I’m out of the thread because I addressed your idiotic comment and there’s nothing left to say.
“…if he bows out”? I’m not sure who you think you are or if you realize just how stupid you’re coming across, but you are. Give it a rest.
I do indeed stand corrected, somewhat. I never said that he was adamant, but I did say that he (as part of a group) showed conviction. And he did. There were no weasel or qualifying words in his post. He said he saw something that he couldn’t possibly. He made a declarative sentence that wasn’t true. Whether he did so forcefully or not is immaterial.
And lieu, I really do love the, “I’m out of this thread, really, but let me get one last word in” tactic. Nice.
Sorry I didn’t reply earlier, I’ve only just had a chance to get back to my work PC.
I really do not want to get into an argument about this, but surely Lieu was showing a sign of conviction when he said:
I think the implication of “hav[ing] her film it pantyless” is obvious that he agreed that the actress was indeed panty-less whilst filming isn’t it? If that is not the case, fair enough mea culpa, but the most obvious (to me) reading of that sentence is that;
A) He agreed the actress was wearing no panties
B) that it’s so obvious that the she was wearing no panties, that it was obviously intended by the Director for the crotch shot to be seen as such that he asked the actress to film the shot without panties.
I will apologise to Lieu because I did miss the point of his original post to Quixiotic, sorry Lieu.
quixotic78 and lieu, you’re both out of line in this thread. Cafe Society is meant for discussion about the arts; it’s not meant as a forum for personal comments. If either of you wants to keep on snarking at each other, do so in the Pit.
Otherwise, if you see a problem post, report it. If you feel someone’s insulted you, don’t return in kind; report the post and let a mod handle it.
Oh another point in addition to my last post, I hadn’t actually realised Lieu was one of the 4 quoted posters in Quixotics post until I re-read Quixotics post.
But as there were 4 posters mentioned, how are the following posters not adamant about it being a panty-less shot?
I didn’t ask about the other 3, did I.
Speculation as to why someone may be doing something is not the same as being adamant about it. Interesting spin, though.
Now I see that quixotic thinks the only standard one must meet in order to show conviction is to make a simple statement of any kind. Fantastic.
He made a declarative sentence that wasn’t true. Why is the level of conviction relevant at all? Is one of these more or less true than the other?:
Christopher Columbus was nine feet tall.
Christopher Columbus was really, really nine feet tall, I’m absolutely 100% certain of it!!!111one
Evidently it was important enough for you to exaggerate the “conviction” with which he made his statement, otherwise you wouldn’t have brought it up to begin with.
The rest of your post is irrelevant to the point I’ve quite successfully made.
Yes and my comment was about the 4 posters as a whole, otherwise I’d have singled out Lieu.
In the quoted comment of Lieu’s I stand by my reading that by saying that a Director obviously did something is the same as posting with conviction* that it happened.
here’s the post
In context it’s quite clear he thought it was a panty-less crotch, he just thought it was forgettable.
Unless of course you’re entire point is a pedantic squibble over the use of adamant as it relates to an un-yielding position on whether or not the crotch was covered or not?
If that is the case, fine he wasn’t being adamant under the dictionary definition of the word, but was under the commonly understood informal meaning of the word in that he was absolutely sure of his position and made a statement from said position.
Happy?
*Using definition 1 from Conviction Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
- A fixed or FIRM belief. (bolding mine)
No, he was asking the question while working under the assumption that he saw what he thought he saw. I’ve speculated about countless things that I wasn’t sure about. Anyone who has followed sports has done it on a regular basis.
Why in God’s name you people have to misstate the other person’s argument in order to strengthen yours is a constant mystery to me. I honestly don’t understand why anyone feels the need to do that. When called on it, you wriggle and squirm and use the flimsiest excuses in the world to justify the behavior, when it’s blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention that you’re just trying to dig your way out of a hole. lieu didn’t deserve the criticism leveled at him, and it’s a shame that nobody is adult enough to just take a step back and acknowledged that they were wrong to fling that amount of crap at him.
Oh my God, you guys, go take a nap! Seriously, somebody’s gonna stroke out over a non-crotch-shot?
There’s a joke in there somewhere…
She’s right, though. My apologies to anyone I’ve offended. I’ll concede to your points, and say that I see your side of things.
Er, you brought up being adamant in post #25. I didn’t mention “conviction” until post #32. So tell me again which one of us brought it up to begin with? I’m still of the opinion that his level of conviction is immaterial to the fact that he made a declarative sentence without any qualifiers that was just plain wrong. His level of fervor (or lack thereof) doesn’t change any of it.
I’m trying to think of how to say this without getting dinged for being snarky… let’s try this, and I mean it sincerely, really. It’s just adorable how you’re giving yourself props here. Honestly, truly, it’s just very, very cute, like something a precocious three-year old girl would do. Awwww 
Nothing to add but that it’s amazing the amount of time, investigation, techology and debate guys will put into the analysis of a possible millisecond beaver shot.
Knock it off, quixotic78. This is the second time you’ve been told personal comments and insults don’t belong in this forum. Keep the insults confined to the Pit; and if you can’t follow the rules of this forum, then stay out of the thread.
If anyone paid attention to Ogre’s post you’d understand why some folks saw what they saw. Sheesh!