The Scarlet "C" – David Edelstein's Shaming Should Shame Us All
This takes a little more space than a tweet… but seriously… putting last weeks drama here aside… a dozen or so reviews of Inception go up and now David Edelstein’s opinion is pilloried? Not just by anonymous, anything-Nolan-does-is-my-touchstone commenters, but by Patrick Goldstein?
Goldstein on 7/6 – “The critics are so over the top about the film that I thought it would be fun to start keeping track of the most wildly overblown, hilariously highbrow claims for the film.”
Goldstein on 7/13 – “Apparently, there is no greater sin than for a filmmaker to make a movie that some people just like too much.”
What happened, Patrick? And do you really expect to be able to pat yourself on the back for “seeing it coming” when you seemed to agree with it?
And now Edelstein’s an asshole for really disliking the movie?
Even the rage that happened around my tweet was a (misguidedly) personal response. Those guys seemed to think I was insulting them.
I still think my impulsive tweet, 8 days ago, saying that the intensity of the reviews made me nervous, was 100% fair. And I think that those who, like Patrick, decided that there might be a backlash… fair.
But Edelstein’s entire opinion is being attacked… with notes about his reference to what I still agree have been insane comparisons by people who are using comparisons that seemed beyond their rhetorical grasp.
I liked the movie a lot more than David. But good GOD… is Patrick Goldstein, aka a journalist, actually embracing the idea that a studio can set the stage – even if there were no assurances about how positive the reviews would be – with a dozen reviews… and if they are all positive, from that point on, anyone who doesn’t like the film is a reactionary hack?
Ironically, one of the big points from one of the guys who felt I was insulting him was that his positive review was not the unqualified rave that others had produced. Maybe he just deserves a slap on the hand.
Now… I will say… Patrick got 50 comments last week on his soft-ball rip-off of what I had been going through for 2 days already. (Oh yeah… I get to throw some vanity around on this one too.) That is a rarity on his blog. So going back to the Inception well made perfect sense. But throwing Edelstein down the well? Not cool. And to use anonymous commenters to do it… contemptible.
There are people who have taste very different than my own. There are movies that become part of a groupthink, in my opinion, for the positive or negative… and it doesn’t require a conspiracy or even a conversation. There are moments when a writer seems to be milking the idea of being the outsider opinion of a movie.
But this whole “if you disagree with the crowd, you are just being a contrarian” routine is really ugly stuff. It’s like the mob trying to control someone who had their own opinion.
Even Armond White… whatever his intellectual process is… seems to be pretty consistent about being what he is. While he was being attacked for his Toy Story 3 review, how many people noted the simple fact that he hates all of Pixar’s output.
It’s like there is a rage about anyone stepping out of line because, “hey, we’re all in line, what are you trying to do, use us to stand out?”
But isn’t the presumption that someone with a minority opinion is just reacting to the majority – even when it is a tiny majority, as in this case, before his review posted – every bit as bad as assuming that the group who loved the film and wrote about it first was filled with studio shills?
And isn’t it rather cowardly to go after David Edelstein’s opinion without even confronting David Edelstein’s opinion.. just a lazy look at the Rotten Tomatoes number?
The internet has become a place where the discussion always seems to digress into being more about the messenger than the message. In some cases, the messenger IS the message. True enough. But the tyranny of the internet mob… scary for all we will give up to it.
I think people are taking issue with Edelstein because his reasoning for disliking the movie seems to center so much around others liking it. That’s pretty weak criticism on his part.
More than ever, the Internet is a place where people wildly over-react. I mean, really, screaming about Edelstein’s pan is silly, and rather pathetic, whether it’s by over-zealous Nolan fans or media peeps trying to find a hot story.
As it turns out, I disagree with Edelstein about INCEPTION, but that doesn’t mean I’ll stop enjoying reading his reviews.
“Inception” has been one of the few movies I have been anticipating this summer. However, the crazy-ass critical reaction has left me a little worried. So, good on Edelstein for going against the grain. (I assume his review is based on his reaction to the movie and not to the heretofore critical reaction to it.)
I will point this out again because this seems to be how it is in 2010. If you step out of line and hate on the wrong thing, there’s a good chance you are going to get stomped on for doing so. While I have my own problems with people getting out of line and stomping on them, I am not in the review game. I am not a journalist. If I am a journalist and I get pissy about another critic/journalist stepping out of line, then maybe someone should show me a pay stub, and remind me where I am employed.
Patrick pulled a douche move.
The New Media is seriously infantile.
Uh, wasn’t Pauline Kael fired from NPR for hating on The Sound of Music?
What’s new about this seems to be that the statistics of ripe/rotten have given this all the air of “science.”
NPR? This was the 1960’s. She was fired by “McCall’s”…
Why doesn’t Patrick write something about truly moronic criticism, like Ramin Setoodeh’s Newsweek piece bashing DiCaprio for allegedly only playing gloomy masochists and misogynists and praising Taylor Lautner for getting $7.5 million per movie because he smiles?
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/08/what-s-eating-leonardo-dicaprio.html
Armond White isn’t as consistent as he might appear. A minor example, he panned the first Final Destination, then wildly praised the third one.
Serves me right for not fact-checking first…
but I wasn’t totally off.
I was jumbling it with Kael’s West Side Story review done for Pacifica Radio (KPFA).
“Edelstein’s Shaming Should Shame Us All”
wow it should shame us all? fwiw i don’t feel even remotely ashamed
you critics are hilarious, just like a bunch of babbling, whining toddlers in a sandbox. throwing poop at each other, susceptible to hair-trigger mood swings, sudden tanties and crying jags (not because they’re actually hurt but for attention), jockeying for the best spot in the pit because someone else happens to be sitting there, and ego-centric in the way only toddlers are, believing as they do they really ARE the centre of the universe
(meanwhile completely oblivious to the fact that the adults are watching from the sidelines with bemused, exhausted acceptance as the toddlers wage their little sandbox wars with their trademark unadulterated, single-minded sense of godlike-self, knowing full well the tykes will eventually tire themselves out and need a nap before the next round of self-aggrandising drama)
So… business as usual for any industry?
Leahnz: Thou art beautiful in thy wrath, Kiwi woman…
Careful Joe – recent studies have shown that online social networking is cited in over 65% of divorce cases. đ
Foamy: Seriously? Because I remember reading somewhere that the No. 1 cause of divorce, hand’s down, is money. Or, to be more precise, arguments over money. Not sex (either adulterous or insufficient), not substance abuse, but money.
Cause? Probably money. Evidence? Probably social networking.
Ah… here it is:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3899991/Facebook-a-divorce-lawyers-dream
Btw Leah, Wellington is DAMN COLD.
star/starfucker.
critics who nuzzle up to studio types because they want to feel as if they are part of the creative process. they are starfuckers.
if you apply that filter to online film sites, it explains a lot. When you read pieces just assume “I’m desperate to be part of this industry.” follows everyone’s name on the byline.
If you can’t beat them, and you can’t join them, start a website and talk about them until someone pays attention.
Ooops – reread the article and I misrepresented the statistics. The cases that use social networking evidence is down around 10-20%; of the cases where social networking is cited Facebook is mentioned 66% of the time.
Foamy: Years ago, I read about this pier in France that, for some odd reason, people often chose as a place to commit suicide. They’d just into the river and drown themselves. And the cops claimed they could always tell which ones killed themselves because of money — bankruptcy, whatever — and which ones did it for love. The ones who did it for love had horribly ripped and scarred hands — presumably because, as soon as they hit the water, they had second thoughts, and vainly attempted to grab onto the pier to save themselves. The ones who did it for money? Hands unmarked. They just sank to the bottom and died.
(sheepishly) thanks, joe…i eat right, drink lots of water and use a daily moisturiser on my wrath to keep it smooth and lovely
(foamy: fucking tell me about it, coldest wettest winter in yonks — but we have sun this week to warm the cockles, hopefully it’ll last, otherwise my cockles are slightly frozen ’till sept or so)
The only thing is, Leah, is when someone pisses on your turf, you go as bat shit crazy as any of us… no?
David: I never thought I would say this but… you just did a Rod Steiger on Leah. Cool.
uh…no. please provide an example of me going ‘batshit crazy’ when someone pisses on ‘my turf’ (and what is ‘my turf’, exactly? and for that matter, what is ‘batshit crazy’? and did i say you or critics had gone ‘batshit crazy’, so that somehow ‘batshit crazy’ was introduced into the discussion? ftr, i have called nobody ‘batshit crazy’, it’s on you)
Oh, Leah… when people are being idiots about anything WETA, you get very aggressive.
Obviously, I don’t have a problem with it. I just think that patronizing critics for dealing with our stuff is a little unfair. All politics are local.
“please provide an example of me going ‘batshit crazy’ when someone pisses on ‘my turf'”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Suggested answer:
Go to Google. Enter “big jim” or “james cameron” in quotes. Then enter “leahnz” in quotes. Then enter “Hot Blog” or “MCN” in quotes.
Then sit back and BASK in the all-lower-case mania.
Also this thread title is straight bullshit because it’s not about Scarlett at all.
If you’re in the mood for a few laughs — actually, quite a few laughs — take a look at this blast from the past and see how many folks were writing with absolute certainty about things they were entirely wrong about. (Not you, David: You hit the nail on the head at the very start.)
http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/08/thanks_crazy_ol.html
I love Nolan. I love him. He is one of the few genius directors around in my opinion. I love Toy Story 3 also.
But I could not agree more with Dave’s point that critics should be allowed to disagree….for whatever reason. History will tell who is right or wrong.
Ebert is wrong on his pan of Blue Velvet. Doesn’t matter. We need contrarian opinions to put the rest in context. People were pissed at Armond’s disrupting of RT’s 100% for Toy Story. Bullshit. I was pissed at any film getting 100%.
And films that get such low grades also. I question if they are really that bad.
Good post.
“Oh, Leah… when people are being idiots about anything WETA, you get very aggressive.”
is that so? examples, please (and just to be clear, ‘aggressive’, which is entirely open to interpretation btw, now constitutes BATSHIT CRAZY? how odd)
i rarely talk about either wetas, and the only time i can ever recall really telling someone off re: a weta comment was io, and if everyone telling off io is considered ‘batshit crazy’ then there’s probably guano about 3m deep on the hotblog floor
and lex:
a) you of all people should NEVER call anyone else on this blog batshit crazy lest hypocrisy come up and bite your ass off in one mouthful; and b) see A
note to overly-sensitive little boys: disagreeing with you – even vehemently – doesn’t make someone ‘batshit crazy’
Hey, Leah, try taking that sentence you begin with “you critics” and stick in any other group instead of critics — say, women or Americans or vegans — and see if you like the sound of it. Any sentence that begins with something as broad as “you ____” is bound to be wrong (and, by the way, that whole thing sounds a lot like a “tantie” to me).
I brought up WETA beating ILM and you responded as if the people who brought Optimus Prime alive were a bunch of pikers. Seriously Leah, you protect your turf, good for you, but that does not mean you are not at fault in these sort of situations as well. Outside of that, GO READ YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH ME ABOUT AVATAR. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!! BOOYAH!
What a saucy wench she is!
huh? sorry chris, but that makes no sense to me. my comment, tho of course generalising, was about a very specific and comparatively rather small group – film critics – and you think critics can be legitimately swapped out for women or americans or whathaveyou and thus be offensive to those groups? how do you figure that?
and how on earth does it sound like a temper tantrum? it is entirely observational in nature and in no way an emotional outburst, demanding in nature
lol joe, oh man
and io, you are seriously going to bring up avatar and someone ELSE being batshit crazy? omfg
PLUS YOU ARE MEANT TO BE TRAPPED IN YOUR FUCKING GREMLIN!
Leah, you are an angry angry woman. The funniest part about you being so angry angry of a woman on here is, your complete and utter inability to grasp how angry angry woman you come off. You just get so angry, so quickly, and you completely never get how horrible you come off during one of your rants.
Give me crap all you want but I intended to bring the pain. You think you come across as a rational and reasoned person, when really, you are just an angry angry woman. Go drink a Fosters or something, calm down, and post without that chip on your shoulder. It will make you come off a lot less angry.
EVERYONE here gets passionate – it’s what we do. Well, except for Lex… he also gets horny. You may not agree with the pejorative term “bat shit crazy” but I don’t think anyone here can claim to be ice calm all the time. I still have bruises from the last time Leydon came at me with a crowbar.
Incidentally, why is Fosters like making love in a canoe? Because it’s fucking close to water.
Foamy, seriously, that bit about Fosters ruled. That aside, only one man rises above human emotion on this blog and post like a Terra Cotta soldier. That one man is not human, he’s beyond a human, he’s like a really agitated mopey mutant. That man is…
Oh yeah, I am occasionally an angry angry man and that’s why I am working on it. You know, no cursing in here outside of the word ass and trying not to snap even when that blue cat people movie is mentioned. Oh here it comes, six hour pain headache.
Sadly I can’t take credit for that joke – I stole it from Monty Python.
Oddly, Leah, I am not surprised to learn that you don’t get that the idea of stereotyping an entire group — any group — is, rhetorically, foolish. I guess I am a little surprised that you can’t see why un-punctuated, unfounded tirades that include references to throwing poop have the whiff of tantrum about them.
Foamy, it did give me visions of Eric Idle for some reason but you still get dap for bring it up. I like you. You make me laugh.
Chris, well said.
Leah… again… not intending to insult you at all with this… language is over the top… but the principle… well, you’re exhibiting the behavior of which I spoke in this thread.
I love having you here. I love your passion. But sometimes, when aroused, like all of us, you use a canon when a paring knife would do for most.
I love leahnz because:
1)She and I see eye to eye on the underwritten yet spiritual and challenging themes deep in AVATAR.
2)She is a female who isn’t afraid to lay the verbal-smackdown when she needs to. Like my wife.
3) New Zealand produced some of the greatest pop music ever in the 80’s and 90’s: Crowded House, The Clean, The Bats, Straitjacket Fits, The 3Ds, The Verlaines, Cakekitchen….on and on. Anybody who exists in the area that gave me the masterpiece MELT by Straitjacket Fits gets a pass from me.
Pre-topic: Has Rex Reed ever been considered a real critic or journalist? As long as I can remember he’s just been a caricature. Wasn’t he on Siskel and Ebert for a while, or had his own weekly show in the 80’s??? I cannot stand him. He is Armond White without the intelligence. Ugh. Just reading that blurb on the front page here made me wanna scr
eam.
On topic: I tired of this after the Armond/Toy Story thing. Goldstein seems to be transparently trying to capitalize on that freight-train of retardation. Are we gonna see this now with EVERY movie that starts out with raves?????? God help us.
The other thing is this: before the internet I assumed EVERYBODY loved and considered Halloween, Jaws, ET and many other movies perfect all time greats. When I finally got access to millions of other opinions I was initially shocked that some people HAT E.T.!!!! I was aghast and argued and wasted so much time debating until I finally realized I don’t fucking care.
The net has allowed everybody to tell everyone else what they think of everything. It can cause utter insanity unless you learn to tune out what is 98% white noise. The fighting over one person not liking something else is pointless. I’m sure there are men out there who don’t like getting blow jobs. I think they are insane but what do I care?
You can debate certain points and interpretations but arguing over one guy giving a C to something you gave an A…arguing over the letter grade? Get a grip.
I had issues with a few reviews of Fantastic Mr. Fox last winter. Not because they didn’t love it like I do but because they didn’t even seem to have seen the film, something we’ve talked about here. I emailed them and had some exchanges and that’s that. I considered those fruitful.
So ya know, I just don’t get Patrick writing this. I’m not gonna get it when it happens again with…I dunno…True Grit? Social Network? Saw 7: Traps All Up In Your Ignorant Grill?
I do wish some of the morons on RottenTomatoes would be jettisoned. Not because of their reviews, but who the fuck is Willie Waffle??? Dustin Putnam??? Christ on a cracker.
Of course this is going to change as soon as I hit “post” but I think I’ve earned a gold star for remaining calm and rational in my responses here. I think this is mainly attributed to resisting the temptation to feed the trolls.
I don’t really know this David Edelstein. Is he generally considered a pot stirrer? I know some columnists are like this. Always searching for the next 3 Mile Island. Occasionally they make you think or question but sometimes kicking over bee hives and turning up fence posts amounts to nothing more than printed vandalism. It’s easy to lose credibility or standing over the continued saga to make crisis out of cotton. If this were the case, I could see someone calling bs cuz they know the person is just doing for self promotion.
Maybe I’m biased cuz I agree with a lot of what Edelstein said in his review but I don’t think so. Maybe this is a film that someone could try to make a name by being very vocal against it, though I’d think Toy3 would’ve suited that role better. Sometimes reviews can seem peculiar in uniformity. Almost like a conspiracy of someone saying, “You will like this film and you will pan that one.” I know that’s not the case but sometimes it seems like there could be a larger net or less filters to pull the focus group to decide the outcome.
The only deepness in Avatar is ripped straight out of Dances With Loves. Who knew Cameron had INCEPTION abilities!
The group-think lynch mob is frightening and ridiculous. Whether or not you want to agree with him, Edelstein is the real deal and has been for decades. To question his sanity/motives merely because he thought “Inception” was meh is insane. By that logic, why isn’t there similar outrage directed towards, say, Todd McCarthy for giving the horrific “Nine” a rave? Or towards the lemmings who propped up vile overrated turds like “Duplicity” or “Up in the Air?” Or are critics only allowed to be “nice” these days…?
I liked Up in the Air, so feel free to unload on me as a proxy.
glad to see the thread back on track rather than weirdly about me, just to say:
a kiss on the cheek to cleansteve for being scrupulously clean and understanding my verbage and digging our awesome tunes, rock on
DP: you know at heart i’m fond your ass and the hotblog, it’s all bit of a laugh and i honestly don’t take any of it seriously at all. but i DO understand that this is more than just a laugh for you and the blog is tied to your professional life so there you go, we come at it from different places and i appreciate it’s more serious for you. as for my paring knife vs. my cannon…i thought it would be obvious by now that my cannon IS my pairing knife, and i also have a ballistic missile or two for when it goes FUBAR (i also have a toothpick)
chris: stereotyping? you honestly believe i’m stereotyping all critics as petulant toddlers? i made an outlandish parental analogy about all the whining and in-fighting between critics lately and you take it that literally, christ, get a sense of perspective. or not. and you’re not surprised that i don’t agree with your opinion about what i wrote so that makes me foolish? right back atcha (and ftr, my sandbox comment is most certainly punctuated; calling it “un-punctuated” is ridiculous. not having a full stop at the end of a sentence, which i often do simply because i type REALLY fast and i just don’t care that much about full stops on a blog because this isn’t a contest or an audition for me, does not equate to “un-punctuated” in any language
(no full stop, just for you. don’t for a minute presume because it’s missing means i’m a thickie)
(and io, don’t tell me what i am, you ever-present brow-beating gerbil. you lecturing someone else on ‘anger’ is beyond ironic, somewhere in the post-irony realm of ironicism, where the mere use of the word ‘irony’ is ironic in and of itself because the word can’t even begin to convey how ironic the idea is)
Thickie-Leah-Thickie-NZ-Thickie
O đ
The whole rejection of dissent is a broader theme than just critics though – it’s fairly common in all avenues of life, business, and politics and it kinda sucks. Even without being a professional media commentator, the tunnel vision exhibited does make me shudder.
I read Edelstein a lot when he was at Slate and always liked him as a critic. I’d say he’s the real day and not someone out to intentionally stir the pot.
Uh oh The Village Voice’s Nick Pinkerton pans Inception and praises The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Surely he will soon be the victim of Patrick’s wrath.
Leah wrote; “(and io, don’t tell me what i am, you ever-present brow-beating gerbil. you lecturing someone else on ‘anger’ is beyond ironic, somewhere in the post-irony realm of ironicism, where the mere use of the word ‘irony’ is ironic in and of itself because the word can’t even begin to convey how ironic the idea is)”
Someone is still an angry angry angry woman. Seriously if I can respond to you without ripping you apart then you should be able to do the same. Oh I forgot, you can’t because you are just so angry angry angry!
Anger is an energy.
“he only deepness in Avatar is ripped straight out of Dances With Loves. Who knew Cameron had INCEPTION abilities!”
LOL. I like you, iov2. And i’ve argued AVATAR enough to last a lifetime. My wife agrees with you, btw.
I think the themes are under-written but I do feel a connection to the idea of nature as religion, and the planet as the god. Similar to the Church Of All Worlds in Heinlein’s Stranger In A Strange Land.
But all in all it’s sci/fi genre flick with a derivative (though still effective, imho) story arc. It’s not perfect by a long shot. But I find it to be more than the sum of it’s parts.
I understand the differing opinions. I have close friends who feel the same. So I dig it. No anger in me. I just took a Xanax.
Besides, I don’t particularly like Brazil, and think Gilliam is overrated as whole (Baron Muhcahusen aside) so there ya go. I get killed for that. I get killed for worshiping Verehoven’s Starship Troopers, and liking Carpenter’s Escape From LA and Ghosts Of Mars. It’s something film fans have to deal with.
But I do like leahnz. Damn, The 3Ds rock. Sonic Youth meets Redd Kross, with some Archies thrown in. NZ rules.
Oh, and Armond dislikes INCEPTION.
The circle is complete. But he’s isn’t alone so maybe he’ll just blend in with the crowd.
I don’t really understand a lot of what he says. I have an English degree, but he is so tangled and overly verbose that I get fucking lost.
OK, Leah. You just worry about the punctuation thing (and I did not call you foolish, but the rhetorical device you were using).
ok chris
io, i know this is likely an exercise in futility, but here goes nothing:
do you know what projection means?
it’s the act of assuming that other people’s attitudes/emotions/perspectives must be the same as your own. i’ll put it this way:
just because YOU are angry and have to engage in anger management while blogging does NOT mean others are the same.
you assume that because i write what i write, i must be angry; the simple truth is, i am not. i can count on one hand the number of times i’ve actually been angry in real life while posting on this blog. i can write that you are an ‘ever-present brow-beating gerbil’ and not be angry in the slightest. and i wasn’t, not even an iota. not a smidge. perhaps YOU have to be angry to write such a thing, but i do not.
now, this: “Seriously if I can respond to you without ripping you apart then you should be able to do the same.”
again, do not tell me how i should respond to you and what to do. you do not dictate responses on this blog. i didn’t initiate any confrontation with you, and if you think a lecture calling me ‘an ANGRY WOMAN!’ numerous times can’t be perceived as an attack, then you really are deluded. your ‘i only attack in defence!’ mantra is, as usual, nonsense. you don’t see your passive-aggressive taunts at people as provocative, but they are. and again, i will respond as i see fit
in closing, simply because you call me (or anyone who posts in a way you don’t like) angry, angry, angry — or old, old, old, or grumpy, grumpy, grumpy, or any of the other myriad of things you accuse people of on this blog because they don’t think like you — does not make it so.
rather, i think it is a reflection of you struggling with your own anger. i do not struggle with anger in my life at all, i’m far too easily amused and a hugely calm person in real life – i have to be to do what i do – so deal with it
learn to SPEAK FOR YOURSELF
Leah, either you’re just as angry as IO says, or you are really terrible at conveying your actual temperament with your writing.
It doesn’t actually matter which it is, because to anybody listening to you, it’s all the same. Unless you take it upon yourself to at least TRY to understand how your words are understood by others, you will continue to be misunderstood as an angry, angry, angry person.
Maybe that’s okay with you. You don’t have to care if other people misperceive you. But the fact that you post here regularly suggests that you want to communicate with others and be understood by them. It might therefore concern you if multiple people continually misunderstand you in the exact same way. But apparently not.
For what it’s worth — and if what it’s worth is absolutely nothing to you, so be it — you are the regular here whose posts I skip the most. Not because I have anything against you, but because they almost always feel angry and bitter to me, and I don’t find that pleasant to be around.
If that anger and bitterness doesn’t really exist in you, that’s too bad for me, because I’m missing out on your knowledge and perspective. But like I say, it scarcely matters if you actually have all that anger, because your words carry it just the same.
you’re repeating yourself, sam, you said the exact same thing a few months ago in some other thread and i didn’t give a shit then, either. skip away
On this one, I have to agree with Sam: Leah, you might not realize this, but your posts definitely come off as angry with some frequency.
Just like how people soemtimes perceive my posts as overly literal, or arrogant or whatever. I consider it as much my fault, or more, for not properly communicating as it is others’ fault for not comprehending.
I think leah gets rightly engaged in the face of the frat house mentality these blogs encourage.
Leah just needs some dick is all.
it’s weird having a thread about me
(i get plenty of dick, never had a problem there)
your own doesnt count.
Gee, wonder why the guys bail.
Lex is proof you get plenty of dick. He’s just jealous.
Christian would be jealous of anyone either getting dick or having a dick.
Yeah, I see why you stopped showing up at The Comedy Store.
aw, what makes you think my boys bail, lex? you deluded little piker (you should have a rib removed a la manson so you can suck you’re own dick…tho you might need to remove two so you can get past the blubber to yer weenie)
or ‘your own dick’ if proper english is your bag
Leah, please stop fantasizing about me and put down the vodka, lush.
LUSH SMASH!!!! ARRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
So much unnecessary information. My eyes… MY EYES!!!!!
jeff: Thanks for the support, but I think I’ve changed my mind. After thinking a bit more about things, I now realize that if everybody says one thing but Leah says another, the entire rest of the world must be grossly mistaken.
Ok, I just posted a dig at Leah when I promised myself I wouldn’t. Leah, I apologize. I stand by my earlier post, as well as the one in a similar vein some time ago, but both of those were intended to be informative and not at all disparaging. But I withdraw the cheap shot I posted a few minutes ago. You’re getting enough of those in this thread.
You obviously don’t have any interest in my input. So be it. I shall do a better job to skip your posts more consistently in the future.
so sam, you, jeff, io and lex are ‘everybody’ and ‘the entire rest of the world’? interesting perspective (i didn’t include chris because his comment was at least content-related and i think we sorta cleared it up/came to a conclusion of sorts)
and no need for snarky apologies; i can dish it out and i can take it with good humour in tact, unlike the whiny little boys here
Sam, indeed you are right.
Jeff wrote; “Just like how people soemtimes perceive my posts as overly literal, or arrogant or whatever. I consider it as much my fault, or more, for not properly communicating as it is others’ fault for not comprehending.”
Okay. We get what you are putting down and it still reads jerky. You think I am a mean and stupid lout. Well, you read as a condescending jackhole that believes above all else, that Jeff is the smartest in the room and everyone else is not. I guess we just do not comprehend one another, huh?
OH YEAH! IT’S MCWEENY STYLE! SPONSORED TO YOU BY THE MONEY IN THE BANK PPV! WHAT WWE SUPERSTAR WILL WALK OUT OF THIS PPV WITH A SHOT AT A CHAMPIONSHIP? TUNE IN THIS SUNDAY AT 8pm/7 central TO FIND OUT!
Post repairs sponsored by INCEPTION!
“OK Chris.
IO, I know this is likely an exercise in futility, but here goes nothing:
do you know what projection means?”
Yes and I am not angry and have not been for a while. Oh I get angry but on here, I have decided for the betterment of my posting and being a part of this community, getting angry needs to be reeled back a lot. Not everyone can handle… THE HAMMER!
“It’s the act of assuming that other people’s attitudes/emotions/perspectives must be the same as your own. i’ll put it this way:
just because YOU are angry and have to engage in anger management while blogging does NOT mean others are the same.”
This is why you are ridiculous. You just wrote an angry post about projecting and what not and sort of ignored how angry you are in it. Angry angry angry. Oh yeah, how dare you leave a period off of that last sentence.
“You assume that because I write what I write, I must be angry; the simple truth is, I am not.”
Bzzt. Lex Luthor, LET HER HAVE IT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRVUOGUmxJI
“I can count on one hand the number of times I have actually been angry in real life while posting on this blog.”
Real life counts for peanuts and doorknobs. You read angry because what you are inside… ANGRY!
“i can write that you are an ‘ever-present brow-beating gerbil’ and not be angry in the slightest. and I wasn’t, not even an iota.”
If you can think, if there is something behind that reasoning, then you are indeed ANGRY. I could respond to you as a fat kiwi cow and mean it. Guess what? Not angry but VINDICTIVE! Why? No kiwi cowbag is going to refer to me as a gerbil. Especially one as warped and whack as you.
“Not a smidge. perhaps YOU have to be angry to write such a thing, but i do not.”
Again, you deny simple logic. If you think about it, if it’s in you, then it’s there. Nice of you to be suppressing rage and living in denial motherfadder!
“Now, this: ‘Seriously if I can respond to you without ripping you apart then you should be able to do the same.’
Again, do not tell me how i should respond to you and what to do. You do not dictate responses on this blog. I didn’t initiate any confrontation with you, and if you think a lecture calling me ‘an ANGRY WOMAN!’ numerous times can’t be perceived as an attack, then you really are deluded.”
1) You attack me all the time. I explained to you people how it works. We are cool. No hammer. You talk smack… figuratively like you have to me over the last week then you get the hammer.
2) You keep going on about being DICTATED TO and you seem to and you seem to be missing my point. It’s called COMMON COURTESY. I have every reason known to humanity to be a total prick on this board. Most every regular has treated me like crap and David has treated me like crap, for next to nothing, more than once. However, I decided to let that go, and decided that to be a part of this community, I would stop doing certain things and I have. If some flowery language upsets you then I am sorry but this is a community, if any one of us should be a part of it, then we should be willing to accommodate to some folks we might not like.”
“Your ‘I only attack in defence!’ mantra is, as usual, nonsense.”
Nope. It’s truth. I do not lie. It’s a thing with me and if you attack me, then I will bring out the hammer. You have been calling me names… figuratively… all week. Excuse me for not being friendly to someone whose not being friendly to me.
“You don’t see your passive-aggressive taunts at people as provocative, but they are. and again, I will respond as i see fit.”
ARE YOU FRAKKIN HIGH? Passive aggressive? I do not have a passive aggressive bone in my body. Sorry. Not here not anywhere would I ever be passive aggressive. If I do not like you, I will tell you or post it, and the fact that much like Jeff, you are trying to figure me out. Demonstrates a real lack of grasping the human psyche. This should be obvious by now because you do not see your own ANGER because you do not want to be DICTATED TOO!
“In closing, simply because you call me (or anyone who posts in a way you don’t like) angry, angry, angry — or old, old, old, or grumpy, grumpy, grumpy, or any of the other myriad of things you accuse people of on this blog because they don’t think like you — does not make it so.”
Again, Sam and Jeff agreed with me. Christian has been an ass for months. He’s trying to be big and bad and someone has to remind him that hey, you are not big and bad. You are just being a jerk.
Seriously, I got independent verification Leah and that’s all I needed. You are angry angry angry. Here’s hoping you find some peace.
“Rather, I think it is a reflection of you struggling with your own anger. I do not struggle with anger in my life at all,”
Just being bossed around by men. You seem to not like that at all.
“I’m far too easily amused and a hugely calm person in real life – I have to be to do what i do – so deal with it.”
I have found the scab and I could pick it but here’s to me not being a jerk to you. I hope you find the real inner peace in life you think you have but obviously do not.
“Learn to SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!!!!1!!#”
Whose bossing you around? Whose the one that gets you so upset by dictating to you? A mystery the world will never know.
“So sam, you, jeff, IOv2 and Sexy Lexy are ‘everybody’ and ‘the entire rest of the world’? interesting perspective. I didn’t include Chris because his comment was at least content-related and I think we sorta cleared it up/came to a conclusion of sorts.
No need for snarky apologies. I can dish it out and I can take it with good humour in tact, unlike the whiny little boys here.”
Again, do you understand how angry this comes off? Good lord, how detached from the reality situation are you? Oh yeah for now on, I am going to fix them for you. All of them.
(and “whose” the one in need of a learning annex grammar refresher?)
what are you on about, io, you ok? you sound a tad angry. the nurse will be along soon with mother’s little helper (or is it lithium? either way, meds are your friend)
Again, unlike you, I can use a PERIOD! BOOYAH! Seriously though, you and me, we’re done. Check ya later.
thank christ
What was this blog entry about again?
Foamy: Shame. Or, as it turned out, the lack thereof.
“and no need for snarky apologies”
My apology was sincere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMD9FrHe0o