Godzilla 2000 Millennium
world_g...@hotmail.com
myself to go on to AMM. But, I came on to check out what people were
saying about G2K now.
Norman England says the film is nothing more than another Heisei series
remake, which while I haven't seen the actual film seems, to me, to be
very inaccurate. Then again, I haven't seen the film. As many probably
know, Mark Obert has also seen the film. And according to an e-mail
answering some of my questions (you can see it on my site, in the news
section), Godzilla 2000 is better than even 'the great' Gamera 3 in
effects and story.
There are a few things I must say. Norman said the 'full metal'
missiles are just another super weapon of the Japanese. If I may, I
would like to correct him on this. These 'full metal' missiles, while
I'm sure no exact missile is in existence, there is such a similar
missile that America has. I don't know the exact name, but it's
something like 'bunker missile' that blasts through solid cement walls
then explodes. So, these full metal missiles are not at all that far
fetched.
Another is how it is simply a heisei series remake. Some how I
seriously doubt this. According to Mark, the film is very dark like the
original film... unlike the heisei series. Oruga is out there, but not
so out there that he's over done like Destroyer. The missiles are CGI
according to Mark, rather than the cracklers in the Heisei series. And
the Godzilla suit in Heisei, while I liked it, was very plain everywhere
but the face and back. But the new suit brings some excitement to the
neck, the arms, the body, teeth, a new face, great dorsal fins, hands,
well... the suit is amazing. Nothing is dull on it. And the scene where
Godzilla fogs up the SUV window with his breath, sounds very cool.
While the idea of space aliens seems like a cheese fest idea, Toho,
from reports I've read, has done it VERY well. They don't have a boring
aliens trying to conquer the world scenario, but rather just trying to
leave Earth not take it over. It also appears to be pocking fun at the
American film, the cab chase, the full metal missiles (as pointed out by
Norman), and Oruga looking like G98.
Personally, I see nothing at all to be worried about with Godzilla 2000
Millennium. So don't get yourself worked up about the film being a let
down, the film sounds very good, and I may not have seen the film, but I
can tell you for sure that Toho put more effort into it than the Heisei
series. For god sake, just look at how awesome his Atomic Ray is,
charges up for 15 seconds, than blasts it out with an explosion type
mist going around his head.
G-DOG,
ICQ: 3130031
E-MAIL: godzilla...@hotmail.com
WORLD OF GODZILLA
Largest G site on the net
http://members.tripod.com/~world_of_godzilla/
HOME OF FIGHT NIGHT
http://members.tripod.com/~world_of_godzilla/fightnight.html
HOME OF THE KAIJU HALL OF FAME
http://members.tripod.com/~world_of_godzilla/tkhf.html
********************************************************
* If anything, Godzilla 2000 kicks too much ass *
********************************************************
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
BNSussman
Here we go again. First it was trashing a movie you haven't seen, now it's
once again raving about a movie you haven't seen. It was a waste of time to
read this. Agree with him or not, at least Norman has seen the damn thing...
Did you ever get aroung to seeing GAMERA 3? What did you finally think of it?
BRUCE SUSSMAN
bnsu...@aol.com
KAIJUFAN6
Jonathan Mock
> Hello. I know I haven't posted in a while,
Bless you.
> but I just haven't gotten
>myself to go on to AMM. But, I came on to check out what people were
>saying about G2K now.
> Norman England says the film is nothing more than another Heisei series
>remake, which while I haven't seen the actual film seems, to me, to be
>very inaccurate.
(Sound of brain melting)
So let me get this straight, Nortman *has* seen the film, you *have'nt*
seen the film, but you think Norman's assesement is *innaccurate*?
Lord, why do I feel like I've been here before.
Oh sheesh, I have. It all comes back to me.
Is that my brain dripping down my shirt..?
--
Jonathan Mock
³Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...²
world_g...@hotmail.com
haven't seen the film'. And I was trying to point out that we are
getting mixed reviews. Try reading a little closer there pal.
-G-dog
In article <19991111185909...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
world_g...@hotmail.com
again I haven't seen the film'. Is it some sin to compare reviews?? I'm
simply putting reports together from two reviews, and two reports.
Sometimes I worry about you, you haven't been smoking anything have you?
I mean, last time I checked, I was allowed to voise my opinion, and my
opinion from several reviews and reports that they all contradict what
he was saying, and I was pointing that out. Do us all a favor, lay off
the wacky weed before your 'attempts' at posting with some sort of
meaning.
-G-dog
In article
<jonathan.mockSPAMOFF-ya0...@news.ukonline.co.uk>,
Fungusamungus
of battle ships, and in a downward arc so that they could blow a huge hole
near the bottom (ie down around sea level), and sink the ship.
<world_g...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80fcj9$enc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hello. I know I haven't posted in a while, but I just haven't gotten
> myself to go on to AMM. But, I came on to check out what people were
> saying about G2K now.
> Norman England says the film is nothing more than another Heisei series
> remake, which while I haven't seen the actual film seems, to me, to be
Jonathan Mock
> I'm not saying he's wrong, as I said three times in some form, 'then
> again I haven't seen the film'. Is it some sin to compare reviews?? I'm
> simply putting reports together from two reviews, and two reports.
Well, if there were a dozen reviews and Norman's was the only one that said
"it sucks" youd have a case there, but...
> Sometimes I worry about you, you haven't been smoking anything have you?
> I mean, last time I checked, I was allowed to voise my opinion, and my
> opinion from several reviews and reports that they all contradict what
> he was saying, and I was pointing that out.
... several reviews? You just said you were comparing "two reviews, and two
reports"! Make your mind up!
Sure, you can voice (sic) an opinion - but based on what?
> Do us all a favor, lay off
> the wacky weed before your 'attempts' at posting with some sort of
> meaning.
> -G-dog
You're so cute when you try to be funny. That's one short fuse you have
there, I think maybe you should try the waccy baccy...
Face up to it kiddo, you are'nt going to be swayed by any negative review
of this film. You'd already made up your mind that this is going to be the
best Godzilla movie even before the damn thing was finished, while at the
same time knocking Gamera 3, a movie you'd not seen either. I can
understand your wish for this movie to rock - I'm sure Norman did too, he's
a fan as well, remember?
No I've not seen G2K either, I'll keep an open mind right up until I do,
but I've never known Norman England to bowl wide before.
For the record, no I don't smoke, I just get high on life.
:-)
BNSussman
>haven't seen the film'. And I was trying to >point out that we are
>getting mixed reviews. Try reading a little >closer there pal.
Of course I read what you wrote dude - that's why I sent the reply. If you
think that what you wrote simply pointed out that there are conflicting reviews
of the movie, you really need to read it again yourself. Your supreme bias and
desperate need for G2000 to be a great movie and GAMERA 3 to be a poor movie
taints everything that you write. Why do you bother to do this? What's the
point?
Like I said in my original post, I AM honestly interested in your opinion and
I'm not trying to slam you. But I want an INFORMED opinion. Instead of
spending all this time with useless speculation, track down a copy of GAMERA 3
and see it for yourself. THEN, if you still think it is a bad movie, tell us
why, in your own words. Do the same thing when G2000 comes around.
I'm easy to please and I suspect that I'm going to enjoy G2000 more than Norman
did, but I'm not prepared to make any judgement at all right now, because he
has seen it and I have not. I've said this before, but look at STAR WARS: THE
PHANTOM MENACE. Most of the early "fanboy" reviews said that the movie was
great, fantastic, awesome, etc. By your standards, that must mean that it is
indeed a great film. When I finally saw it, the day after it opened, I thought
it sucked. All those raving reviews meant nothing to me in the final run. The
proof is what you feel when you SEE IT YOURSELF! Make sense?
BRUCE SUSSMAN
bnsu...@aol.com
Smart Ass (jeff)
> No I've not seen G2K either, I'll keep an open mind right up until I do,
> but I've never known Norman England to bowl wide before.
>
> For the record, no I don't smoke, I just get high on life.
Surely, a good beer must figure into that philosophy somewhere, right?
world_g...@hotmail.com
though I tried not to. But I really did mean to point out that we're
getting mixed reviews on the film, and not to give up hope because of
what Norman had to say.
-G-dog
In article <19991113143615...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
world_g...@hotmail.com
<jonathan.mockSPAMOFF-ya0...@news.ukonline.co.uk>,
jonathan.m...@ukonline.co.uk (Jonathan Mock) wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying he's wrong, as I said three times in some form, 'then
> > again I haven't seen the film'. Is it some sin to compare reviews??
I'm
> > simply putting reports together from two reviews, and two reports.
>
> Well, if there were a dozen reviews and Norman's was the only one that
said
> "it sucks" youd have a case there, but...
Don't need a dozen.
> > Sometimes I worry about you, you haven't been smoking anything have
you?
> > I mean, last time I checked, I was allowed to voise my opinion, and
my
> > opinion from several reviews and reports that they all contradict
what
> > he was saying, and I was pointing that out.
>
> ... several reviews? You just said you were comparing "two reviews,
and two
> reports"! Make your mind up!
two reviews: one at kaiju fan one by Mark Obert
two reports: one by Norman one by Mark Obert
> Sure, you can voice (sic) an opinion - but based on what?
Open your eyes and you'll see the answer pal
> > Do us all a favor, lay off
> > the wacky weed before your 'attempts' at posting with some sort of
> > meaning.
>
> > -G-dog
>
> You're so cute when you try to be funny.
Don't believe I was trying to be funny... *puff* *puff*
>That's one short fuse you have
> there, I think maybe you should try the waccy baccy...
Actually I don't think I blew up, I don't remember any sort of anger
when I wrote that, or this post... *puff* *puff*
> Face up to it kiddo, you are'nt going to be swayed by any negative
review
> of this film. You'd already made up your mind that this is going to be
the
> best Godzilla movie even before the damn thing was finished,
No, there are plenty of G-films I think will be better than G2K. And I
never said 'this movie rocks, it's the best ever', I said I sounds great
and looks great... that's called making an opinion which is what Toho
wanted us to do from what they released on the film.
>while at the
> same time knocking Gamera 3, a movie you'd not seen either.
Oh, so its okay for people to praise GIII if they haven't seen it, but
not bash it if you haven't seen it?? *puff* *puff*
> I can understand your wish for this movie to rock - I'm sure Norman
did too,
he's
> a fan as well, remember?
>
> No I've not seen G2K either, I'll keep an open mind right up until I
do,
> but I've never known Norman England to bowl wide before.
>
> For the record, no I don't smoke, I just get high on life.
-G-dog
BNSussman
>though I tried not to. But I really did mean >to point out that we're
>getting mixed reviews on the film, and not >to give up hope because of
>what Norman had to say.
Now there ya go. You just stated in one simple paragraph exactly what you
wanted to say. And it IS a good point, but it got lost in your earlier post.
Nothing wrong with a bias towards Godzilla either, but it can make for tainted
reviews ;-)
BRUCE SUSSMAN
bnsu...@aol.com
Jonathan Mock
>jonathan.m...@ukonline.co.uk (Jonathan Mock) wrote:
> > From: world_g...@hotmail.com
> >
> > > I'm not saying he's wrong, as I said three times in some form, 'then
> > > again I haven't seen the film'. Is it some sin to compare reviews?? I'm
> > > simply putting reports together from two reviews, and two reports.
> >
> > Well, if there were a dozen reviews and Norman's was the only one that said
> > "it sucks" youd have a case there, but...
>
> Don't need a dozen.
I see, so two reviews and two reports is enough for you to claim that
Norman's review seemed "inaccurate"? Remind me, out of you and Norman
England, who has actually *seen* G2K?
> > > Sometimes I worry about you, you haven't been smoking anything have you?
> > > I mean, last time I checked, I was allowed to voise my opinion, and my
> > > opinion from several reviews and reports that they all contradict what
> > > he was saying, and I was pointing that out.
> >
> > ... several reviews? You just said you were comparing "two reviews, and two
> > reports"! Make your mind up!
>
> two reviews: one at kaiju fan one by Mark Obert
> two reports: one by Norman one by Mark Obert
Ok, we got that cleared up. That's a step forward
> > Sure, you can voice (sic) an opinion - but based on what?
>
> Open your eyes and you'll see the answer pal
Oh sheesh, here we go again. I ask you to justify your own sweeping
statements and you fudge it with a non-despscript reply. I'll ask you
again, what are you basing your opinion on? Have you seen G2K?
> > > Do us all a favor, lay off
> > > the wacky weed before your 'attempts' at posting with some sort of
> > > meaning.
> >
> > > -G-dog
> >
> > You're so cute when you try to be funny.
>
> Don't believe I was trying to be funny... *puff* *puff*
(G Dog stubles into rearranged trap)
My point exactly.
> >That's one short fuse you have
> > there, I think maybe you should try the waccy baccy...
>
> Actually I don't think I blew up, I don't remember any sort of anger
> when I wrote that, or this post... *puff* *puff*
Do you ever *read* what you post G-Dog? It might explain why you contradict
youself so often.
> > Face up to it kiddo, you are'nt going to be swayed by any negative
> > review of this film. You'd already made up your mind that this is going
to be the
> > best Godzilla movie even before the damn thing was finished,
>
> No, there are plenty of G-films I think will be better than G2K. And I
> never said 'this movie rocks, it's the best ever', I said I sounds great
> and looks great...
And you also said it looked like a better film than Gamera 3, which
considering you have'nt seen either is *some* opinion.
> that's called making an opinion which is what Toho
> wanted us to do from what they released on the film.
Yeah except you've *not* seen G2K so you've just contradicted youself in a
single paragraph. You're making this too easy for me.
> >while at the same time knocking Gamera 3, a movie you'd not seen either.
>
> Oh, so its okay for people to praise GIII if they haven't seen it, but
> not bash it if you haven't seen it?? *puff* *puff*
As far as I can remember, the people who have prasied G3 *have* seen it,
something *you've* not, but then you don't need to as you seem to be able
to decide by just reading a few reviews.
Up to you laddy, if you want your opinions to be taken seriously, try
basing them on what you *see* not what you hope you're eventually going to
see.
Keith Stevens
>> same time knocking Gamera 3, a movie you'd not seen either.
>
>Oh, so its okay for people to praise GIII if they haven't seen it, but
>not bash it if you haven't seen it?? *puff* *puff*
Who's been doing that? I certainly haven't noticed it.
%%
Goros...@aol.com (Remove "quae" to respond)
"Fly me to the Danger Zone."
Visit Henchboy and Monkey Productions---
http://members.aol.com/Gorosaurus/henchboy.html
world_g...@hotmail.com
<jonathan.mockSPAMOFF-ya0...@news.ukonline.co.uk>,
jonathan.m...@ukonline.co.uk (Jonathan Mock) wrote:
> > > there, I think maybe you should try the waccy baccy...
> >
> > Actually I don't think I blew up, I don't remember any sort of anger
> > when I wrote that, or this post... *puff* *puff*
>
> Do you ever *read* what you post G-Dog? It might explain why you
contradict
> youself so often.
Maybe you should go get a dictionary, cause I don't think you know what
the word 'contradict' means. I don't know what word you're thinking of,
but I wasn't contradicting anything I said... *puff* *puff*
> > > Face up to it kiddo, you are'nt going to be swayed by any negative
> > > review of this film. You'd already made up your mind that this is
going
> to be the
> > > best Godzilla movie even before the damn thing was finished,
> >
> > No, there are plenty of G-films I think will be better than G2K. And
I
> > never said 'this movie rocks, it's the best ever', I said I sounds
great
> > and looks great...
>
> And you also said it looked like a better film than Gamera 3, which
> considering you have'nt seen either is *some* opinion.
HAHAHAHAAHA oh my god. You were telling me to read, you should try
reading. Go ahead, take a look at my original post. I said MARK OBERT
said it was better than Gamera 3 in effects and story, and guess what?
He's seen both films. Oh brother, like I said, lay off the wacky weed
before trying to make a point.
> > that's called making an opinion which is what Toho
> > wanted us to do from what they released on the film.
>
> Yeah except you've *not* seen G2K so you've just contradicted youself
in a
> single paragraph. You're making this too easy for me.
Ignorance must be wonderful for you, thinking you're making a point, the
only thing you have proven is you don't know the meaning of the word
'contradict'. Sorry, but I never contradicted myself... *puff* *puff*
Go get a dictionary and look up the word.
> > >while at the same time knocking Gamera 3, a movie you'd not seen
either.
> >
> > Oh, so its okay for people to praise GIII if they haven't seen it,
but
> > not bash it if you haven't seen it?? *puff* *puff*
>
> As far as I can remember, the people who have prasied G3 *have* seen
it,
> something *you've* not, but then you don't need to as you seem to be
able
> to decide by just reading a few reviews.
Yes, you are quite the hypocrite aren't you?? I'm doing the same thing
as other people who haven't seen GIII. I never say it's a bad film, I
say it sounds like a bad film story-wise, or the effects look good, all
from things I've read and seen. So, when do you plan on making some
points??
Jonathan, you're aren't helping yourself. Please don't open your mouth
unless what you have to say has some sort of meaning. Here's a tip,
seeing as how you are having a little trouble making a point here,
whatever you want to say, say the opposite. That just might help you
out.
Jonathan Mock
> Maybe you should go get a dictionary, cause I don't think you know what
> the word 'contradict' means. I don't know what word you're thinking of,
> but I wasn't contradicting anything I said... *puff* *puff*
Oh I think do and yes, you contradicted yourself - read your own posts.
While you've got your dictionary out, look up the spelling of "voise"...
> > And you also said it looked like a better film than Gamera 3, which
> > considering you have'nt seen either is *some* opinion.
>
> HAHAHAHAAHA oh my god. You were telling me to read, you should try
> reading. Go ahead, take a look at my original post. I said MARK OBERT
> said it was better than Gamera 3 in effects and story, and guess what?
> He's seen both films. Oh brother, like I said, lay off the wacky weed
> before trying to make a point.
Again read your own posts. You were saying that *before* G2K was released,
*before* Mark Oberts reviews.
> > Yeah except you've *not* seen G2K so you've just contradicted youself
> > in a single paragraph. You're making this too easy for me.
>
> Ignorance must be wonderful for you, thinking you're making a point,
Oh I am poochy, beacuse trying to have a serious, adult debate with you is
like shooting fish in a barrel - your debating skills are next to hopeless.
But I persevere.
> the
> only thing you have proven is you don't know the meaning of the word
> 'contradict'. Sorry, but I never contradicted myself... *puff* *puff*
> Go get a dictionary and look up the word.
Read your own posts, then come back to me again.
> > As far as I can remember, the people who have prasied G3 *have* seen
> it something *you've* not, but then you don't need to as you seem to be
> able to decide by just reading a few reviews.
>
> Yes, you are quite the hypocrite aren't you?? I'm doing the same thing
> as other people who haven't seen GIII.
What "other people"? Name names.
> I never say it's a bad film, I
> say it sounds like a bad film story-wise, or the effects look good, all
> from things I've read and seen. So, when do you plan on making some
> points??
My "point" is that you claimed someone's review of a movie was "inaccurate"
when you've never even seen the damn thing. You claim you can justify that
by citing other reviews (all three of them). No doggy, you can only justify
that, and your comments on G3, when you've *seen* the film. Is that clear
enough for you?
> Jonathan, you're aren't helping yourself.
Oh the irony...
> Please don't open your mouth
> unless what you have to say has some sort of meaning.
<snigger> Yeah right. Laddy, if you want to treated like an adult, try
acting like one and according the same respect to other people posts. And
that means if you;re going to argue a point, stick with and stop wriggling
like... a fish in a barrel.
> Here's a tip,
> seeing as how you are having a little trouble making a point here,
> whatever you want to say, say the opposite. That just might help you
> out.
Remind me G-Dog, out of you and me, who was the one who got a pasting on
this newgroup for forming half-arsed opinions on two movies he had not
seen. I'll give you a clue, it wasn't me.
But you are cute. Can you send me a pic?
:-)
Doctor TOC
>
> But you are cute. Can you send me a pic?
There's one on his website. Don't you just want to pinch his cherubic
little cheeks?
Doctor TOC
--
The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris"
ICQ # 4814586
Time War RPG - http://jump.to/TimeWar
The TOC Files - http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/wilhelm/148/
Jonathan Mock
Pinch? I'm sure that's a typo Doc...
Doctor TOC
>
> > > But you are cute. Can you send me a pic?
> >
> > There's one on his website. Don't you just want to pinch his cherubic
> > little cheeks?
>
Oooh, you can't go around sayin' stuff like that! Next thing you know,
he'll start squealing like a ruptured gerbil, claiming you threatened
him (a "defenseless minor" only when it suits him) with violence, then
he'll tell his dad and go whining to your ISP...
Anyway, why use your hands when shovels are so cheap? :-)
world_g...@hotmail.com
attack my age, and be hypocritical. Do you realize or silly you sound
telling someone they can't debate like an adult when the only argument
you can muster up is telling me my age, which I am well aware, to avoid
arguing because you obviously have no debate (or at least not a good
one, with a point)?? I may not be as old as you, but believe me when I
say you have the debating abilities of a three year old. The only thing
you are showing off is that you don't know what you are talking about,
so must state my age... wow, I better watch out before I get burned!
And are you sure you are in the right argument? Because about 90% of
waht you are talking about is false. I asked you to point out where I
was contradicting myself, you can't. You can't point out anything you
claim, you can only say 'find it yourself'. Why? Because you can't.
Debating like an adult? I don't think any person who wishes to be
taken seriously (as you seem to be obsessed with) would resort to
'aren't you cute', but rather sticking to the topic which you seem to
have a problem with. If you wish to turn it into a flame war, which you
seem to be going in the direction of, no thank you. Because as you said,
I'm trying to debate like an adult, not a whining like a little child,
which seems to be your method more or less.
I'm open to debate when you learn what the topic is, and get some
debating skills. And again look up the word 'contradict' because you
look foolish when correcting someone's spelling yet you don't know the
meaning of such an easy word.
Jonathan Mock
The first couple of G2K reviews come out. Your immediate response to Norman
Englandąs rather lukewarm review was łit seems inaccurate˛, an opinion
youąve formed and posted to this newsgroup *not* based on your own viewing
of the film, but on what a couple of other reviewers have said.
I mean, no offence but it seems like youąll only believe what you want to
hear and the moment the first dissenting voice appeared (ie Norman's) you
were quick to dismiss it. Sorry, Norman has *seen* the film you know, just
like he saw gamera 3.
Likewise, prior to the release of G2K you were giving us the wisdom of your
knowledge that G2K - a film yet to be completed - looked better than Gamera
3 - a film you had not seen. Based on what?! A few photoąs and word of
mouth?
Sorry chum, but you seem very adept at giving us opinions based on things
you *have not* seen or experienced. Iąd rather hear *your* opinion based on
what *you see* not what others tell you nor what you imagine/hope a movie
is going to be like.
Frankly there is more to opinion than just opening your mouth and letting
the words fall out. I prefer an *informed* opinion and there are plenty of
people on this NG who take the time and trouble to give one, you know,
actually *seeing* the film in question. I may not agree with what they say,
but at least they have seen it.
With you itąs next to futile trying to have a reasoned debate because
you're just not very well informed. And when it comes to proffering
opinions on movies, you *have* to see the damn thing!
Better luck next time.
--
Jonathan Mock
łQuick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...˛
Jonathan Mock
> Oh my, how embarrassing it must be to be you. The only defense is to
> attack my age, and be hypocritical.
No, I just I just did it to bug you.
> Do you realize or silly you sound
> telling someone they can't debate like an adult when the only argument
> you can muster up is telling me my age, which I am well aware, to avoid
> arguing because you obviously have no debate (or at least not a good
> one, with a point)??
Actually, if you read my posts, I never specifically mentioned your age.
> I may not be as old as you,
No one is as old as me!
> but believe me when I
> say you have the debating abilities of a three year old.
Thanks dad.
> The only thing
> you are showing off is that you don't know what you are talking about,
> so must state my age... wow, I better watch out before I get burned!
Actually - again - I never specifically stated your age. I just took a
guess that if you were as juvenile as your posts, you'd be easily wound up.
And here we are...
> And are you sure you are in the right argument? Because about 90% of
> waht you are talking about is false.
90%! That's a pretty hard scientific figure. I'm 10% right!
90% wrong, like you said Norman's review of G2K seemed "very inaccurate",
like you were saying on this NG months back that G2K looked like a better
film than G3, though you'd seen neither. Yeah, me and Deja-News are *way*
wrong on that...
> I asked you to point out where I
> was contradicting myself, you can't.
Oh, I *am* going to enjoy this part. Ok, case in point, you said...
> And I never said 'this movie rocks, it's the best ever', I said I sounds great
> and looks great... that's called making an opinion which is what Toho
> wanted us to do from what they released on the film.
Note the key line "that's called making an opinion which is what Toho
wanted us to do from what they released on the film".
Which is all fine and well except... you've *not* seen the film! Can I make
it any clearer? You say the movie "sounds great and looks great" an opinion
you've formed by what Toho "released on the film" and yet - by your own
admission - you've *not* seen the film.
You've stated the yardstick by which the film can be judged, ie what Toho
"released on film" but as you've not seen the movie, how can you use that
yardstick?
You've said one thing, but you've then nullified it by your own actions.
C O N T R A D I C T I O N.
> You can't point out anything you
> claim, you can only say 'find it yourself'. Why? Because you can't.
See above. My, what a peculiar shade of crimson you've now gone...
> Debating like an adult? I don't think any person who wishes to be
> taken seriously (as you seem to be obsessed with) would resort to
> 'aren't you cute',
See "annoys sensitive types"...
> but rather sticking to the topic which you seem to
> have a problem with. If you wish to turn it into a flame war, which you
> seem to be going in the direction of, no thank you.
No, like last time, I'm trying to get you to back up your own
claims/opinions and - like last time - you retreat behind a wall of "flame
war" and other kinds of distractions once you know you can't argue your way
out of a wet paper bag.
> Because as you said,
> I'm trying to debate like an adult, not a whining like a little child,
> which seems to be your method more or less.
> I'm open to debate when you learn what the topic is, and get some
> debating skills. And again look up the word 'contradict' because you
> look foolish when correcting someone's spelling yet you don't know the
> meaning of such an easy word.
>
>
> -G-dog
Ancient Chinese saying - an empty gun always makes the biggest noise.
--
Jonathan Mock
³Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...²
Nick Montemayor
make is that just because a certain person who gets to see a movie
(kaiju or otherwise) first and be the first to review it should feel
some sense of journalistic responsibility. especially when it is a genre
that you strongly support Sure, you don't have to like every kaiju movie
that comes out, and sometimes there will be problems with the film. This
holds true for every movie. some will be disappointed, others will
delighted. BUT, since a certain person (or persons) who have the
privilege of seeing say GODZILLA 2000 at least seven months before the
rest of us, should consider what the fallout of his opinion may be. some
cannot form their own opinions, they believe everything that the media
claims. and it is evident here. we have many dissing this movie before
they have seen it for themselves, and that cannot be denied. maybe
Norman and others have seen the movie already and have their reasons for
disliking it. sure. but the result is that is opinion is now treated as
fact by some of the fans and will deny themselves the chance of enjoying
it themselves (or watch it for that matter).
I understand your points Norman England and Jonathan Mock. Really, I do.
but I think of the already tarnished image that these movies have to the
mainstream audience, and believe that the fans themselves are doing
themselves a disservice by negative publicity. we support this genre and
the genre needs our support as well.
I think the fans should form their own opinions, instead of letting it
be made for them. Thank you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Enjoy!
Nick Montemayor at Nick...@webtv.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Visit The ULTRAMAN ARCHIVE at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/2290/index.html
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
world_g...@hotmail.com
ya02408000R16...@news.ukonline.co.uk>,
jonathan.m...@ukonline.co.uk (Jonathan Mock) wrote:
> Ok Noel Coward Junior, letąs go back to the basics shall we.
>
> The first couple of G2K reviews come out. Your immediate response to
Norman
> Englandąs rather lukewarm review was łit seems inaccurate˛, an opinion
> youąve formed and posted to this newsgroup *not* based on your own
viewing
> of the film, but on what a couple of other reviewers have said.
That's the whole point!! I have not seen the film, and of the reviews
I've read they all say something different than what Norman said. If it
sounded like I was saying the film was so great, too damn bad. Because
I was pointing out that people don't need to give up hope because
Norman didn't like it. While yes I was also saying how excited I was
with the film and how good it sounded, I didn't say it WAS and IS good.
It SOUNDED good.
> I mean, no offence but it seems like youąll only believe what you
want to
> hear and the moment the first dissenting voice appeared (ie Norman's)
you
> were quick to dismiss it. Sorry, Norman has *seen* the film you know,
just
> like he saw gamera 3.
You just can't seem to get the concept that the reason for reading
reviews is to come up with an opinion. And while I have been saying the
film looks/sounds great, I never said it is great.
> Likewise, prior to the release of G2K you were giving us the wisdom
of your
> knowledge that G2K - a film yet to be completed - looked better than
Gamera
> 3 - a film you had not seen. Based on what?! A few photoąs and word of
> mouth?
Why did I ever leave AMM? Oh-yeah, pointless debates like this. Ones
where the other person knows nothing of what they are talking about. I
saw pictures of G3, I saw picture of G2K. G2K pictures looked better. I
read reviews of G3, and I read reviews of G2K. G2K sounded better. I
never said G2K was 100% better than G3, I said from the exact same
things I've seen of both films, G2K sounded better. Nothing is wrong
with that, nothing at all. Can you grasp that concept?
> Sorry chum, but you seem very adept at giving us opinions based on
things
> you *have not* seen or experienced. Iąd rather hear *your* opinion
based on
> what *you see* not what others tell you nor what you imagine/hope a
movie
> is going to be like.
Which I have over and over. Read the above comment.
> Frankly there is more to opinion than just opening your mouth and
letting
> the words fall out. I prefer an *informed* opinion and there are
plenty of
> people on this NG who take the time and trouble to give one, you know,
> actually *seeing* the film in question. I may not agree with what
they say,
> but at least they have seen it.
I never said the films were better, again, I said the plot reviews made
G2K sound better. And the pictuers I've seen made G2K look better. I
have never said the film G2K is better than the film G3, I said it
seems better to me... AN OPINION!
> With you itąs next to futile trying to have a reasoned debate because
> you're just not very well informed. And when it comes to proffering
> opinions on movies, you *have* to see the damn thing!
Lets get one thing straight, if I am not well informed, I am a HELL of
a lot more informed than you. And no you don't have to see the film,
since I am not trying to debate which film is better!!
> Better luck next time.
Well, I don't wan't to completely stomp you into the ground, just kind
of wound ya. Thanks though.
> --
> Jonathan Mock
world_g...@hotmail.com
have to reply to some of these 'brain storms'.
> > And I never said 'this movie rocks, it's the best ever', I said I
sounds great
> > and looks great... that's called making an opinion which is what
Toho
> > wanted us to do from what they released on the film.
>
> Note the key line "that's called making an opinion which is what Toho
> wanted us to do from what they released on the film".
>
> Which is all fine and well except... you've *not* seen the film! Can
I make
> it any clearer? You say the movie "sounds great and looks great" an
opinion
> you've formed by what Toho "released on the film" and yet - by your
own
> admission - you've *not* seen the film.
hahaha oh my god. Try reading pal, the point of trailers is to make
people think the movie looks good and sounds good. My god, get a clue.
> You've stated the yardstick by which the film can be judged, ie what
Toho
> "released on film" but as you've not seen the movie, how can you use
that
> yardstick?
HAHAHAAHAH!!! Oh man, hold on a second.......... okay, no, hold
on........... Oh, that was a good laugh. That's the whole point of
releasing trailers!! Oh man.
> You've said one thing, but you've then nullified it by your own
actions.
>
> C O N T R A D I C T I O N.
WHAT!??! The only thing you were 'TRYING' to point out is that I can't
like the film from trailers released. Let me guess, you haven't looked
up contradiction in the dictionary have you? Nothing you said proves I
have contradicted myself, lets see. I said the point of releasing
trailers was to get us excited, and I got excited from
that 'yardstick'. So, how exactly is that contradicting myself?
> > You can't point out anything you
> > claim, you can only say 'find it yourself'. Why? Because you can't.
>
> See above. My, what a peculiar shade of crimson you've now gone...
Why? Again you were wrong and couldn't prove I was contradicting
myself, you only proved you don't know what the hell you're talking
about.
Would you care to try again??? Or do you want to give someone else a
chance to bat you around?
-G-dog (can it get any easier than this?)
Pet Post
>> attack my age, and be hypocritical.
>
>No, I just I just did it to bug you.
>
*SNORT*..chuckle....heh, heh....I love it! Carry on, Pope Mock!
Jim in Seattle
THE KAIJU RESOURCE PAGE: Your one-stop web site for the latest news in Godzilla
fandom, shopping and more!!
http://members.aol.com/petpost/index.html
BNSussman
>make is that just because a certain person who gets to see a movie
>(kaiju or otherwise) first and be the first to review it should feel
>some sense of journalistic responsibility. especially when it is a genre
>that you strongly support Sure, you don't have to like every kaiju movie
>that comes out, and sometimes there will be problems with the film. This
>holds true for every movie. some will be disappointed, others will
>delighted. BUT, since a certain person (or persons) who have the
>privilege of seeing say GODZILLA 2000 at least seven months before the
>rest of us, should consider what the fallout of his opinion may be. some
>cannot form their own opinions, they believe everything that the media
>claims. and it is evident here. we have many dissing this movie before
>they have seen it for themselves, and that cannot be denied. maybe
>Norman and others have seen the movie already and have their reasons for
>disliking it. sure. but the result is that is opinion is now treated as
>fact by some of the fans and will deny themselves the chance of enjoying
>it themselves (or watch it for that matter).
>I understand your points Norman England and Jonathan Mock. Really, I do.
>but I think of the already tarnished image that these movies have to the
>mainstream audience, and believe that the fans themselves are doing
>themselves a disservice by negative publicity. we support this genre and
>the genre needs our support as well.
>I think the fans should form their own opinions, instead of letting it
>be made for them. Thank you.
>
I dunno Nick - I think I have to disagree with you here. True, the lucky fans
that get first crack at these movies may (or may not) perhaps have some sort of
"journalistic responsibility," but I believe that the responsibility is to
honestly report what they thought of the movie, holding nothing back. If
Norman or someone else saw G2000 and didn't like it, then I want to hear that
they didn't like it. But I also want to know WHY they didn't like it. Once I
hear these reasons, I can decide for myself whether or not the movie is for me.
Sugarcoating someone's review of a movie simply as a service to the genre
doesn't help. If the movie is indeed bad, we will find out eventually anyway.
Even if you're a fan, criticism and negativity CAN be a good thing. I'm a huge
Batman fan, but I (and almost everybody else) hated the way he was portrayed in
BATMAN & ROBIN. Appearing at charity balls and whipping out the Bat credit
card? Forget it! Enough fans and audience members spoke out and it appears
that Warner Bros. got the message. Hopefully, when Batman returns to film, we
will actually get the Dark Knight again. If nobody spoke out, we would
probably not get this chance.
Like you said, fans need to form their own opinions, and perhaps some fans ARE
going to treat other opinions as fact. Honestly, that's their problem, and the
rest of us shouldn't have to hold back just because they can't think for
themselves.
BRUCE SUSSMAN
bnsu...@aol.com
Jonathan Mock
> Okay, I was just gonna sit back and have a good laugh at this. But I
> have to reply to some of these 'brain storms'.
Oh it was no effort really...
> > > And I never said 'this movie rocks, it's the best ever', I said I
sounds great
> > > and looks great... that's called making an opinion which is what Toho
> > > wanted us to do from what they released on the film.
> >
> > Note the key line "that's called making an opinion which is what Toho
> > wanted us to do from what they released on the film".
> >
> > Which is all fine and well except... you've *not* seen the film! Can I make
> > it any clearer? You say the movie "sounds great and looks great" an opinion
> > you've formed by what Toho "released on the film" and yet - by your own
> > admission - you've *not* seen the film.
>
> hahaha oh my god. Try reading pal, the point of trailers is to make
> people think the movie looks good and sounds good. My god, get a clue.
B U L L S H I T
So now you're trying to say you're talking about *trailers*? That's funny,
'cos I saw no mention of the word "trailers" in your previous post. In
fact, this is the first time you've mention trailers. Nice attempt at a get
out, but sorry you're not fooling anyone.
Either way, trailers don't mean squat in the scheme of things. I've seen
many piss-poor films on the strength of a really neat trailer - Congo and
The Shadow springs to mind. Get my drift?
> > You've stated the yardstick by which the film can be judged, ie what Toho
> > "released on film" but as you've not seen the movie, how can you use that
> > yardstick?
>
> HAHAHAAHAH!!! Oh man, hold on a second.......... okay, no, hold
> on........... Oh, that was a good laugh. That's the whole point of
> releasing trailers!! Oh man.
You did not mention trailers before. Sheesh, I have you *own words* up
there in front of you. Please point out where you mentioned "trailers" (and
don't try adding it in later).
> > You've said one thing, but you've then nullified it by your own
> actions.
> >
> > C O N T R A D I C T I O N.
>
> WHAT!??! The only thing you were 'TRYING' to point out is that I can't
> like the film from trailers released. Let me guess, you haven't looked
> up contradiction in the dictionary have you? Nothing you said proves I
> have contradicted myself, lets see. I said the point of releasing
> trailers was to get us excited, and I got excited from
> that 'yardstick'. So, how exactly is that contradicting myself?
Again, I have posted *your own words* in front of you. Funny how this is
now all about trailers, something you *did* not mention in the post I
qouted from. Do I sense G-Dog is wriggling on the hook here..?
> > > You can't point out anything you
> > > claim, you can only say 'find it yourself'. Why? Because you can't.
> >
> > See above. My, what a peculiar shade of crimson you've now gone...
>
> Why? Again you were wrong and couldn't prove I was contradicting
> myself, you only proved you don't know what the hell you're talking
> about.
I'm afraid I have laddie, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it by
saying you were talking about "trailers" all along. I've seen that kind of
mavouvre before, but I can't blame you for thinking it was worth a try - I
guess every smart-ass comment you come up with must seem like it's new and
clever to you at the moment.
> Would you care to try again??? Or do you want to give someone else a
> chance to bat you around?
Nice try at the adolescent bravado, but your ass has just been well and
truly kicked and the evidence is there for all to see. You talk about one
thing in your previous posts and then when you get caught out by your own
words, you start squealing that you were talking about something else. Nice
move but, I'm already there.
Boy, that's got to hurt...
Jonathan Mock
> In article <jonathan.mockSPAMOFF-
> > Ok Noel Coward Junior, letąs go back to the basics shall we.
> >
> > The first couple of G2K reviews come out. Your immediate response to Norman
> > Englandąs rather lukewarm review was łit seems inaccurate˛, an opinion
> > youąve formed and posted to this newsgroup *not* based on your own
> > viewing of the film, but on what a couple of other reviewers have said.
>
> That's the whole point!! I have not seen the film, and of the reviews
> I've read they all say something different than what Norman said.
No, reread your own words, you said Norman's review seemed "very
inaccurate" - you cast doubts on an experienced - and much respected -
kaiju reviewer like Norman England not based on your *own* opinion of
seeing a movie, but based on a *couple* of other reviews on a movie - by
your own admission - you have not seen. Now does that make sense?
I mean if you're going to question someones intergity, at least have the
decency to see the same damn film.
> If it
> sounded like I was saying the film was so great, too damn bad. Because
> I was pointing out that people don't need to give up hope because
> Norman didn't like it.
No, you said his reviews seemed "very inaccurate" - read your own words.
> While yes I was also saying how excited I was
> with the film and how good it sounded, I didn't say it WAS and IS good.
> It SOUNDED good.
You also posted to this group that it *sounded* better than another film
you hadn't even seen. How can you form opinions that you expect to be taken
seriously, and that you post to this NG, on movies you've *not* seen? I
thought Congo looked great, it sucked ass in the end.
Does that make sense to you now?
> > I mean, no offence but it seems like youąll only believe what you
> > want to hear and the moment the first dissenting voice appeared (ie
Norman's) you
> > were quick to dismiss it. Sorry, Norman has *seen* the film you know, just
> > like he saw gamera 3.
>
> You just can't seem to get the concept that the reason for reading
> reviews is to come up with an opinion.
No, the reason to read reviews is to read *other peoples* opinions - the
final arbitor must be *you* when you *see* the film. Until then it isn't an
informed opinion - you've not *experienced* the movie in question, you're
just making guesses on what other people say.
> And while I have been saying the
> film looks/sounds great, I never said it is great.
Going back to your own words, you said it *looked* better than Gamera 3 -
how can you know that? A half-arsed "opinion" of an unfinished movie
compared to one you haven't seen. Do you see what I'm getting at?
> > Likewise, prior to the release of G2K you were giving us the wisdom
> of your knowledge that G2K - a film yet to be completed - looked better than
> Gamera 3 - a film you had not seen. Based on what?! A few photoąs and word of
> > mouth?
>
> Why did I ever leave AMM? Oh-yeah, pointless debates like this.
Leave? I thought you ran away?
:-)
> Ones where the other person knows nothing of what they are talking about.
CONTRADITION ALERT!
You know nothing about G2K and G3 because you've not seen them, *you* know
"nothing of what they (you) are talking about".
Boy, did you walk into that one!
> I saw pictures of G3, I saw picture of G2K. G2K pictures looked better.
Oh sheesh, what a *shallow* way of forming an opinion. Ever heard of the
saying "never judge a book by its cover"? Pathetic!
> I read reviews of G3, and I read reviews of G2K. G2K sounded better.
No bucko, you were saying that about the two movies *before* G2K was even
finished, *before* any reviews were published. Really, do you want me shame
you by dredging through the Deja News again?
> I never said G2K was 100% better than G3,
There you go with the percentages again. Well, if you reread my posts, I
never claimed you said G2K was "100% better than G3".
> I said from the exact same
> things I've seen of both films,
Immaterial, you've not seen either films, but go on...
> G2K sounded better. Nothing is wrong
> with that, nothing at all. Can you grasp that concept?
Everything is wrong with that for the reasons I've alread outlined above.
Until you *see* the movies, your "opinion" is based on nothing but
speculation. It's next to worthless, more so when you have the audacity to
call into question someone who *has* seen the film.
> > Sorry chum, but you seem very adept at giving us opinions based on
> things you *have not* seen or experienced. Iąd rather hear *your* opinion
> based on what *you see* not what others tell you nor what you imagine/hope a
> movie is going to be like.
>
> Which I have over and over. Read the above comment.
No you havne'nt. Reread the above line - and I qoute - "Iąd rather hear
*your* opinion based on what *you see* not what others tell you nor what
you imagine/hope a movie is going to be like". You have not *seen* either
movie in question therefore you do not fit your own criteria. You are
contradicting yourself again.
>
>> Frankly there is more to opinion than just opening your mouth and
>> letting the words fall out. I prefer an *informed* opinion and there are
>> plenty of people on this NG who take the time and trouble to give one,
you know,
>> actually *seeing* the film in question. I may not agree with what
>> they say, but at least they have seen it.
>
> I never said the films were better, again, I said the plot reviews made
> G2K sound better. And the pictuers I've seen made G2K look better. I
> have never said the film G2K is better than the film G3, I said it
> seems better to me... AN OPINION!
No, at the time you were comparing snatches of information about an
uncompleted movie against one you had not seen. That my friend is *not* the
time to start making comparisons.
As I said, a lot of people here make the effort of actually *seeing*
something before giving their opinions. Trying learning from them.
> > With you itąs next to futile trying to have a reasoned debate because
> > you're just not very well informed. And when it comes to proffering
> > opinions on movies, you *have* to see the damn thing!
>
> Lets get one thing straight, if I am not well informed,
You're not very well informed, oops, sorry jumped the gun...
> I am a HELL of a lot more informed than you.
Really? Based on what? Experience obviously, of just looking at a few
pictures on the internet and being "informed".
> And no you don't have to see the film,
> since I am not trying to debate which film is better!!
No, you're offering an "opinion" on which one you think sounds better, even
though you've seen neither... Care to share your views on travelling to
countries you've never been too? How does the night life in Norway compare
to the wilds of Alaska? I know you've probably never been to either, but
that should'nt stop you based on a few pics...
> > Better luck next time.
>
> Well, I don't wan't to completely stomp you into the ground, just kind
> of wound ya. Thanks though.
>
> > --
> > Jonathan Mock
>
> -G-dog
Oh yes, I'm geting a really pasting at the moment. Stop it, you're taking
the shine off my boots...
--
Jonathan Mock
łQuick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...˛
world_g...@hotmail.com
<jonathan.mockSPAMOFF-ya0...@news.ukonline.co.uk>,
jonathan.m...@ukonline.co.uk (Jonathan Mock) wrote:
> From: world_g...@hotmail.com (again)
>
> > Okay, I was just gonna sit back and have a good laugh at this. But I
> > have to reply to some of these 'brain storms'.
>
> Oh it was no effort really...
>
> > > > And I never said 'this movie rocks, it's the best ever', I said
I
> sounds great
> > > > and looks great... that's called making an opinion which is
what Toho
> > > > wanted us to do from what they released on the film.
> > >
> > > Note the key line "that's called making an opinion which is what
Toho
> > > wanted us to do from what they released on the film".
> > >
> > > Which is all fine and well except... you've *not* seen the film!
Can I make
> > > it any clearer? You say the movie "sounds great and looks great"
an opinion
your own
> > > admission - you've *not* seen the film.
> >
> > hahaha oh my god. Try reading pal, the point of trailers is to make
> > people think the movie looks good and sounds good. My god, get a
clue.
>
> B U L L S H I T
Calm down, breath, breath, breath. Good boy.
> So now you're trying to say you're talking about *trailers*? That's
funny,
> 'cos I saw no mention of the word "trailers" in your previous post. In
> fact, this is the first time you've mention trailers. Nice attempt at
a get
> out, but sorry you're not fooling anyone.
Oh man, you need a clue buddy. What the hell do you think I was talking
about when I said 'from what Toho released'? Did they release Pokemon
dulls? No. Gum? No. Trailers!! Good lord, are you trying to be this
ignorant?
No little boy, I never said the word 'trailer', but anybody with 1/5 of
a horses brain could figure out I meant trailers from when I said 'from
what Toho has released'.
> Either way, trailers don't mean squat in the scheme of things. I've
seen
> many piss-poor films on the strength of a really neat trailer - Congo
and
> The Shadow springs to mind. Get my drift?
Well, Congo kicked ass. And I never said trailers were right on. The
point of one is to get you excited, and form an opinion as to if it
looks good... then you'll wanna see it. Try thinking a little.
> > > You've stated the yardstick by which the film can be judged, ie
what Toho
> > > "released on film" but as you've not seen the movie, how can you
use that
> > > yardstick?
> >
> > HAHAHAAHAH!!! Oh man, hold on a second.......... okay, no, hold
> > on........... Oh, that was a good laugh. That's the whole point of
> > releasing trailers!! Oh man.
>
> You did not mention trailers before. Sheesh, I have you *own words* up
> there in front of you. Please point out where you mentioned "trailers"
(and
> don't try adding it in later).
I don't have to. Like I said, I based my opinion on what Toho *released*
and reviews from other people. What the hell do you think Toho has been
releasing?? Honey covered turd on a stick? No, THEY'VE BEEN RELEASING
TRAILERS. There is no way you could be trying to be this dumb.
> > > You've said one thing, but you've then nullified it by your own
> > actions.
> > >
> > > C O N T R A D I C T I O N.
> >
> > WHAT!??! The only thing you were 'TRYING' to point out is that I
can't
> > like the film from trailers released. Let me guess, you haven't
looked
> > up contradiction in the dictionary have you? Nothing you said proves
I
> > have contradicted myself, lets see. I said the point of releasing
> > trailers was to get us excited, and I got excited from
> > that 'yardstick'. So, how exactly is that contradicting myself?
>
> Again, I have posted *your own words* in front of you. Funny how this
is
> now all about trailers, something you *did* not mention in the post I
> qouted from. Do I sense G-Dog is wriggling on the hook here..?
Nope. Sorry, you didn't prove anything. I never said you needed to see
the film to form an opinion, which you seem to think I did. But I never
did, so I never contradicted myself. Good lord, try thinking just a tad.
Let me break it down for you. I said 'from what Toho released'. Now,
what could that mean? Well, could it be trailers?? YES!! What else could
fit in? So, like I said I formed an opinion from what Toho released (and
since you seem to be a bit slow, I'll say it again. aka. TRAILERS),
which I said is what they're for. So, I'm not contradicting myself.
> > > > You can't point out anything you
> > > > claim, you can only say 'find it yourself'. Why? Because you
can't.
> > >
> > > See above. My, what a peculiar shade of crimson you've now gone...
> >
> > Why? Again you were wrong and couldn't prove I was contradicting
> > myself, you only proved you don't know what the hell you're talking
> > about.
>
> I'm afraid I have laddie, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it
by
> saying you were talking about "trailers" all along. I've seen that
kind of
> mavouvre before, but I can't blame you for thinking it was worth a try
- I
> guess every smart-ass comment you come up with must seem like it's new
and
> clever to you at the moment.
Oh boy, looky here. I really got you in a hole now. The only thing you
can do is put words in my mouth. Ya see, what exactly did you think I
meant by 'what Toho has released'?
> > Would you care to try again??? Or do you want to give someone else a
> > chance to bat you around?
>
> Nice try at the adolescent bravado, but your ass has just been well
and
> truly kicked and the evidence is there for all to see. You talk about
one
> thing in your previous posts and then when you get caught out by your
own
> words, you start squealing that you were talking about something else.
Nice
> move but, I'm already there.
Oh no, old Johnny-boy is delusional! You just can't admit defeat, face
it, you're beat. Give it up.
> Boy, that's got to hurt...
Yeah, it does hurt to see you struggling, trying desperately to save
your smashed and defeated ass. Should I put him out of his misery?
-G-dog (nope, this is as easy as it gets)
Nick Montemayor
that we have managed not to flame or insult each other, and that means
alot!
world_g...@hotmail.com
<jonathan.mockSPAMOFF-ya0...@news.ukonline.co.uk>,
jonathan.m...@ukonline.co.uk (Jonathan Mock) wrote:
>
> > In article <jonathan.mockSPAMOFF-
>
> > > Ok Noel Coward Junior, letąs go back to the basics shall we.
> > >
> > > The first couple of G2K reviews come out. Your immediate response
to Norman
> > > Englandąs rather lukewarm review was łit seems inaccurate˛, an
opinion
> > > youąve formed and posted to this newsgroup *not* based on your own
> > > viewing of the film, but on what a couple of other reviewers have
said.
> >
> > That's the whole point!! I have not seen the film, and of the
reviews
> > I've read they all say something different than what Norman said.
>
> No, reread your own words, you said Norman's review seemed "very
> inaccurate" - you cast doubts on an experienced - and much respected -
> kaiju reviewer like Norman England not based on your *own* opinion of
> seeing a movie, but based on a *couple* of other reviews on a movie -
by
> your own admission - you have not seen. Now does that make sense?
No? Lets see, I said it 'sounds very inaccurate' because of what others
had said on the film. So, yes. You can now stop proving you don't know
what you're talking about.
> I mean if you're going to question someones intergity, at least have
the
> decency to see the same damn film.
Please, say something smart. Every argument I've been in, the other has
said some stuff that was smart. But you, can't you say one little thing?
I didn't say he was wrong, never, nope, never did. I said he *SOUNDED*
inaccurate judging from how other reviews differed. God, is this really
worth my time?
> > If it
> > sounded like I was saying the film was so great, too damn bad.
Because
> > I was pointing out that people don't need to give up hope because
> > Norman didn't like it.
>
> No, you said his reviews seemed "very inaccurate" - read your own
words.
Another pointless comment, oh man. But I guess you never really had one
from the start.
> > While yes I was also saying how excited I was
> > with the film and how good it sounded, I didn't say it WAS and IS
good.
> > It SOUNDED good.
>
> You also posted to this group that it *sounded* better than another
film
> you hadn't even seen. How can you form opinions that you expect to be
taken
> seriously, and that you post to this NG, on movies you've *not* seen?
I
> thought Congo looked great, it sucked ass in the end.
Oh for the love of god make him stop!! Guess what? I never compared to
two films. I compared pictures and reviews from each movie. And the
pictures taken from the movies and the reviews of the movies were all in
favor of G2K.
> Does that make sense to you now?
But you aren't making any points. You haven't proven anything.
> > > I mean, no offence but it seems like youąll only believe what you
> > > want to hear and the moment the first dissenting voice appeared
(ie
> Norman's) you
> > > were quick to dismiss it. Sorry, Norman has *seen* the film you
know, just
> > > like he saw gamera 3.
> >
> > You just can't seem to get the concept that the reason for reading
> > reviews is to come up with an opinion.
>
> No, the reason to read reviews is to read *other peoples* opinions -
the
> final arbitor must be *you* when you *see* the film. Until then it
isn't an
> informed opinion - you've not *experienced* the movie in question,
you're
> just making guesses on what other people say.
Are you a tad bit slow? You read a review to make a judgment on how good
the film is. While we wan't to know their opinions, it's also to come up
with an opinion of your own. You don't go to a movie with out thinking
anything of the film, you go to it thinking it will be a good film BASED
on what you have seen/heard of the film.
> > And while I have been saying the
> > film looks/sounds great, I never said it is great.
>
> Going back to your own words, you said it *looked* better than Gamera
3 -
> how can you know that? A half-arsed "opinion" of an unfinished movie
> compared to one you haven't seen. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Okay, I'll give you this. If I was trying to compare the two movies, I'd
be wrong. But I compare picture on picture, review on riview. Same
things from each movie, nothing wrong with that.
> > > Likewise, prior to the release of G2K you were giving us the
wisdom
> > of your knowledge that G2K - a film yet to be completed - looked
better than
> > Gamera 3 - a film you had not seen. Based on what?! A few photoąs
and word of
> > > mouth?
> >
> > Why did I ever leave AMM? Oh-yeah, pointless debates like this.
>
> Leave? I thought you ran away?
Now that I think of it, I think it was so I wouldn't have to stomp all
over poor saps like you.
> :-)
>
> > Ones where the other person knows nothing of what they are talking
about.
>
> CONTRADITION ALERT!
>
> You know nothing about G2K and G3 because you've not seen them, *you*
know
> "nothing of what they (you) are talking about".
Lets see, I do know about the film. I know the plot, I know what various
people though of the film, I know what some scenes look like. Again, you
know nothing of what you are talking about. GET A CLUE!
> Boy, did you walk into that one!
Was there a trap?? Oh, it must have failed. Better luck on the next one.
> > I saw pictures of G3, I saw picture of G2K. G2K pictures looked
better.
>
> Oh sheesh, what a *shallow* way of forming an opinion. Ever heard of
the
> saying "never judge a book by its cover"? Pathetic!
PLEASE LORD, MAKE IT STOP! I swear, I will go to church every Sunday,
and pray every night. And I'll devote my life to you, just let John make
one good comment. John, that's the whole point of releasing the
pictures. They don't release them so you can look at them and say 'Look
a picture.' 'Yes, that is a picture alright.', no, they release them so
you will think (aka. and opinion) the movie will be good.
Do I have to break down everything for you?
> > I read reviews of G3, and I read reviews of G2K. G2K sounded better.
>
> No bucko, you were saying that about the two movies *before* G2K was
even
> finished, *before* any reviews were published. Really, do you want me
shame
> you by dredging through the Deja News again?
Oh lord, we had a little Japanese translation of the plot very early.
Must you keep coming back for more and more embarrassment??
> > I never said G2K was 100% better than G3,
>
> There you go with the percentages again. Well, if you reread my posts,
I
> never claimed you said G2K was "100% better than G3".
Um, yeah. What is your point?
> > I said from the exact same
> > things I've seen of both films,
>
> Immaterial, you've not seen either films, but go on...
Typo, that's suppose to be 'things I've seen FROM both films' not 'of
both films'.
> > G2K sounded better. Nothing is wrong
> > with that, nothing at all. Can you grasp that concept?
>
> Everything is wrong with that for the reasons I've alread outlined
above.
> Until you *see* the movies, your "opinion" is based on nothing but
> speculation. It's next to worthless, more so when you have the
audacity to
> call into question someone who *has* seen the film.
No, these 'brain storms' of yours are worthless. Please say something
smart, anything. I know, say this. 4+4=8. Please, just say it. I need to
hear you say something smart.
> > > Sorry chum, but you seem very adept at giving us opinions based on
> > things you *have not* seen or experienced. Iąd rather hear *your*
opinion
> > based on what *you see* not what others tell you nor what you
imagine/hope a
> > movie is going to be like.
> >
> > Which I have over and over. Read the above comment.
>
> No you havne'nt. Reread the above line - and I qoute - "Iąd rather
hear
> *your* opinion based on what *you see* not what others tell you nor
what
> you imagine/hope a movie is going to be like". You have not *seen*
either
> movie in question therefore you do not fit your own criteria. You are
> contradicting yourself again.
4+4=8
> >
> >> Frankly there is more to opinion than just opening your mouth and
> >> letting the words fall out. I prefer an *informed* opinion and
there are
> >> plenty of people on this NG who take the time and trouble to give
one,
> you know,
> >> actually *seeing* the film in question. I may not agree with what
> >> they say, but at least they have seen it.
> >
> > I never said the films were better, again, I said the plot reviews
made
> > G2K sound better. And the pictuers I've seen made G2K look better. I
> > have never said the film G2K is better than the film G3, I said it
> > seems better to me... AN OPINION!
>
> No, at the time you were comparing snatches of information about an
> uncompleted movie against one you had not seen. That my friend is
*not* the
> time to start making comparisons.
From what I've heard from both films, G2K sounded better. Look up the
following words: contradiction, & opinion.
> As I said, a lot of people here make the effort of actually *seeing*
> something before giving their opinions. Trying learning from them.
4+4=8
> > > With you itąs next to futile trying to have a reasoned debate
because
> > > you're just not very well informed. And when it comes to
proffering
> > > opinions on movies, you *have* to see the damn thing!
> >
> > Lets get one thing straight, if I am not well informed,
>
> You're not very well informed, oops, sorry jumped the gun...
>
> > I am a HELL of a lot more informed than you.
>
> Really? Based on what? Experience obviously, of just looking at a few
> pictures on the internet and being "informed".
Maybe, but that doesn't change the facts. You have proven nothing, I
have. I'm must be more informed.
> > And no you don't have to see the film,
> > since I am not trying to debate which film is better!!
>
> No, you're offering an "opinion" on which one you think sounds better,
even
> though you've seen neither...
> Care to share your views on travelling to
> countries you've never been too? How does the night life in Norway
compare
> to the wilds of Alaska? I know you've probably never been to either,
but
> that should'nt stop you based on a few pics...
Try this one 5+4=9. By the way, you haven't proven anyting yet. I'm sill
waiting!
Johnny-boy | G-dog
0 | 3
-G-dog (still waiting for this 'debate' to start)
Jonathan Mock
> In article <jonathan.mock>,
> > B U L L S H I T
>
> Calm down, breath, breath, breath. Good boy.
If wit were shit, you'd be covered in it...
:-)
> > So now you're trying to say you're talking about *trailers*? That's
> funny,
> > 'cos I saw no mention of the word "trailers" in your previous post. In
> > fact, this is the first time you've mention trailers. Nice attempt at
> a get
> > out, but sorry you're not fooling anyone.
>
> Oh man, you need a clue buddy. What the hell do you think I was talking
> about when I said 'from what Toho released'? Did they release Pokemon
> dulls? No. Gum? No. Trailers!! Good lord, are you trying to be this
> ignorant?
Oh nice try, but no. It was only when I cited a clear example of your own
hopeless contradiction that you suddenly start blurting out that you were
actually talking about trailers - sorry kid, the evidence is there for all
to see. Like I said, *old trick* but I guess you think it's clever.
> No little boy,
How cute, he's now trying to mimic my style. Close, but no cigar...
> I never said the word 'trailer', but anybody with 1/5 of
> a horses brain
Fractions now! This kid likes his maths...
> could figure out I meant trailers from when I said 'from
> what Toho has released'.
That that'll just be you then.
So that will be the G-Dog defence from now on, as soon as you get hoist by
your own petard you'll wriggle around squeeling that "I was talking about
something else". Like I said, nice try, you'll get points for naivety at
least.
> > Either way, trailers don't mean squat in the scheme of things. I've
> > seen many piss-poor films on the strength of a really neat trailer - Congo
> and
> > The Shadow springs to mind. Get my drift?
>
> Well, Congo kicked ass.
Oh lordy, now I know I'm talking to a lost cause...
> And I never said trailers were right on. The
> point of one is to get you excited,
Glad I don't do your laundry...
> and form an opinion as to if it
> looks good... then you'll wanna see it. Try thinking a little.
CONTRADICTION ALERT!
Try thinking a little? Yeah I do *after* I've seen the film. I don't have
my opinions spoon fed to me and then go shouting my mouth of a that a
review seems "very inaccurate" when I've not even seen the damn film, only
some pics, speculation and "trailers".
You walked into that one laddy!
> > You did not mention trailers before. Sheesh, I have you *own words* up
> > there in front of you. Please point out where you mentioned "trailers"
> (and don't try adding it in later).
>
> I don't have to. Like I said, I based my opinion on what Toho *released*
> and reviews from other people.What the hell do you think Toho has been
> releasing??
Nice try, but no. We were talking about the G2K *the movie* now you claim
you were talking about *the trailers*.
> Honey covered turd on a stick?
No, you finish it off.
> No, THEY'VE BEEN RELEASING
> TRAILERS. There is no way you could be trying to be this dumb.
Certainly not dumb enough to fall for your revisionist stunt. Now you can't
mention trailers enough. Not fooling me sunshine.
> > Again, I have posted *your own words* in front of you. Funny how this
> is
> > now all about trailers, something you *did* not mention in the post I
> > qouted from. Do I sense G-Dog is wriggling on the hook here..?
>
> Nope. Sorry, you didn't prove anything. I never said you needed to see
> the film to form an opinion, which you seem to think I did.
Nice one, you walked smack into that and let me qoute that back to you
"I never said you needed to see the film to form an opinion"
You have now clearly stated to all that it's ok to *form an opinion on a
movie without seeing it*, and thus it's ok call into question a review from
someone who has. Great line of logic.
I think you need insoles so that you can see where you're c'os at the
moment you're all over the place...
> But I never
> did, so I never contradicted myself.
I forgot you were talking about "trailers", something you singularly forgot
to mention up until your fingers were caught in the till.
> Good lord, try thinking just a tad.
Well you see titch, I do. I read reviews to hear other peoples opinions of
a movie, I don't take together a few scraps of info then starting strutting
around a newsgroup like I'm know-it-all Dr Zee from Galactica 80 (a bit
before your time, but the older members of this NG will nejoy the reference
- and the comparison).
You seen to have a very shallow way of determining your likes and dislikes.
Inexperince I guess.
> Let me break it down for you. I said 'from what Toho released'. Now,
> what could that mean?
We were talking about the film. Now you're talking about trailers.
> Well, could it be trailers?? YES!! What else could
> fit in? So, like I said I formed an opinion from what Toho released (and
> since you seem to be a bit slow, I'll say it again. aka. TRAILERS),
Kid can't get enough of that word now...
> which I said is what they're for. So, I'm not contradicting myself.
Sorry bukco, you're now trying to distance youself from what you said - and
from what I reposted to this group - by claiming you were talking about
something else. And you're now shedding feathers that I'm not going to
clean up...
> > I'm afraid I have laddie, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it by
> > saying you were talking about "trailers" all along. I've seen that
> > kind of mavouvre before, but I can't blame you for thinking it was
worth a try
> > - I guess every smart-ass comment you come up with must seem like it's new
>> and clever to you at the moment.
>
> Oh boy, looky here. I really got you in a hole now.
It's not very deep - goes over you head but only up to my shins. Keep digging...
> The only thing you
> can do is put words in my mouth. Ya see, what exactly did you think I
> meant by 'what Toho has released'?
Reread you won post. We were talking about G2K, the movie and the reviews
thus far. Now you think we were talking about trailers.
I guess next time arond you'll claim you thouht we were talking about G98.
O hook worm always wriggle the hardest...
> > Nice try at the adolescent bravado, but your ass has just been well
> > and truly kicked and the evidence is there for all to see. You talk aboutone
> > thing in your previous posts and then when you get caught out by your
> own words, you start squealing that you were talking about something else.
> > Nice move but, I'm already there.
>
> Oh no, old Johnny-boy is delusional! You just can't admit defeat, face
> it, you're beat.
Yeah right, you've taken the shine off my boots every time you've hit them
with your butt...
> Give it up.
I'll give it up if you post an apology to Norman England on this newsgroup
for having the balls to claim his review was "very inaccurate" when you've
not even seen the film in question.
> > Boy, that's got to hurt...
>
> Yeah, it does hurt to see you struggling, trying desperately to save
> your smashed and defeated ass.
<snigger>
> Should I put him out of his misery?
I love it when kids try to be taken seriously...
--
Jonathan Mock
³Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...²
Jonathan Mock
> > No, reread your own words, you said Norman's review seemed "very
> > inaccurate" - you cast doubts on an experienced - and much respected -
> > kaiju reviewer like Norman England not based on your *own* opinion of
> > seeing a movie, but based on a *couple* of other reviews on a movie - by
> > your own admission - you have not seen. Now does that make sense?
>
> No? Lets see, I said it 'sounds very inaccurate' because of what others
> had said on the film. So, yes. You can now stop proving you don't know
> what you're talking about.
CONTRADICTION ALERT!
I don't know what I'm talking about? You've not seen G2K, how the hell do
you know what you're talking about?! I forget, you've read a couple of
reviews and that's enough for you to decide who's right and who's wrong,
even though you've not seen the movie where only you can act as final
arbitor.
Or are you talking about trailers? <giggle>
> > I mean if you're going to question someones intergity, at least have
> the decency to see the same damn film.
>
> Please, say something smart.
Smart.
> Every argument I've been in, the other has
> said some stuff that was smart. But you, can't you say one little thing?
> I didn't say he was wrong, never, nope, never did. I said he *SOUNDED*
> inaccurate judging from how other reviews differed. God, is this really
> worth my time?
Irrelevent - if you're going to cast doubts on someone else word, at least
be up to their level (in every sense). If you're going to compare reviews,
at least have the common sense to *see the movie* - it's like trying to
compare the taste of food by keeping your mouth shut.
(Note - you might like to try that last bit).
> > No, you said his reviews seemed "very inaccurate" - read your own
> words.
>
> Another pointless comment, oh man. But I guess you never really had one
> from the start.
I posted you own words and now you're backing away from them. If you're
going to make claims, at least have the balls to stick by them. Or were you
talking about trailers?
<fnrrk!>
> > You also posted to this group that it *sounded* better than another film
> > you hadn't even seen. How can you form opinions that you expect to be taken
> > seriously, and that you post to this NG, on movies you've *not* seen? I
> > thought Congo looked great, it sucked ass in the end.
>
> Oh for the love of god make him stop!! Guess what? I never compared to
> two films.
Hello, my name is Deja-News. I store all the posts made to this newsgroup.
Please come by and look up anything you want.
> I compared pictures and reviews from each movie. And the
> pictures taken from the movies and the reviews of the movies were all in
> favor of G2K.
How?! For the love of... how?! How did you arrive at the decision?
> > Does that make sense to you now?
No!
> But you aren't making any points. You haven't proven anything.
Well, when the sky is blue, I don't really need to go around telling people
that...
> > No, the reason to read reviews is to read *other peoples* opinions -
> > the final arbitor must be *you* when you *see* the film. Until then it
> > isn't an informed opinion - you've not *experienced* the movie in question,
> > you're just making guesses on what other people say.
>
> Are you a tad bit slow? You read a review to make a judgment on how good
> the film is.
Oh G-Dog, you have just come up with a gem there that I will hand around
your neck like the albatros in Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner.
"You read a review to make a judgment on how good the film is"
I *see* the film then I make a *judgement* as to how good it is. By your
own words there, you judge a film by the reviews to see *how good it is*.
Beautiful!
>While we wan't to know their opinions, it's also to come up
> with an opinion of your own. You don't go to a movie with out thinking
> anything of the film, you go to it thinking it will be a good film BASED
> on what you have seen/heard of the film.
Yeah ok, fair enough, but I then don't start posting to a newsgroup saying
which review I think is right or wrong *before* I've seen the film.
Duh!
> > Going back to your own words, you said it *looked* better than Gamera 3 -
> > how can you know that? A half-arsed "opinion" of an unfinished movie
> > compared to one you haven't seen. Do you see what I'm getting at?
>
> Okay, I'll give you this. If I was trying to compare the two movies, I'd
> be wrong. But I compare picture on picture, review on riview. Same
> things from each movie, nothing wrong with that.
Hopeless! You compare the two movies once you've *seen* them!
> > > Why did I ever leave AMM? Oh-yeah, pointless debates like this.
> >
> > Leave? I thought you ran away?
>
> Now that I think of it, I think it was so I wouldn't have to stomp all
> over poor saps like you.
Well, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out...
> > CONTRADITION ALERT!
> >
> > You know nothing about G2K and G3 because you've not seen them, *you* know
> > "nothing of what they (you) are talking about".
>
> Lets see, I do know about the film.
The title. That's about it.
> I know the plot,
You know what others have told you about the plot...
> I know what various
> people though of the film, I know what some scenes look like.
Big deal. I know all that about any number of upcoming movies. That makes
me informed?
> Again, you know nothing of what you are talking about.
Au contre my distressed little canine, you;r the one who's posting opinions
to this NG on things you know nothing about. Until you've *seen* G2K, your
opinions are not informed. Big difference.
> GET A CLUE!
Got Cluedo, is that close?
> > Boy, did you walk into that one!
>
> Was there a trap?? Oh, it must have failed. Better luck on the next one.
And Whil Wheaton wondered why people hated Wesley Crusher...
> > > I saw pictures of G3, I saw picture of G2K. G2K pictures looked
> better.
> >
> > Oh sheesh, what a *shallow* way of forming an opinion. Ever heard of the
> > saying "never judge a book by its cover"? Pathetic!
>
> PLEASE LORD, MAKE IT STOP! I swear, I will go to church every Sunday,
> and pray every night. And I'll devote my life to you, just let John make
> one good comment.
Never chase a man over cliff - hows that?
> John, that's the whole point of releasing the
> pictures. They don't release them so you can look at them and say 'Look
> a picture.' 'Yes, that is a picture alright.', no, they release them so
> you will think (aka. and opinion) the movie will be good.
Actually they release pictures to *publicise* the movie.
Sure, they present them in a way to give a favouable impression, but the
final judgement is made when you see them movie.
> > No bucko, you were saying that about the two movies *before* G2K was
> even finished, *before* any reviews were published. Really, do you want me
> shame you by dredging through the Deja News again?
>
> Oh lord, we had a little Japanese translation of the plot very early.
> Must you keep coming back for more and more embarrassment??
Deja-News beckons...
> > > I never said G2K was 100% better than G3,
> >
> > There you go with the percentages again. Well, if you reread my posts, I
> > never claimed you said G2K was "100% better than G3".
>
> Um, yeah. What is your point?
My point is that you threw up a red herring there, trying to make something
out of nothing as a way of justifying your arguement.
> > > I said from the exact same
> > > things I've seen of both films,
> >
> > Immaterial, you've not seen either films, but go on...
>
> Typo, that's suppose to be 'things I've seen FROM both films' not 'of
> both films'.
Don't forget to throw in the word "trailers" as well, just so we know
exactly what your vaguely alluding to...
> > > G2K sounded better. Nothing is wrong
> > > with that, nothing at all. Can you grasp that concept?
> >
> > Everything is wrong with that for the reasons I've alread outlined above.
> > Until you *see* the movies, your "opinion" is based on nothing but
> > speculation. It's next to worthless, more so when you have the audacity to
> > call into question someone who *has* seen the film.
>
> No, these 'brain storms' of yours are worthless. Please say something
> smart, anything. I know, say this. 4+4=8. Please, just say it. I need to
> hear you say something smart.
See, I caught you out by your own arguement and then you start talking
about something else as away of masking your own incompetance. Nice try
kid, no that's never been done before, no sireee bob...
> > No you havne'nt. Reread the above line - and I qoute - "Iąd rather
> > hear *your* opinion based on what *you see* not what others tell you nor
> > what you imagine/hope a movie is going to be like". You have not *seen*
> > either movie in question therefore you do not fit your own criteria.
You are
> > contradicting yourself again.
>
> 4+4=8
Damn kids obsessed with maths! And Congo...
> > No, at the time you were comparing snatches of information about an
> > uncompleted movie against one you had not seen. That my friend is *not* the
> > time to start making comparisons.
>
> From what I've heard from both films, G2K sounded better.
.. at which point you decided that was enough to call into question
someones first hand account of the movie.
> Look up the
> following words: contradiction, & opinion.
Well according to Oxford OED (the foundation of the English language)
"Opinion: Judgement or beliff not founded on certainty or proof"
"Contradiction: A statement that is at variance with itself"
I'm sooo glad you made me do that! They must have written that with you in mind!
> > As I said, a lot of people here make the effort of actually *seeing*
> > something before giving their opinions. Trying learning from them.
>
> 4+4=8
See what I mean? It's AMMs own Carol Vooderman.
> > > I am a HELL of a lot more informed than you.
> >
> > Really? Based on what? Experience obviously, of just looking at a few
> > pictures on the internet and being "informed".
>
> Maybe, but that doesn't change the facts. You have proven nothing, I
> have. I'm must be more informed.
I've proved how you trip youself up with your own words, how you contradict
youself, how you try to change the meaning of what you've said in previous
posts, wriggle, wriggle wriggle...
> > No, you're offering an "opinion" on which one you think sounds better, even
> > though you've seen neither... Care to share your views on travelling to
> > countries you've never been too? How does the night life in Norway compare
> > to the wilds of Alaska? I know you've probably never been to either, but
> > that should'nt stop you based on a few pics...
>
> Try this one 5+4=9.
I'll have a vowell please Carol...
> By the way, you haven't proven anyting yet. I'm sill waiting!
Sky is blue laddie, sky is blue...
> Johnny-boy | G-dog
> 0 | 3
Er... putting the ball into your own net doesn't quite count...
:-)
--
Jonathan Mock
łQuick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...˛
world_g...@hotmail.com
brothers computer. So, I have to be brief. The only thing I saw that I
need to comment on (the others spoke for themselves), was when you
asked how I could decide G2K pictures/reviews were better than G3
pictures/reviews. Simple, they made G2K look/sound better. Maybe they
were just bad pics from G3, I don't know. But from comparing the same
info from each film, G2K sounds better. Simple enough.
-G-dog
world_g...@hotmail.com
ya02408000R18...@news.ukonline.co.uk>,
jonathan.m...@ukonline.co.uk (Jonathan Mock) wrote:
> From: world_g...@hotmail.com (allowed to stay up late tonight...)
> > In article <jonathan.mock>,
>
> > > B U L L S H I T
> >
> > Calm down, breath, breath, breath. Good boy.
>
> If wit were shit, you'd be covered in it...
>
> :-)
Yaaaaaaaaaaawn.
> > > So now you're trying to say you're talking about *trailers*?
That's
> > funny,
> > > 'cos I saw no mention of the word "trailers" in your previous
post. In
> > > fact, this is the first time you've mention trailers. Nice
attempt at
> > a get
> > > out, but sorry you're not fooling anyone.
> >
> > Oh man, you need a clue buddy. What the hell do you think I was
talking
> > about when I said 'from what Toho released'? Did they release
Pokemon
> > dulls? No. Gum? No. Trailers!! Good lord, are you trying to be this
> > ignorant?
>
> Oh nice try, but no. It was only when I cited a clear example of your
own
> hopeless contradiction that you suddenly start blurting out that you
were
> actually talking about trailers - sorry kid, the evidence is there
for all
> to see. Like I said, *old trick* but I guess you think it's clever.
*old trick*, you just can't except you were wrong. Okay, fine. Since
you seem to know what I mean, what did I mean by 'what they released'?
> > could figure out I meant trailers from when I said 'from
> > what Toho has released'.
>
> That that'll just be you then.
>
> So that will be the G-Dog defence from now on, as soon as you get
hoist by
> your own petard you'll wriggle around squeeling that "I was talking
about
> something else". Like I said, nice try, you'll get points for naivety
at
> least.
What's the matter?? Affraid I got you trapped? Tell me, if I didn't
mean that, what exactly has Toho released that I could have possibly
been talking about?
> > > Either way, trailers don't mean squat in the scheme of things.
I've
> > > seen many piss-poor films on the strength of a really neat
trailer - Congo
> > and
> > > The Shadow springs to mind. Get my drift?
> >
> > Well, Congo kicked ass.
>
> Oh lordy, now I know I'm talking to a lost cause...
Same could be said about you thinking Congo sucks...
> > And I never said trailers were right on. The
> > point of one is to get you excited,
>
> Glad I don't do your laundry...
HAHAHA that's the dumbest comment yet. Don't try to be funny, it just
doesn't work.
> > and form an opinion as to if it
> > looks good... then you'll wanna see it. Try thinking a little.
>
> CONTRADICTION ALERT!
You think everything is conradiction, look it up already. Well, at
least you spelled it right this time.
> Try thinking a little? Yeah I do *after* I've seen the film. I don't
have
> my opinions spoon fed to me and then go shouting my mouth of a that a
> review seems "very inaccurate" when I've not even seen the damn film,
only
> some pics, speculation and "trailers".
I don't know if you noticed, but I'm not giving a review of the film.
To do that I WOULD need to see the film. But I'm saying it looks good,
I can't wait to see it, and not to give up hope because of what Norman
said.
This is hopeless. Johnny-boy, you wouldn't know your ass from a hole in
the ground.
> You walked into that one laddy!
Walked into, and walked right out with out the trap every going off.
> > > You did not mention trailers before. Sheesh, I have you *own
words* up
> > > there in front of you. Please point out where you
mentioned "trailers"
> > (and don't try adding it in later).
> >
> > I don't have to. Like I said, I based my opinion on what Toho
*released*
> > and reviews from other people.What the hell do you think Toho has
been
> > releasing??
>
> Nice try, but no. We were talking about the G2K *the movie* now you
claim
> you were talking about *the trailers*.
No, I wasn't. I guess we found out Johnny-boy's defence. Make a point,
by putting words in the other persons mouth. Nice try, but it wont
work. And by the way, that makes no sence. Toho has *not* released the
film, so that wouldn't fit into the quote 'what Toho has released'.
Nice try, but no cigar.
> > Honey covered turd on a stick?
>
> No, you finish it off.
oh, here is Johnny-boy's other defence, personal attacks. What's the
matter, you lossing?? Oh I'm so sorry John, but you bit off more than
you could chew.
> > No, THEY'VE BEEN RELEASING
> > TRAILERS. There is no way you could be trying to be this dumb.
>
> Certainly not dumb enough to fall for your revisionist stunt. Now you
can't
> mention trailers enough. Not fooling me sunshine.
??? One, try alt.gay.male for sunshine, and trailer is just another way
of saying 'what Toho has realeased' After all, they haven't released
the film as you seem to think.
This is too easy.
> > > Again, I have posted *your own words* in front of you. Funny how
this
> > is
> > > now all about trailers, something you *did* not mention in the
post I
> > > qouted from. Do I sense G-Dog is wriggling on the hook here..?
> >
> > Nope. Sorry, you didn't prove anything. I never said you needed to
see
> > the film to form an opinion, which you seem to think I did.
>
> Nice one, you walked smack into that and let me qoute that back to you
>
> "I never said you needed to see the film to form an opinion"
Okay, lets see. YOu just quoted a me from a previous post, when that is
what I just said. Why? Could it be you are struggling to make a point?
Yes.
> You have now clearly stated to all that it's ok to *form an opinion
on a
> movie without seeing it*, and thus it's ok call into question a
review from
> someone who has. Great line of logic.
Yeah I know, and like I said. I formed an opinion from trailers (aka
what Toho has released), pics, and reviews. Every single time you think
you made a point, BANG, I shoot ya down. Nice try though... not really.
> I think you need insoles so that you can see where you're c'os at the
> moment you're all over the place...
Here's some better defense for you. You can't be taken seriously when
you put words in the other persons mouth to make a point. It aint
working, try something new.
> > But I never
> > did, so I never contradicted myself.
>
> I forgot you were talking about "trailers", something you singularly
forgot
> to mention up until your fingers were caught in the till.
HAHAHA oh this is a riot!
> > Good lord, try thinking just a tad.
>
> Well you see titch, I do. I read reviews to hear other peoples
opinions of
> a movie, I don't take together a few scraps of info then starting
strutting
> around a newsgroup like I'm know-it-all Dr Zee from Galactica 80 (a
bit
> before your time, but the older members of this NG will nejoy the
reference
> - and the comparison).
HAHAHA sorry, but you only need to see the film to make a review, which
I'm not doing. Got clue?
> You seen to have a very shallow way of determining your likes and
dislikes.
> Inexperince I guess.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
> > Let me break it down for you. I said 'from what Toho released'. Now,
> > what could that mean?
>
> We were talking about the film. Now you're talking about trailers.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know the film has been released. I was under
the impression it was to be released December 11, 1999. My bad.
> > Well, could it be trailers?? YES!! What else could
> > fit in? So, like I said I formed an opinion from what Toho released
(and
> > since you seem to be a bit slow, I'll say it again. aka. TRAILERS),
>
> Kid can't get enough of that word now...
HEHEHE, oh, HAHAHAAHA. Nice defence!!! HAHAHAAHAHAH!! Let me try your
defence. In you 3rd post you said, and I quote, 'I was wrong, you were
right'. Hey, that is a nice defence Johnny!!! Putting words in others
mouths really works!!
> > > I'm afraid I have laddie, and now you're trying to wriggle out of
it by
> > > saying you were talking about "trailers" all along. I've seen that
> > > kind of mavouvre before, but I can't blame you for thinking it was
> worth a try
> > > - I guess every smart-ass comment you come up with must seem like
it's new
> >> and clever to you at the moment.
> >
> > Oh boy, looky here. I really got you in a hole now.
>
> It's not very deep - goes over you head but only up to my shins. Keep
> digging...
Is that the best you can do?? Guess what? You would have to be about 20
feet for that, and judging from how I'm stomping you into the ground I
think I'm the 20 foot person here.
> > The only thing you
> > can do is put words in my mouth. Ya see, what exactly did you think
I
> > meant by 'what Toho has released'?
>
> Reread you won post. We were talking about G2K, the movie and the
reviews
> thus far. Now you think we were talking about trailers.
HAHAAH, I'm pretty sure G2K gets released December 11, and this is
November 18. So how could Toho have released the film?? HAHAHAA
> I guess next time arond you'll claim you thouht we were talking about
G98.
> O hook worm always wriggle the hardest...
HAHAHAHAHA Johnny-boy can't come up with a point. It's okay Johnny,
keep clawing, you'll get out of the hole.
> > > Nice try at the adolescent bravado, but your ass has just been
well
> > > and truly kicked and the evidence is there for all to see. You
talk aboutone
> > > thing in your previous posts and then when you get caught out by
your
> > own words, you start squealing that you were talking about
something else.
> > > Nice move but, I'm already there.
> >
> > Oh no, old Johnny-boy is delusional! You just can't admit defeat,
face
> > it, you're beat.
>
> Yeah right, you've taken the shine off my boots every time you've hit
them
> with your butt...
Come on, claw, claw, claw! You can do it Johnny, get out of that hole.
Repeate after me, I THINK I CAN, I THINK I CAN, I THINK I CAN!
> > Give it up.
>
> I'll give it up if you post an apology to Norman England on this
newsgroup
> for having the balls to claim his review was "very inaccurate" when
you've
> not even seen the film in question.
Keep clawing. Here, I'll lend you a hand. Along with not putting words
in my mouth, also include whole posts. Yes, if you say "very
inaccurate", which I said, it sounds like you're right. But, if you
include the whole quote you'll discover that I said it sounded very
incaccurate compared to other reviews. Big difference.
> > > Boy, that's got to hurt...
> >
> > Yeah, it does hurt to see you struggling, trying desperately to save
> > your smashed and defeated ass.
>
> <snigger>
>
> > Should I put him out of his misery?
>
> I love it when kids try to be taken seriously...
I know, aint it funny? But it's even more funny when adults who *think*
they're smart get beaten around by little kids. Ahhhhh, good times.
Once again, with the might of the back of my hand, I slap the down like
a little bitch. Please, due try again. And keep these hints in mind,
for they will help you in your quest to prove a point.
1) Do not put words in others mouths. It just wont work.
2) Include entire quotes, for it makes you look like a fool when
corrected
-G-dog (isn't Johnny funny when he trys to make a point?)
Jonathan Mock
>
>
>
> Well, I don't have a lot of time today because I'm doing this from my
> brothers computer.
> So, I have to be brief. The only thing I saw that I
> need to comment on (the others spoke for themselves), was when you
> asked how I could decide G2K pictures/reviews were better than G3
> pictures/reviews. Simple, they made G2K look/sound better.
Ok, G-Dog, I'm going hold over my riposte to your other post because we
suddenly seem to be making some ground here.
My point is that reviews are not the basis to form an opinion of a movie.
Some other people on this NG have recently posted their opinions based on
what they've seen, not what they heard. Indeed one eloquent poster *hoped*
that G2K would be as good as Gamera 3 (which he'd seen) - you see the
point? Note that word, *hope* - he wasn't forming an opinion about G2K, he
was merely hoping it would match what he's already seen in G3 (the movie).
Big difference.
> Maybe they
> were just bad pics from G3, I don't know. But from comparing the same
> info from each film, G2K sounds better. Simple enough.
>
>
> -G-dog
Ok, you think that based on what you've seen from a few scraps of
information (and those trailers this time around...) you think you're
looking forward more to G2K than G3 - fair enough.
But that is a different ball game to forming an opinion or indeed using
other peoples opinions as a basis to question one that doesn't fit into
your views on a movie you've yet to see.
I can kind of see the point you're now trying to make - the more measured
tone of your post does help a little - but the fact is you were bang out of
order to suggest Norman England's review seemed "very inaccurate" because
you have no direct basis on which to make that claim.
Ok, it was different to the others you read, but your choice of words -
"very inaccurate" - was a poor one, even if you didn't mean to question
Normans judgement.
My simple point is/was this - see the movie (see Gamera 3 if you get the
chance) *then* give us an opinion (on both preferably).
You'll find your views will be all the more welcome for it.
--
Jonathan Mock
³Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...²
world_g...@hotmail.com
<jonathan.mockSPAMOFF-ya0...@news.ukonline.co.uk>,
jonathan.m...@ukonline.co.uk (Jonathan Mock) wrote:
> > From: world_g...@hotmail.com (G-Chicken)
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, I don't have a lot of time today because I'm doing this from
my
> > brothers computer.
>
> > So, I have to be brief. The only thing I saw that I
> > need to comment on (the others spoke for themselves), was when you
> > asked how I could decide G2K pictures/reviews were better than G3
> > pictures/reviews. Simple, they made G2K look/sound better.
>
> Ok, G-Dog, I'm going hold over my riposte to your other post because
we
> suddenly seem to be making some ground here.
>
> My point is that reviews are not the basis to form an opinion of a
movie.
> Some other people on this NG have recently posted their opinions based
on
> what they've seen, not what they heard. Indeed one eloquent poster
*hoped*
> that G2K would be as good as Gamera 3 (which he'd seen) - you see the
> point? Note that word, *hope* - he wasn't forming an opinion about
G2K, he
> was merely hoping it would match what he's already seen in G3 (the
movie).
> Big difference.
Look, I understand everything you were saying. But I think you misread
what I said, or I didn't write it clear enough. I agree, you can't fully
form an opinion from pictures and others opinions alone. But I was not
trying to make a review of the film, which would just be stupid since I
haven't seen the film. I was pointing out (and I guess it wasn't clear
enough) that we shouldn't give up all hope because of what Norman said
(because everybody listens to him), because other reviews were saying
some VERY positive things about the film.
> > Maybe they
> > were just bad pics from G3, I don't know. But from comparing the
same
> > info from each film, G2K sounds better. Simple enough.
> >
> >
> > -G-dog
>
> Ok, you think that based on what you've seen from a few scraps of
> information (and those trailers this time around...) you think you're
> looking forward more to G2K than G3 - fair enough.
>
> But that is a different ball game to forming an opinion or indeed
using
> other peoples opinions as a basis to question one that doesn't fit
into
> your views on a movie you've yet to see.
I'm not forming a final opinion, just one to get me by until I can see
the films. I'm not trying to make a review of the film, but this is a
message board (or news group, same thing), and little info or a lot, the
point is to say what you're thinking.
> I can kind of see the point you're now trying to make - the more
measured
> tone of your post does help a little - but the fact is you were bang
out of
> order to suggest Norman England's review seemed "very inaccurate"
because
> you have no direct basis on which to make that claim.
Again, maybe I wasn't clear in my original post. But I was trying to
point out that other reviews were very positive, and not to give up hope
because of what Norman said. I suppose a better choice of words would
have been suited better, but the meaning was the same.
> Ok, it was different to the others you read, but your choice of words
-
> "very inaccurate" - was a poor one, even if you didn't mean to
question
> Normans judgement.
Yes, I agree as I said above.
> My simple point is/was this - see the movie (see Gamera 3 if you get
the
> chance) *then* give us an opinion (on both preferably).
>
> You'll find your views will be all the more welcome for it.
And I do intend to, you'll never escape my rambling ;-) But if it
sounded like I was putting Norman down, or trying to give a review of
the films, I wasn't. I have all the respect in the world for Norman, and
I just worded my post wrong.
It's good we finally have an understanding, AMM should be a lot more
enjoyable now that neither of us are ripping at each others throats.
-G-dog (I'm too easy to win over)
M Ghidorah
quoting. Its a real mess.
Keith Stevens
>enjoyable now that neither of us are ripping at each others throats.
I give it a week, maybe two, before G-Dog and somebody are fighting again.
%%
Goros...@aol.com (Remove "quae" to respond)
"Fly me to the Danger Zone."
Visit Henchboy and Monkey Productions---
http://members.aol.com/Gorosaurus/henchboy.html