Text 8093, 213 rader
Skriven 2006-09-11 21:25:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8590.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: ABC backs down on 9/1
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <XPSdnWLpA7EtvpnYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<C12752DC.EFC0%gabryant@fuse.net><0001HW.C1285444042A1BFEF0407530@news.verizon.net><7tudnfh8DPEidp_YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@com


"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C129900B00485808F0284530@news.verizon.net...
>>>On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:17:15 -0400, Carl wrote
> (in article <99WdndtpQOEiHp7YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>
>>
>> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C128E6BD0020A9D1F0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>>>> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 21:01:57 -0400, Carl wrote
>>>>
>>>> People are always more aware of when their side is on the receiving 
>>>> end.
>>>> <<
>>>
>>> AAARRRGGHHH!!!! <tearing hair out>
>>>
>>> No, Carl, it is _not_ always a partisan issue!!!  I wasn't HERE in 1991 
>>> or
>>> 1995 when those films were new, so I didn't have a discussion here about
>>> their lack of factual integrity.
>>
>> Wow, you're much younger than I thought!!! ;)
>>
>> Now that Grammar Dominatrix comment you made goes in an entirely 
>> different
>> direction.Oh oh..  ;)  <<
>
> Hee.  Naughty, naughty Carl!  :-)
>
>>>> I am here NOW, this is happening NOW, it's
>>> addressing some extremely current events, and that's why it is of
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to get short, but I am very frustrated about this.  I suppose
>>> the
>>> only way I can redeem myself in the eyes of some of you here is if I 
>>> shout
>>> myself hoarse about how wrong the Bush assassination film is -- which 
>>> I'd
>>> happily do, if someone here would disagree with me.  But apparently most
>>> thinking people think it's an ill-advised piece of trash, so I probably
>>> won't
>>> _have_ to argue.
>>
>> Amy... you don't have to "redeem" yourself to me or anyone else.
>> You know that.  I respect your opinions and I'm not judging you. <<
>
> I hope you realize that I didn't mean I was actually wringing my hands 
> over
> the thought of needing to redeem myself in the eyes of _anyone_; it was 
> meant
> more tongue-in-cheek, that it seemed that the only way certain people here
> wouldn't think I was a flaming hypocrite was if I did something like that.

Yeah.  It was more of a "relax, we aren't adversaries" kind of thing.

>
>>>>> I'm also feeling a bit short-tempered about the implication from you 
>>>>> that
>>> any
>>> time anyone -- liberal, moderate, or conservative -- objects to 
>>> something
>>> that is even remotely political or politicized, it's because it bashes
>>> "their
>>> guys."  I feel very strongly about this concept of objective truth, and
>>> the
>>> implication that it's all about partisanship demeans the efforts
>>
>> That's not what I said. I said that people are more aware (or sensitive)
>> to such things when it's against their side.  People get defensive, dig
>> in their heels, etc.  I wasn't singling you out for this in any way. <<
>
> I wasn't basing my reaction on that single comment from you; this is a
> cumulative effect.  And, I wasn't taking offense on a purely personal 
> basis
> -- this is something I see you attribute to practically _any_ political
> disagreements here.  That it's always a partisan game, and that apparently 
> no
> one, arguing on either side, ever has a point where objective truth is
> concerned.  That's what it feels like in broad strokes, anyway.

No, there are lies that are told on both sides.  Should they be ferreted out 
and exposed? You bet.  My attitude is simply that it goes on by both 
sides...it always has and always will because both sides thinke the power 
and "winning" is more important.

I also think that there are a lot of things and intentions that are 
interpreted as  fact that are used as the initial prism through which all 
other aqctions are viewed.  If you change the initial premise, a lot of 
things can be interpreted n a different way.  Lies are lies, manure is 
manure...but we've gotten to the point where the presumption at the 
beginning of the day is that everything the other side does is presumed to 
be wrong unless proven otherwise.  Given that view, every time I hear a 
claim that such and such is another lie or proof of <whatever> rings like 
"Oh crap, not again."

If I put all my time and emtional commitment to finding and responding to 
every lie that was told by a politician or activist for every cause out 
there, I'd have no time for my family, my job, or my own sanity.  It also 
wouldn't change anything.  Right now each side has millions of people who 
feel it's theuir responsibility to parse every syllable the other side 
mutters and find fault with it. These same epople usually don't spend the 
same amount of time parsing the people on their side of the isle (on 
political issues) or people that agree with whatever cause interestes them. 
They assume that the people that agree with them are as honest and earnest 
as they are.

I get a bit disheartened when (and I'm speaking generally, not of anyone in 
particular) people think that it's only the other side that does it.


>>>> I've put in  to reading and analyzing and uncovering things on my own.
>>> And the efforts made by a lot of other sincere and thinking people
>>> on this newsgroup.
>>
>> Yes you have.  In this case you've also said (or implied) that you don't
>> care about
>> objective truth when it comes to Nixon, JFK, or Reagan, and that one 
>> could
>> infer
>> from your comments that you care less if the subject is dead than if they
>> were alive. <<
>
> No, I did _not_ say -- or imply -- that I don't care about objective truth
> when it comes to those other films.  I just said that they are less 
> relevant
> at this point -- why don't we discuss how "The Great Dictator" distorted 
> the
> facts about Hitler, while we're at it? -- and also that the farther back 
> in
> time you go, the less _actual fact_ is at your disposal.  But whether it's
> 9/11, JFK, Nixon, or the Peloponnesian Wars, if facts _are_ available, 
> it's
> nothing but a disservice to the viewing audience to distort those facts.
> It's not that I care less -- it's that it is _more_ egregious a sin when
> there are people alive who can correct errors of fact, because in that 
> case
> there is _no excuse_ to get it wrong.

Putting this particular movie aside for the moment, just because the
people involved are alive means you will get an honest interpretation
of the events from them.  Particularly when something like how history
will view someone is involved, you're less likely to ever get someone that
would admit to the possible mistakes that were made... and there are always
mistakes, no one is perfect.

Now, I agree that it is terribly poor form to lie about someone,
PARTICULARLY in public and have them around to see it.
Absolutely no question about that.

> Apropos of this discussion, someone pointed me to an interesting (if a bit
> overlong) LiveJournal entry today:
>
> http://liz-marcs.livejournal.com/206303.html?view=3332831
>
> This is an entry by Liz Marcs, a journalist who was in Boston on 9/11, but
> who nevertheless has some pointed things to say about why it's of 
> paramount
> importance to get the facts right, particularly when so many people have 
> been
> affected by an event.
>
>>> It also seems to matter whether the show is on network TV or not.  That 
>>> has
>> nothing to do with objective truth either, so I'm, trying to find some 
>> basis
>> by which I
>> can reconcile what seems to be (to me until I understand better) an
>> arbitrary
>> set of distinctions that allow you to be outraged at this incident and 
>> not
>> others. <<
>
> How about, because I can't be simultaneously equally outraged at all of 
> the
> injustices ever perpetrated across time?  And that this one is happening
> _now_?  I don't know how many other ways to say this!  :-)

Ok.  BTW, I accepted without question when you said that you would have 
disagreed
with showing the Reagan movie too.

> I just spent half the morning arguing with someone on another newsgroup 
> about
> how it's not remotely the same situation as with DaVinci Code, where so 
> many
> Christians were offended by the "lies" told therein.  I'm a bit punchy, as
> you might imagine.  :-)
>
>>> If my comments are frustrating or disturbing you, I'm happy to switch 
>>> the
>> subject. <<
>
> Nope, you do what you're moved to do -- when I'm ready to throw in the 
> towel,
> I'll let you know. <g>

You don't strike me as someone that throws in the towel often. :)

Carl
                                                                               
                     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)