opposed to yours. Such an attitude
> comes across as patronising at best and personally insulting at worst,
> and you're in no position to cry foul when people respond in kind.
--- Ok, let me get this straight now. Earlier you said that I couldn't
arrive at what conclusions I had about you because I don't know you.
And here you are arriving at conclusions about me without really
knowing me. Personally, I see the humour in this.
> If you want a 'detached and intellectually pursued discusssion' you
> argue established facts, not assumptions about the personalities of
> your opponents: ad hominem attacks, no matter how subtle or sly, do
> nothing to advance debate, but instead just annoy those on the
> receiving end.
--- You kind of want to take all the fun out of this for me, don't you?
> (Please note also that you've been guilty of giving credence to many
> tabloid rumours which have subsequently been proved to be utter BS. In
> my book, believing or giving the benefit of the doubt to every
> outlandish press or internet rumour is a pretty gullible act in
> itself.)
--- I give credence to nothing. If something has a different slant to
what's normally published, I might put it out there for balance sake.
I don't say it's true or false, it's up to you to decide. I may throw
in my 2 cents worth, but doing that is no different than someone
clueing you into a politically correct rumour or fact and adding their
own comments along with it. And some of those "legitimate" rumours
have been shot down too just when everybody was buying into it. Notice
how a lot of people seemed to find interest in Goldfrapp as a positive
move on EON's part and how that rumor got shot down within days?
According to one legitimate source, even Goldfrapp said she was writing
the lyrics for the CR theme. I'm just balancing out the pro fiction
that's out there with the con fiction, most of which all get shot down
anyway.
> > --- In my book, just prove me wrong and I'll admit it.
>
> This is part of the problem, WQ: all too often, you shift the burden of
> proof from where it should be, which is with you. Rather than making
> any effort to prove something is true, you ask anybody who disagrees
> with you to prove that what you're saying is false. Note for example
> that I wasted a lot of time over the frankly trivial issue of whether
> Craig was being 'hidden' in the CR teaser, where it should have been
> down to you to check out the evidence available before making such a
> point.
> You've made and repeated a lot of unfounded allegations and
> speculations, some of which it's been possible to disprove (eg 'the
> crane chase will probably end with a helicopter rescue'), some of which
> it's impossible to disprove (the tedious 'Babs has the hots for DC'
> stuff). However, it shouldn't be down to those of us who don't believe
> this stuff to have to prove it's false: you should be the one
> presenting credible evidence that it's true.
--- So what you're telling me is that no matter what I say I should
immediatley back it up with reams of proof? You know what'll happen
then? A few hearty souls will try to disprove the proof which I'll
have to try to keep repoving, so we're back to square one again. No,
the rule is simply this: everything I say is fact as far as I'm
concerned, no matter how outlandish it may read, but feel free to
disprove what I say. It's easier that way for me.
> One reason some of us get frustrated is because it's bloody annoying to
> have to do this repeatedly.
--- Well, if people here just get what I say the first time, then there
would be no reason to keep repeating any of it. Sometimes I think
people just read my posts to find ways to snap back rather than
actually absorbing the meaning behind what I'm saying. I do believe I
am writing in English, correct me if I'm wrong.
> > You've read my review of the CR
> > script and I think you know just from that alone I can balance things
> > out quite well in a pretty detached and objective manner - bacon and
> > eggs style.
>
> And when I think back to that review makes me wonder whether it was
> written by the same person who's come out with a lot of the rabid
> EON-can-do-nothing-right hyperbole which you've spouted over the last
> few months.
--- You see, that's what I've been telling you: detach yourself from
yourself to see things objectively. No big trick.
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295696 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 19:40 |
|
WQ wrote:
> > What your stated position amounts to saying is 'You don't agree with
> > me? Then there must be something wrong with you.' When it comes right
> > down to it, it reads as if you're implying that no intellectually
> > honest person could hold views opposed to yours. Such an attitude
> > comes across as patronising at best and personally insulting at worst,
> > and you're in no position to cry foul when people respond in kind.
>
> --- Ok, let me get this straight now. Earlier you said that I couldn't
> arrive at what conclusions I had about you because I don't know you.
> And here you are arriving at conclusions about me without really
> knowing me. Personally, I see the humour in this.
Uh-uh. Note the use of the phrases '...it *reads* as if...' and 'Such
an attitude *comes across* as'.... I'm talking about how your
arguments and their premises appear to me as a reader, not using your
posts to arrive at conclusions about the kind of person you are.
That's a big difference in my book.
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295697 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 19:48 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- So what you're telling me is that no matter what I say I should
> immediatley back it up with reams of proof? You know what'll happen
> then? A few hearty souls will try to disprove the proof which I'll
> have to try to keep repoving, so we're back to square one again. No,
> the rule is simply this: everything I say is fact as far as I'm
> concerned, no matter how outlandish it may read, but feel free to
> disprove what I say. It's easier that way for me.
I just think that's a bassackward and frustrating way of arguing your
point. You might as well allege that Daniel Craig is in fact a midget
from Uzbekistan whose true appearance is being digitally altered by
EON, and then challenge us to find evidence to disprove it to your
satisfaction. Eventually we'd do so (I hope), but what an astonishing
waste of time it would be.
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295700 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 00:49 |
|
"Rich Handley" <rhandley [at] optonline.net> wrote in message
news:63cna2ppml5k76blm9ef7kpfi5fsepekr9 [at] 4ax.com...
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>>The only thing that can save CR and Craig
>
> You keep saying that as if they need to be saved. They don't. They're
> not
> in any kind of trouble.
>
I have no idea why anyone continues to respond to his idiotic, pessimistic
and utterly trivial criticisms of a film that hasn't been seen yet. What a
waste of time and effort.
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295701 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 00:50 |
|
"Rich Handley" <rhandley [at] optonline.net> wrote in message
news:0bcna29lrh2mlo9u3v125uqbnau93nntke [at] 4ax.com...
> "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> said:
>>WQ wrote:
>>> Discuss the topic intellectually and leave your feelings out of it -
>>> feelings only get in the way of a rational discussion.
>>LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
>>Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
>
> Bingo. This WQ guy fancies himself an intellectual, which clearly he's
> not...he fancies himself objective, which clearly he's not...and he
> fancies
> himself above being clouded by personal feelings, which very clearly he's
> not
>
In other words, he fancies himself ;-)
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295703 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 04:33 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote re the tired old 'Babs and Amy have the hots for DC'
> allegation:
>
> > --- Huh? What? Hey? It's not fact?
>
> No, it's not. Where's your evidence to prove that it is fact?
--- Guess you kind of missed the joke of that.
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295704 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 04:53 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > > What your stated position amounts to saying is 'You don't agree with
> > > me? Then there must be something wrong with you.' When it comes right
> > > down to it, it reads as if you're implying that no intellectually
> > > honest person could hold views opposed to yours. Such an attitude
> > > comes across as patronising at best and personally insulting at worst,
> > > and you're in no position to cry foul when people respond in kind.
--- I think it's more like: "You don't agree with me? Okay, then tell
me otherwise and convince me." Anybody can hold opposite views to
mine, just make sure you can back up your views, otherwise I'll just
run you down to the ground till you do. I think you know that feeling
yourself from first-hand experience.
Patronizing is when you don't offer the opportunity to others to make
their point in order to be singularly condescening towards others. I
offer plenty of opportunities for others to make their point, but
either they don't take it or if they do, it's just cheap shots. And
like I said before, if anybody has a problem feeling personally
insulted by something mentioned in a fan group over a fictional
character, that person should begin to question their own existence on
this planet. It's just a bloody newsgroup and just a bloody fictional
character that's being discussed. What is everybody here, a Muslim?
And Bond some kind of Almighty Allah?
And what do you mean cry foul when people respond in kind? I never cry
foul, I just call it as I see it. Cite one instance where I cried
foul, and I'll tell you if you're right or not.
> > --- Ok, let me get this straight now. Earlier you said that I couldn't
> > arrive at what conclusions I had about you because I don't know you.
> > And here you are arriving at conclusions about me without really
> > knowing me. Personally, I see the humour in this.
>
> Uh-uh. Note the use of the phrases '...it *reads* as if...' and 'Such
> an attitude *comes across* as'.... I'm talking about how your
> arguments and their premises appear to me as a reader, not using your
> posts to arrive at conclusions about the kind of person you are.
> That's a big difference in my book.
--- "Such an attitude comes across as patronising at best and
personally insulting at worst..." Well, if that "appearance," as read
by you, is not an arrival at some sort of conclusion as to the kind of
person I am by implication [i.e. patronizing and insulting], then I
don't know what is. Explain the big difference in your book between
"appearing" and "concluding" vis-a-vis that statement of yours.
---
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295705 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 05:05 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- So what you're telling me is that no matter what I say I should
> > immediatley back it up with reams of proof? You know what'll happen
> > then? A few hearty souls will try to disprove the proof which I'll
> > have to try to keep repoving, so we're back to square one again. No,
> > the rule is simply this: everything I say is fact as far as I'm
> > concerned, no matter how outlandish it may read, but feel free to
> > disprove what I say. It's easier that way for me.
>
> I just think that's a bassackward and frustrating way of arguing your
> point. You might as well allege that Daniel Craig is in fact a midget
> from Uzbekistan whose true appearance is being digitally altered by
> EON, and then challenge us to find evidence to disprove it to your
> satisfaction. Eventually we'd do so (I hope), but what an astonishing
> waste of time it would be.
--- Okay, next time YOU make a statement and back it up with tons of
irrefutable proof at the same time. You'd probably find that just as
much a waste of time to do also. So there's no difference in either
bassackward [sic] way. And let's not get carried away with claiming
Craig is a midget from Uzbekistan whose appearance is digitally altered
[although you had me going there for a sec], but I still say Barb's
hots for him isn't too far off from the truth. You did see that shot
of those nippies of hers practically popping through her T-shirt while
standing next to him, didn't you? A picture is worth a 1,000 words
right there.
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Branson cameo [message #295706 ] |
Do, 06 Juli 2006 05:08 |
|
Will wrote:
> "Rich Handley" <rhandley [at] optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:63cna2ppml5k76blm9ef7kpfi5fsepekr9 [at] 4ax.com...
> > "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
> >>The only thing that can save CR and Craig
> >
> > You keep saying that as if they need to be saved. They don't. They're
> > not
> > in any kind of trouble.
> >
>
> I have no idea why anyone continues to respond to his idiotic, pessimistic
> and utterly trivial criticisms of a film that hasn't been seen yet. What a
> waste of time and effort.
--- I guess you missed my script review of it. Here, have a good
laugh:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.fan.james-bond/browse_thre ad/thread/c16267f483fb0c83/43162fe2160d03ad?lnk=st&q=lat est+casino+royale+script+review&rnum=1&hl=en#43162fe 2160d03ad
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:13:54 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,19883 Sekunden |
