Oh i agree totally on the point of calling it garbage purely on the basis of a critics view. The viewpoint of such a revue could hardly be called evidence as it is just a viewpoint, an opinion.Originally posted by vidcc+30 June 2004 - 21:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 30 June 2004 - 21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by Biggles@30 June 2004 - 16:08
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@30 June 2004 - 23:02
I'm going to come to Hanks defence here slightly and would like to point out that in another thread related to the movie he stated that even though he wouldn't agree with the content ( as far as it had been reported ) he wouldn't want to stop it being shown.
Absolutely, I was only really making a suggestion in relation to debating technique rather than anything to do with the film.
As i stated in my first post i can't comment because i haven't seen the movie so all i have is this one revue to take a stance. It is very possible that the author is correct but i can't pass judgement until i have seen the evidence for myself.
I do however think it's a fair article because it does try debate the points of the film instead of just attack the makers credentials. Rebuttal is part of debate, personality assasination doesn't address the issues.[/b][/quote]
Christ!
This post makes you sound reasonable and balanced. This is a facade that I have been accused of myself.
Welcome to my world.
Some appear to think that this position is not possible, and I feel that this reflects more upon the accusors than upon me.
Bookmarks