Nothing says
"I'm over it," like a sub-pointed response and an all caps conclusion.
They're a band with a halo and an asterisk or two. When people shine the halo, others will point to the asterisk. Most of us will achieve neither.
Because they've apparently got nothing better to do, or more fulfilling to discuss, like the mindsets and beliefs behind certain movies, movie opinions and movie moralities, and how it applies to society. But if we're going to discuss anything, why not discuss things that haven't been resolved to the best of society's abilities already? The best anyone can hope for in Spirit's situation failed them twice in the best way anybody could hope for: the courthouse. In other words, this is one of those things nobody can do anything about. So to keep complaining about it and coming back to it for anybody, as if just posting Taurus again like half the nerds on the internet apparently haven't heard the comparison before, especially on forums like this, is basically resurrecting a dead fan riot.
On a place like this, there's more room for discussion concerning the world's perceptions of number 1 movies, and which users are being honest and which ones are being tools. The most interesting discussion we've had in a long time was the discussion about the potential political mindset behind Jeanne Dielman's position at the top of the new BFI Sight and Sound poll, which was a very interesting read. We can only hope to recreate that level of interest in a thread discussing The Godfather, as we could if the movie in question was 2001 or Citizen Kane or even Star Wars. But this Spirit discussion has been done for the last fifty years and we're all back to square one, and why? Simple. Because the only people who could do anything about it, the legal system, clearly decided it wasn't worth the hassle. eI'm here to have legitimate discussions about art on a more cerebral ground than that. Even RYM didn't stoop to this until the second lawsuit, and they gave it up after the Spirit supporters didn't get what they wanted.
If we're going to defend anything concerning freedom of speech, it should be more responsible to discuss something that hasn't already been put to silence by the highest powers possible, as if spouting the same complaint over the last 50 years would do anything.