Wow, presumptuous statement you have made here. Is this how you critically evaluate your ideas about this debate? I never said anything that would lead anyone to conclude I am a Creationist. I merely stated I hoped it would create the controversy enough to cause people to see the film. You assume that this statement is a support for the film in that I have an affinity for what it talks about. People should make judgments based on the facts, my point being that so many on this blog are developing opinions about a film I am almost willing to bet they have never seen. Second hand information is always inferior to seeing it for yourself. At best, second hand information would match seeing it for yourself, but can be misleading if that information has a biased twist to it. So, before you go making assumptions about what I believe in and don't believe in, maybe you should do a little research on the facts first about what I do believe in. At any rate, I will agree with your statement that only the courts will tell about the outcome of this case. I still don't understand this insistent "she will win", you haven't even discussed anything that definitively shows they were wrong. I guess when the court is done with the case we will know.
Why do I think you're a Creationist (excuse me--"Intelligent Design proponent")?
Because people who have genuinely not made up their minds on the issue yet, don't care enough about it to Google for random small-potatoes blogs to spam about it.
Why do I think your comment is spam?
A) Because the link you kindly gave us so we could educate ourselves about your side of the issue is precisely the same document I linked to in the first place. If you'd actually read my post, you wouldn't have made that mistake.
B) Because you don't care enough about the comment to even let us know who you are.
Why do I feel free to comment on the movie without seeing it?
Because, like anyone who isn't made of time or money, I read the reviews to see what might be worth going to. I grant you there aren't many reviews of Expelled--screenings have, for some reason, been closed to real reviewers (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/media/10stein.html?_r=2&scp=4&sq=moore&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). As one reviewer points out, that means the movie's own producers think it is a dog (http://www.sltrib.com/features/ci_8903065?source=email). If a kid's own mamma thinks he's ugly and mean, why would I want to spend any time with him? If a movie's own producers think it's a dog, why would I think any different?
Plus it's not even entertaining. (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html)
Wow, even Fox News didn't like it. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html) I think my favorite part of that review is:
Directed by one Nathan Frankowski, "Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein, who’s carved out a career selling eye drops in commercials and amusing us on sitcoms, is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck.
Though a very telling part is this:
What the producers of this film would love, love, love is a controversy.
Because, of course, that's the only thing left that could possibly make this pitiful dog of a film interesting.
If Creationists (oh, excuse me, "Intelligent design proponents") have to fan the flames of that last-ditch "controversy" by driving a widow to court to try to protect her husband's good name, they're okay with that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Use of "Imagine"
Date: 2008-05-01 08:07 am (UTC)At any rate, I will agree with your statement that only the courts will tell about the outcome of this case. I still don't understand this insistent "she will win", you haven't even discussed anything that definitively shows they were wrong. I guess when the court is done with the case we will know.
Re: Use of "Imagine"
Date: 2008-05-01 05:17 pm (UTC)Because people who have genuinely not made up their minds on the issue yet, don't care enough about it to Google for random small-potatoes blogs to spam about it.
Why do I think your comment is spam?
A) Because the link you kindly gave us so we could educate ourselves about your side of the issue is precisely the same document I linked to in the first place. If you'd actually read my post, you wouldn't have made that mistake.
B) Because you don't care enough about the comment to even let us know who you are.
Why do I feel free to comment on the movie without seeing it?
Because, like anyone who isn't made of time or money, I read the reviews to see what might be worth going to. I grant you there aren't many reviews of Expelled--screenings have, for some reason, been closed to real reviewers (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/media/10stein.html?_r=2&scp=4&sq=moore&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). As one reviewer points out, that means the movie's own producers think it is a dog (http://www.sltrib.com/features/ci_8903065?source=email). If a kid's own mamma thinks he's ugly and mean, why would I want to spend any time with him? If a movie's own producers think it's a dog, why would I think any different?
Plus it's not even entertaining. (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html)
Wow, even Fox News didn't like it. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html) I think my favorite part of that review is:
Though a very telling part is this:
Because, of course, that's the only thing left that could possibly make this pitiful dog of a film interesting.
If Creationists (oh, excuse me, "Intelligent design proponents") have to fan the flames of that last-ditch "controversy" by driving a widow to court to try to protect her husband's good name, they're okay with that.
Me, not so much.