twooffour said:
Actually it is, if you have common sense, and if you'd have read my previous post.
Jokes like this are made CONSTANTLY, by A LOT OF PEOPLE. Most of whom probably wouldn't mind boobs, but play up their hypersexuality for purpose. It's just a common trope.
You're a common trope. I'm not denying such jokes are made often by lots of people. I'm saying, 'so what.'
So what's the more likely conclusion, that he employed that device, or that one of the most well-known critics read by a wide audience would accidentally slip his sexual fantasies about sex in children's movies in reviews read by a wide audience?
I don't think it's accidental.
You know what, doesn't seem like sarcasm to me. It reads like someone's genuinely confused by Ebert's "recent oddity".
I think you're just saying he was being sardonic so you can have a point against me.
I was mocking your line of reasoning. I assure you I have no concern with winning points against you. A picture of a dancing clown wins points against you.
Fink has you pegged.
But I don't know what to do with those tossed salads and scrambled eggs.