False advertising sir! This one didn't have a lingering shot of Cillian Murphy's disturbingly alluring crotch

So its ok to use an example as long as its one everyone here would agree on, or not bother watching in the first place? Interesting...

You'll notice I shut up after my initial questioning of her not seeing it, it's because whether or not she's right or wrong, it's not fun to have 10 people ganging up on you even if they are doing it with good intentions. So do I agree with her? No, but I can see why she'd feel cornered or have her back up, who wouldn't.

So its ok to use an example as long as its one everyone here would agree on, or not bother watching in the first place? Interesting...

And you'd be surprised about the nutsos. They come out of the woodwork when you least expect them. Actually, I'm pretty sure everyone thinks I'm ont of them (a nutso that is, though hopefully not a religious one).



This site does not get wide readership. Articles for the main page are pretty much intended for good reads for forum members. It wasn't worth the hastle having this five page fight for something that is pretty much only intended for all of you guys' pleasure (or maybe just a little pain). Its not like its some massive impact on the virtual world, or for that matter even WoKJ, that needs to be kept up for ideological purposes. About ten people read main site articles, and about ten people are totally upset by this one line. I have no need to further frustrate those ten people, since they're the only ones that read the main site anyways. If they're lost, WoKJ main site has nothing.

I still stand by explaining how I filter movies, so I'm not about to edit that one line out and keep the rest of the article up. I prefer instead to just take down the whole thing, so you guys can go read Jeff and Loyal's top ten lists and maybe have a better time with them. Its just movies, not really worth being called mean and a bitch about. And anyways, I take this stuff too personally, so its probably time for me to ease off for awhile.

I'm fine with people saying they don't think it has anything to do with what I thought it did. Mr. Jam, Gulli, Kypade several people made good points.

I'm fine with people saying they don't think it has anything to do with what I thought it did. Mr. Jam, Gulli, Kypade several people made good points.

But you guys really mean to tell me you've never been to a book store, browsed the books, read the outlines and a couple quotes on the back of one, skimmed the first few pages, and decided it didn't sound like it was for you? Or that you didn't like where you thought it was going?

You've never picked up the back of an Anne Coulter or Michelle Malkin book, read the synopsis and said "Eh, sounds conservative?" Or a Michael Moore book (if you dislike him) and said "Ah gad, not again?" Or just picked up a cheesy fiction book and thought it sounded lame? Because if you say "no" to the above question, you must read every single book, and watch all hundreds of movies that hit theatres every year.

I read the synopsis, I know the author of the source material, I didn't feel comfortable with what I was reading as far as critical response. So I decided I didn't want to support it financially. End of story.

Well, that's why I didn't actually review it, now did I? I used it as an example of my filtering process and what I look at and use as weight in my decisions to see or not see a movie. If I'd used End of Spear instead, I doubt you would be making such a fuss.

I think it was an incredibly weak decision to remove the article from the main site. I don't see what purpose its removal served.

As an aside, I think that I understand the anti-Children of Men stance a little bit better, now that I've read some of the more recent posts.

While I think very highly of this particular movie, I also realise that there are some things that I object to on principle, and wouldn't want to support - even if they spawned a good movie.

E.g. (prob'ly a poor e.g.!) - I dislike the book Ulysses on principle, because of the author's motive, and prob'ly wouldn't see a film adaptation of it - not even if the film got rave reviews and didn't necessarily suffer from the flaws of the book. However good it was, it would would be like watching a film starring an actor who had said something tasteless in the media. It would taint my enjoyment, and I'd prob'ly end up wishing that I'd not bothered.

Re: this particular example, I think that a lot of people who are perfectly pragmatic (i.e., liberal) about issues like birth control and abortion nonetheless find pregnancy quite moving - in the same way that they find the moon landings quite moving - and feel that the image of the pregnant woman is quite emblematic. These are prob'ly the same sorts of people who aren't Christians, but get a lump in their throat at nativity plays. It doesn't necessarily mean that they want to uphold pregnancy as a sacred duty and force it on people.

Anyway, like I always say, there's no accounting for taste - e.g., my second favourite film this year was The Night Listener

Anywyas, I always throw a tantrum on initial impulse as a method of taking in new information. Then I think about it overnight (or two days) when I'm calmer.

Oh Dolce.

That said, I have never seen you post before Dr. Jam, and thus far you are cool, so in that sense this thread was good.