sorry to cause all the fuss.
i know, stupid to resurrect something so old. seriously. i’m not joking. it came up in a search related to something i was researching and i didn’t note the date.
i’m not considering the writer’s view as authoritative. in fact, i’ve never asked scott for his interpretation of the film so i wouldn’t know the writer’s view. i was responding only to what this author wrote because he titled it “deeper meaning in film” making me think it was something i’d want to read. and after reading, i was annoyed at having read it. as such i let the author know that i did not believe HE was an authority in film interpretation. and yes, it was bizarrely hostile because i was annoyed that something so pathetic had been posted on a site called “the straight dope.” between the title of the post, and the title of the website, i erroneously thought i was reading something legitimate and relevant to what i was researching.
i thought the post was going to be about the deeper meaning in film “in general” - not specifically about ConAir (the spoiler alert didn’t alert me that the whole post was on ConAir). but of course it gave me a kick that he’d butcher a friend’s film, so yes, i sent it to scott.
no. i am not scott. nor his assistant. nor close family. nor in any way linked to any part of his company or representation. that would be sad. i am just a researcher and he is a friend, and i’d contemplate the “homonymous” comment and rethink our friendship, but he always buys. the math doesn’t work.
more questions please.