Running With Scissors...is it really THAT bad?- Page 3

[DBillyP]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 4:31pm

Namo, just because the good doctor and his family deny the allegations doesn't mean they aren't true, and just because Burroughs says they did happen doesn't make them true.

Yet, you say things like, "'FYI, the book was based on REAL events Augustine went through.'Yes, I know. The whole thing hinges on that lie."

Your assertion that the book is a lie and not based on real events doesn't make that true either. Black-and-white, either/or thinking, in whatever form it takes, is, in my opinion, narrowminded.

Updated On: 10/19/06 at 04:31 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 4:45pm

That's interesting. I've never seen critical thinking defined as "narrowminded" but so many things mean the opposite of what they're called in Bushworld, I guess I can't be completely surprised.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 5:58pm

I don't think a blatant dismissal of someone's work as untrue with no real knowledge of the facts qualifies as "critical thinking."

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 6:24pm

Who says I have no real knowledge of the facts, DBP?

[DAME]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 7:18pm

And regardless.. the movie still sucks the big wad.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 9:15pm

Well, namo, if you are Augusten or his wife or lover, or the good doctor or his wife or child ... please forgive me.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 9:22pm

Ah, so that's the standard! I see. That's a fairly limited number of people allowed to offer criticism. It might work for theatre too!

[DAME]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 11:09pm

DBillyP;
Is that Sean Hayes on your Avatar?

[DBillyP]

Posted: 10/20/06 at 10:34am

No, namo, that is the standard for having real knowledge of the facts. Again, I don't think a blatant dismissal qualifies as criticism. It is too narrowminded.

Dame, that is me in my avatar.

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/21/07 at 1:32pm

I saw this a few nights ago and thought it was easily the best film I've seen this year. It's beautifully and thoughtfully shot, very well acted (with the exception of Paltrow) and the most desperately emotional film I've seen in ages.

I don't understand what difference it makes if the novel was real or not--is RICHARD III any less great because it didn't all actually happen?

I never understand that argument....

[Elphaba]

Posted: 5/21/07 at 9:14pm

I liked it, I'm sure the book is better as they usually are

[Mrs.LinkLarkin2]

Posted: 5/22/07 at 1:47am

This was one of the least enjoyable movies I've ever seen...good acting though.