- Time
- Post link
Easterhay said:
zombie84 said:
Easterhay said:
zombie84 said:
Easterhay said:
Well the fact is I was misquoted. How's that for starters?
You were, and that was unfair to you, but don't side-step my point. "Negativity" in regards to the subject that was in discussion is pretty understandable considering the history of the person in question with regards to these sorts of claims (i.e. that Lucas is known for stretching the truth or just plain making stuff up) and also when considering the specifics of the alleged event in question (i.e. that it seems a little fishy the way it is often reported). Saying that you're tired of people speaking about Lucas in a negative light seems a bit unmotivated and unnecessary since peoples issues here are fairly understandable. It really just seems like you didn't like people picking on Lucas, regardless of the reasons.
Well, I don't think Lucas is untouchable at all. Ergo, he once said Star Wars was a nine part saga and he has recently went back on that and acted as though he never said it.
However, saying and doing things that some find disagreeable does not make that person essentially bad. There is no such thing as a bad person; all people are essentiallly good. This is my belief.
That's great, but no one said Lucas was not essentially good. CO said he's had enough of Lucas' bullshit with regards to spin-doctoring things, which he justified with a list of precedents. Furthermore, as I argued, the circumstances of the alleged psychologist incident does not seem realistic given the context reported. And that was what you objected to. Which is stupid, because he's got a pretty good case to be negative here. Its becoming further evident that, as I said before, you really just don't like seeing Lucas picked on.
It is neither unecessary or unmotivated (how do you work that one out, fella? How does carping and negativity motivate anyone other than to continue to it all the more, especially when the braying gallery is urging them on?) to complain about negativity? Some people here are so consumed by their feelings that they will deny Lucas everything, even when it is clear as day that he is not always dishonest or economical with the truth. After all, w hat has Anchorhead just done if not lied about what I said just to fuel his own argument? This is what I mean about being consumed by feelings: someone says something thay find objectionable, so from that point on they object to everything that person says. It's witless.
If someone does something that is perceived to be bad and then does something that is good, is the good deed then ignored in favour of the bad? Tell me, where's the motivation in that?
Okay, I don't know what the hell you are even talking about anymore. CO said he had enough of the Lucas bullshit, because he felt this particular example was another instance of it. He was right about the precedents he listed, and he is probably correct about this one too. Thats it. And you objected to this? Why? Some invented stuff about "some people here...will deny Lucas everything". Where the hell does that come from? The objection CO raised was valid and specific and justified by a long list of precedents and reasons why this example fits the M.O.
You do a good job of side-stepping the point and then re-directing it in your favour with an irrelevant point. Are you Arawn Fenn's brother?
Here's an idea: let the person to whom I was speaking answer for themselves. I'm not answerable to you for anything other than what I direct to you. You'll know when I'm speaking to you - it will be clear from the post. I believe I've already said more to you than I'm obliged to on this issue.
In other words, I'll ignore your point again.
If you want a private conversation go to a private message, otherwise if you post in a public discussion everyone that reads it has the right to chime in when you say something stupid.