Maggie Kay's Horror Blog LTROI feature

[DMt.]

It went just as intended, I think. It's not an unknown gambit, if a rather snide one, to take offence where none is intended, thus irritating someone into actual disrespect; then you can stomp off in a huff because you've been insulted, and feel all justified.

I guess it's easier than having to change your mind about an entrenched position.

[a_contemplative_life]

It went just as intended, I think. It's not an unknown gambit, if a rather snide one, to take offence where none is intended, thus irritating someone into actual disrespect; then you can stomp off in a huff because you've been insulted, and feel all justified.

I guess it's easier than having to change your mind about an entrenched position.

Oh, bull. She was essentially told that if she did not read the film & book together, she's a fool. That's insulting. How many times have I heard people on this site say that the two works are fairly ajudged separately. It is a reasonable point of view. So much for the so-called friendly, open atmosphere of this site. Let's all just go pat each other on the back for a job well done.

[DMt.]

Bull - oh, you think? I saw the original gambit for what it was, I was very tempted to respond like metoo; I saw metoo's original reponse to it, and Pete's kindly one, and then my heart sank as I saw metoo take the bait. I waited for the inevitable response, and well, well, what a surprise - there it was.

Indeed, her original position was perfectly reasonable, and it's an ugly incident, but let's not compound it by turning on each other [OR having a cosy, circular consensus].

[metoo]

Oh, bull. She was essentially told that if she did not read the film & book together, she's a fool.

Not by me. I said that if she wants to hold a view that the film and the novel are separate, without having read the novel, then she is a fool. To hold opinionated views without bothering to check the facts is foolish, in my opinion.

And, yes, I took the bait after having read Pete's posting.

[Nightrider]

That was by far the ugliest exchange I have ever
witnessed on this site. In a fairly short time that person was
insulted and basically ran out of town...for no good reason.
If I remember correctly members constantly discuss the evils
of bulling, yet have no problem indulging in bully like behavior themselves.
This , my fellow Infected is what happens when your arrogance is exceeded by your insolence.

[a_contemplative_life]

Oh, bull. She was essentially told that if she did not read the film & book together, she's a fool.

Not by me. I said that if she wants to hold a view that the film and the novel are separate, without having read the novel, then she is a fool. To hold opinionated views without bothering to check the facts is foolish, in my opinion.

And, yes, I took the bait after having read Pete's posting.

So, just so I understand your logic: If I had only seen the film, and not read the book, it would be foolish for me to say that films and books upon which they are based ought be evaluated on their own merits. Are you saying that as a general rule, or are you saying that in this case, people are fools if they take that position with regard to this film in particular, not having read the book? If the former, what "facts" need be understood? And if the latter, what is your basis for such a position, other than your own personal opinion?

[a_contemplative_life]

Bull - oh, you think? I saw the original gambit for what it was, I was very tempted to respond like metoo; I saw metoo's original reponse to it, and Pete's kindly one, and then my heart sank as I saw metoo take the bait. I waited for the inevitable response, and well, well, what a surprise - there it was.

Indeed, her original position was perfectly reasonable, and it's an ugly incident, but let's not compound it by turning on each other [OR having a cosy, circular consensus].

Yes, I do think she was mistreated, that your dismissive attitude toward her was wrong, and I felt obligated to say so.

[mackousko]

This is pretty emotional topic. Maybe that arguing was too soon for a guest . After all for "normal people" it´s still just 2 hours entertainment.

[metoo]

So, just so I understand your logic: If I had only seen the film, and not read the book, it would be foolish for me to say that films and books upon which they are based ought be evaluated on their own merits. Are you saying that as a general rule, or are you saying that in this case, people are fools if they take that position with regard to this film in particular, not having read the book? If the former, what "facts" need be understood? And if the latter, what is your basis for such a position, other than your own personal opinion?

No. I wrote too fast, and then I did it a second time.

I was reading something into her post that wasn't there. So, after having re-read what she actually wrote, I now feel that I made a mistake. Somehow I read into it that she said the novel and film should be regarded as two separate pieces, but she actually didn't. She just wrote that she usually attempted to do that. I originally just replied that I don't, in this case, at least. I should have left it there, since that was what I wanted to say.

[gattoparde59]

Yes, A_C_L has a point here.

I can only hope that Maggie Kay has not been run off the board.