What I find absolutely amazing here is your assumption that the derogatory comments I have made in that first post are directed at you or at anyone else on this board.
Actually, I'm assuming that some of the people on this board fit the bill of whom you classify as mindless twits (meaning they neither read the book nor saw the movie), and, therefore, your post would (however inadvertently) be directed at them. They would have reason to feel alienated and offended by your post.
I certainly didn't mean to imply anything other than that assumption.
The fact of the matter was that I decided to have a rant.
Yes - a good old whinge. I decided to get on here and tell people what TICKS ME OFF about this whole DVC fiasco. Why? Because it was an outlet. There is a DVC forum here, so I decided to use the DVC forum here to whinge about a DVC-related matter.
I can certainly understand the desire to rant. Heck, we all do it sometimes. Maybe I'm just naive but I think there is a nice way to do most things, even rant.
Ok, so perhaps I should have prefixed it with the words "The following post is a rant born of pure frustration. This frustration has not been provoked by people on this forum, I am simply using this forum as my outlet. Please do not take these remarks as if they are directed at you, because they are not. If you want to empathise, if you have experienced similar judgementalism - I'd love to hear about it - to hear I'm not the only one.
That certainly would have been polite. But, when you made sweeping generalizations calling people mindless, you were directing it at everyone who has not read the book nor seen the movie and opposes the work. Therefore, some members of this forum may still find themselves in the target of your harsh words.
If you just want to criticise me further - don't waste your breath."
When you make sweeping generalizations and call people idiots, you don't expect an oppositional reply?
Now - if you'll indulge me for a second by allowing me to make a pre-emptive remark. If I'm wrong about where you're heading, I'm glad. If I'm right - take note. I noticed that you keep referring to the people on this board, almost as if to indicate that if I admit (as I have done above) that my soapbox session was not provoked by people on this board you would come back at me with 'well if its not provoked by people on this board then dont direct your frustratoin at the people on this board' or something similar.
I believe that my comments above have addressed this to some extent. Further, you are incorrect in your assessment of where I'm heading. No matter to whom you are directing your comments, they are mean and nasty sweeping judgments. If you don't like people doing that to you, you shouldn't do that to others.
My response to that, if that is what you were thinking (in order to save time) is that I have NOT directed my frustration at them. I've directed my frustration outward and used this board as a launchpad, and it just happens to be somewhere where you can read it too. Noone is forcing you to read it, and noone is forcing you to respond to it. I have every right to post my opinion, and that is my opinion.
Nobody is trying to deny you any of your rights. We all have rights to post here, and we all have the right to disagree what is posted here. In addition, some of us feel that we have a personal responsibility to not be nasty, especially in a broad and overly inclusive sense.
Now if people need my opinion to be always prefixed by pages and pages of disclaimers, they need to lighten up.
Nobody has asked for pages and pages of disclaimers. I just pointed out that you weren't being very nice. If that means that you think I need to lighten up, you can certainly go ahead and think that. I have no problem with your having that opinion of me.
By the way, just for interest's sake, you mentioned that you were amused by my pilot analogy, and that you had heard it from a programming friend of yours, and that you thought it was a coincidence. Well its less of a coincidence than you think - my qualifications are in computing and I work in the IT industry. I can't actually remember if I first heard the analogy when studying aeronautical engineering or computer science and technology, but there you have it - two people from the same field. This is fact isrevealed implicitly in another thread in this forum where I have (nerdily enough) sat down and worked out someone's binary code by hand... yes, ok, I get it, I need a life... it probably makes matters worse to say that I actually ENJOYED doing that, doesn't it?
Okay. You're a big dork, and yes you need a life. I'm totally kidding, but it's very interesting that you're a computer guru. It's every bit possible that this theory is passed around a lot in your field. After hearing the explanation I can see how it is an effective way to stress that, in some cases, even the smallest error has the potential to be a disaster.
I do things that are quite nerdy as well, but none so nerdy as enjoying working out binary code. YIKES! Just kidding.
I'm glad you can see my intention in applying the analogy here, anyway, (getting back to the discussion at hand) and you're correct - it DOES only work given the assumptions that you have outlined. However, those assumptions are not so much assumptions as known facts about the various people that have been saying to me the things I have described. I am spouting my frustration at THESE PEOPLE.
Noted and accepted. The clarification is greatly appreciated.
Im actually really surprised to have been met with retort here, to be honest. I expected to find people with similar experiences empathising with me.
Well, I'm nothing if not full of surprises.
In my second post I think I missed that you were tkaing this rather personally - as if it was either an attack on you or on other members of this forum, but it would seem rather apparent that that is the case, now.
No, I'm not taking it personally at all. I took your reply to me personally to an extent, because it was, in fact, your reply to me.
My response in general is simply a matter of diplomacy.
I can address all the individual points you have raised above if you want me to, but unless you really want me too its a waste of effort, isnt it? I mean, its obvious that I feel that it was the right thing to do to see the movie. And I AM just taking that position. I just happen to be whingeing about the opposition i have met on a day to day basis - it is still annoying and frustrating, even if i am convinced that they are wrong.
It's really up to you if you want to reply that way. Admittedly, I am doing my replies this way to try to keep things straight in my head as I reply, and to make sure I'm not misquoting you or doing you any other injustice.
My brain likes lists.
I'm not attacking them - thats why I'm whingeing about it HERE - not directly TO them, instead of to their faces.
If I may ask a potentially stupid question, why not address those people to their faces? Why not explain your position (without attacking them), and tell them that you feel it is inappropriate for them to judge whether or not you are a "good Catholic" or a "bad Catholic" based on your decision to view the film.
You can do it and be firm without being aggressive, and there is certainly nothing wrong with your defending yourself when people call you a "bad Catholic." Why should they make you feel so bad that you have to bottle it all up and let it fly somewhere else? It doesn't seem fair to you.
Does that make my position any clearer?
Yes, it does. I still think that it's wrong to call people witless, etc., just because they didn't do things your way, just as I think it's wrong for someone to say, "Hey, you're a bad Catholic" because you didn't do things their way.