There's no 'theory.' I made a simple point: that the timing is consistent with it being true or false, and you ignored it and repeated yourself. We went through this several times. The fact that you won't respond to such a simple, relevant point is essentially admitting you can't or won't have a discussion about this, and that you're just here to monologue.
Just to be clear here I gave you an actually sourced response from an independent party that addressed your theory. Expecting me to de-cypher your twisted pretzel logic that you yourself claim could be true but it could also be false. And yet by making this "point" that is neither true nor false you wish for me to what, confirm that the thing you said could be true false. This is less a discussion of a case but rather a therapy session with a man with an ego issue.
And as I repeat myself yet again...explain how Frisco and Holdovers is the same film/plagiarized in your own words.
Things like this are how I know you're not paying attention: I don't have an opinion on whether it's the same story, I just know the reasoning is bad. I told you this explicitly. You have demonstrably hallucinated people's positions.
So in other words you don't care about the facts of the case you just want to contradict the facts of the case and insult the person who brings the facts out. We could use other words to describe your behavior...trolling or bullying. You consistently have said that I'm not listening to you, but then you say you don't care about the case.
I'm literally saying back to you what you said about yourself (about your "bs detector," remember?). It's telling how often I give you a straight description of something and you call it an insult, though.
I think it's very insulting to constantly accuse someone of not listening, Especially when that said person comes into this thread and posts sourced facts to address your feelings. Did you watch the video I posted or did you just not care.
Not a single person in this thread has bothered to articulate how The Holders and Frisco are the same/similar films.
I also think that, if you don't regard your own responses as insulting, you should probably reread those, too, because they frequently are. The tone in all of them is that everyone else is a gullible child who doesn't understand how the world works. They're smarmy, sarcastic, condescending, and demonstrate a lack of respect just through their obvious disregard for what other people actually said.
I am constantly insulted on this forum, it's why it's critical for me to speak with facts and sources. I don't have the luxury of dealing with your emotional issues because of a power imbalance. I don't have an issue with someone not knowing what I know. I have zero problems explaining history/facts/theories any of that sort of things. It seems to me that you don't really care about being an informed person. But that doesn't seem to be enough for you. You don't seem to care about the actual discussion topic rather you care about insulting someone you don't like.
This is kinda rich, because to whatever degree they're a 'coterie' is a reflection of how many of them have had similar interactions and come to similar conclusions. So yeah, if you alienate several people via the same argumentative methods, eventually you'll need a fancy collective noun to hold them all.
The measure of a man is not how often he stands but how often he stands alone.
Sorry, I don't follow the logic here. You're saying that if the timing of these accusations doesn't tell us anything, then the timing of how quickly you form conclusions can't matter, either...because they both involve the concept of 'timing'? Please explain.
The sourced testimonial from the person who explains the plagerizm process in Hollywood explains it. One of your first arguments was that timing in this case doesn't matter. This case that you don't care about breaks down into two very simple things. How the Holdovers was plagiarized with Frisco and how the complaint was received and processed. You don't like me so what I say doesn't matter so if you wish to understand this case watch the video.
People did do this, but you told them you couldn't be bothered to read it, and then argued back and forth for awhile about whether you should have to, expending just as much time in the argument as you would have reading primary sources. The same way you're now spending more time talking about other people than you would have spent responding to them meaningfully.
No I saw it was littered with lies and misrepresentations very early on. I then posted other sources of people saw the same thing. Not a single person in this thread has bothered to argue the counter point that Frisco and The Holdovers is plagiarized..just copying and pasting lies isn't what I'm asking for or expect. You want me to go through an entire legal document then you want me to post said legal documents and you want to make sure I say it in a way that doesn't insult you. But not a single one of you can be bothered to explain how Frisco and The Holdovers.
Are you actually trying to make the most basic component of disagreement--making points and having them responded to--sound demanding?
This is why I said it seems like you want to argue by the seat of your pants and/or monologue. Because you seem to resist things that require real effort: you don't want to verify things, you don't know or remember key interactions, and you seem scandalized that people expect responses to their arguments. The common thread being the desire for an extremely low-effort diffusion of opinion with little to no pushback. Otherwise known as a monologue.
I expect you to address the facts of the case not just the rhetoric. The goal of a discussion should be to come to the truth. You keep projecting your issues on me claiming that I'm not listening to you. But you also think that I'm this terrible person and you don't really care about the case anyways but you want me to address any issues you have. The point of an argument is not to make the other person feel heard or good about themselves it's for them to address their point of view or point of contention.
"We don't know for certain" is often a very good posture for things not involving us for which we lack information. You're not on a jury, you're not required to render a verdict. You also don't get any points or clout for getting your guess in first.
The other word for saying that when a person elects not to look at information is ignorance. Because we've got a timeline, and facts, historical context I gave you a testimonial. All I've really asked or expected from all you who hate me so much and think I'm such a bad guy is for you people to simply articulate in your own words how The Holdovers was plagiarized from Frisco.
Closed Thread
