"steve" wrote in message
news:1Dwfo.9072$IH1.1198@newsfe18.iad...
>
> On 1-Sep-2010, william wrote:
>
>> > Jim didnt accuse you of trolling, but questioned whether you were
>> > trolling
>> > because of your bizarre interpretation coupled with the inflammatory
>> > rhetoric (including political statements...something you've been
>> > critical of
>> > others...no names will be mentioned...for doing in the past). He had
>> > good
>> > reason to question. You do seem to be spoiling for a fight (except that
>> > you
>> > wont fight...sort of).
>> >
>> First off, you and calvin intentionally interject politics so you can
>> discuss politics instead of film.
>
> Not so. But I never shy away from politics, and I do sometimes start an
> off
> topic political thread. In other words, if I want to discuss poliytics
> here, I dont sneak it into something else.
>
> Specifically, Ive discussed Stagecoach many times with no mention of
> politics. Clearly you interjected inflammatory politics, here, even if
> you
> hedged and backed away. Just why did you do that?
>
>> I think you can discuss films with
>> intelligence. So I wanted to avoid creating a platform for my politics
>> on the basis of a John Ford film.
>
> I dont see that. You made overt and inflammatory political statements.
> How
> does that resolve with your claim above?
>
>> Bullshit about Jim Beaver. When I posted in a
>> huff that I was sick of the shit that goes on in this group sometimes,
>> Beaver claimed credit for driving me off. Twice or three times.
>
> Well, then it seems there is a history between you two that I havent
> noticed. My reaction was to this thread alone, and so I may be missing
> the
> bigger picture. I'll take a step back on this one.
>
>> So . Beaver. I no longer have any
>> respect for him.
>
> I have plenty of respect for JB. In my experience, he can disagree
> agreeably (most of the time...certainly no worse than me), and he knows
> what
> he is talking about when it comes to film. I find you much harder to
> disagree with.
>
>> Everytime I disagree with him he calls me a "moron"
>> or a "troll." Throw in OW, wull and Troysky and some others and I find
>> it odd that you're suggesting that I'm disturbing the decorum of such
>> polite society. Why am I being held to a standard that doesn't exist
>> here?
>
> I hold all of you to the same standard, which is why Im willing to talk to
> you and not, for example, to Trotsky or Gondork. But that doesnt mean I
> wont make a critical comment when I think you're out of line.
>
>> So I'm just going to post my reviews and if they lead you to some
>> films and maybe steer you away from others, fine. There is something
>> disingenuous in your application of respect.
>
> Im not at all sure what that last comment means. People earn my respect
> by
> speaking intelligently and with some measure of respect for others. Some
> level of friction and combativeness is fine with me, provided it leads
> somewhere and doesnt simple devolve into vitriol. I dont expect people to
> be saints (Im sure not one), and if they offer something of value Im
> willing
> to talk to them. Are you suggesting Im showing respect for JB in order to
> indirectly show disrespect for you?
>
>> Be well and happy viewing,
>
> Thanks. Likewise.
>
> steve
This guy's almost too easy, Steve. For the record, according to Google
Groups (God knows if it's trustworthy or not), I've posted to this group 878
times in the past calendar year. I found six threads or so in which William
and I got into it in some fashion, and two of those started with me saying
about something he'd said, in effect, "I couldn't agree more." There is no
post anywhere in which I have called William a moron or a troll. I did say
that his Stagecoach post sounded like trollery, but even there I gave him an
explanation based, as I said, on the presumption that it WASN'T trollery.
(The explanation was about Hatfield's background, the only aspect I believe
I touched. His response was something or other about Indians and white men,
totally unrelated. Yet he took me to task for a topic I hadn't broached or
responded to.) I'm sorry that I can't speak critically of his opinions
without it getting turned into "Jim called me a moron," but it appears there
is no alternate response available to him. I never "took credit for driving
him away," saying rather that I appeared, in one of his departures, to have
been the last of a series of offenders ("the straw that broke the camel's
back"). I have never intended to drive him away. I have never intended to
be this Golden Age of Hollywood evangelist he thinks I am--I like that stuff
just like I like lots of stuff that doesn't qualify remotely for that
category. I never intended even to offend him, even when he is
Professionally Potentially Offended. But I don't intend to bother him
further with direct comment. If a thread comes along that he happens to be
involved in, I won't shy away from commenting, but I won 't offend him again
with direct response. And unlike some folks, I mean it.
Thanks for the support, Steve. I'm afraid you're pissing in the wind, but I
appreciate it.
Jim Beaver
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- |