XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.past-films   
   From: nospam@yahoo.com   
      
   Merrick Baldelli wrote:   
   > 1On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:58:14 +0800, "C'Pi"  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> Even the novelization hints at the possibility.  And that's all I'm   
   >>>> saying, that there is that possibility.  It's what I thought   
   >>>> happened when I first saw the movie.   
   >>>   
   >>> You already have my opinion readily available here on this   
   >>> thread on the novelization.   
   >>   
   >> Regarldless of how it got in the novelization it is there.  You may   
   >> think it's a "farce" but others don't.  Most notibly the author of   
   >> the novelization didn't.  I choose to take his opinion over yours.   
   >   
   > That's everyone's prerogative; to choose which options they   
   > "take" over someone else's.  What's the issue here, the fact that I   
   > don't share the opinion it isn't a farce?  Or the fact that my calling   
   > it (this discussion/debate) a farce was read too personally?  Looking   
   > back at the original message   
   > (), I said the word IT --   
   > meaning the it of the now, not the IT of the movie -- of which it   
   > seems you took particularly personal.   
      
   Well, the "it of the now" which you called a farce, was as far as I could   
   tell directed at me.  You did after all say, "It's becoming a farce" in what   
   seemed to be response to my post.  If you meant the discussion as a whole   
   and not me in particular making it a farce then that's nice.  But then the   
   discussion is the people in it, so I'm not sure how you separate the two.  I   
   may have not been the whole "farce" you were talking about, but I must have   
   been part of it.   
      
   >>> For the record, I civilly backed out of this debate given you   
   >>> the win, when I said I was picking up my hat.  I could've added some   
   >>> really good ad hominems if I felt like being uncivil about it.  As   
   >>> you seem to be trying to throw when you used the words   
   >>> unimaginative or ill-informed in my direction.   
   >>   
   >> If you weren't the guy that proclaimed I was a homophobic child being   
   >> attacked by gay jihadist in his mother's basement I might have taken   
   >> even a small part of what you said above seriously.  But since you   
   >> were that guy, I won't.   
   >   
   > Indeed...  Then allow me to tell you that I will take   
   > particular interest in reading your posts and riposting you   
   > accordingly if I continue to see pedantic and sophomoric comments like   
   > this (below):   
      
   As long as you now recognize your original response to me was anything but   
   civil, as you claim it was above.  I'm shocked you would even pretend it   
   was, since obviously you took what I said as offensive and wanted to make   
   sure in no uncertain terms I knew you found it that way by specifically   
   being uncivil.   
      
   >>>>>> Maybe he thought it was a good time to drop the dapper gay   
   >>>>>> politician look.   
   >   
   > Gay here is being used as a slur.  No ifs, ands or butts about   
   > it.  Apparently you're of heterosexual persuasion, and probably heard   
   > your peers saying it so much you don't even think twice about it.   
   >   
   > Trust me when I say, as an out queer of 28 years -- the use of   
   > the word "gay" in this instance *IS* a slur.  Just like I said below.   
      
   I disagree.  But I do recognize that you think it was.   
      
   >>> Swap out the word Gay for Nigger, Spic, Gook, Towel-head or   
   >>> some other colorful racial slurs that you can possibly think of and   
   >>> see how that sentence reads when you insert those words.  The use of   
   >>> the word GAY there is connoting a snide and derogatory meaning, one   
   >>> that I don't appreciate...   
   >>> Gay isn't the N-word of the 21st century, and having been   
   >>> fighting for LGBT rights longer than you've most probably been   
   >>> alive, I would appreciate it if semi-educated to uneducated folk   
   >>> such as yourself who think it's no big deal realize that the use of   
   >>> the word "gay" as you're using here carries all the same burdens   
   >>> and social misconceptions as using the N-word 50 years ago.   
   >>   
   >> Again, sounds like it's all your baggage and not mine.  Something   
   >> you have to work to work out, not me.   
   >   
   > Low-brow, ignorant mentality noted.  Prideful and willful   
   > disregard for knowing you were definitely in the wrong for use of that   
   > word also noted.   
   >   
   > And the fact that two people have called you out on it, and   
   > you continue to be obdurate thinking you said nothing wrong only   
   > enhances my opinion that you're ignorant.   
      
   That again is your opinion.  As I've said before, you are free to express it   
   as much as you like.   
      
   >>> It's far too two-dimensional, sophomoric and Greek for my   
   >>> taste.   
   >>   
   >> In a Star Wars movie?!?!?!  No, way!!   
   >   
   > *sigh* yes I know...  Still though, creation of Ewoks and   
   > JarJar Binx aside, I would think that Lucas would've learned from that   
   > mistake in the 80's.   
      
   I'd say he did try to move away from those things.  But the final result   
   ended up confusing and alienating his fans.   
      
   >>> Why must the delving into the Dark Arts always connote that an   
   >>> individual being physically misshapened from those studies?  Why   
   >>> must those of "evil" nature have to use illusions, phantasms and   
   >>> glamours in order to hide their true hideous nature?   
   >>   
   >> Because that's what Palapatine and Duuko did throughout the PT.   
   >> Even if he wasn't scarred before his encounter with Mace, that   
   >> doesn't change the fact that Palpatine did hide his true hideous   
   >> nature. It's an integral part of the story that you can't brush   
   >> aside just because you don't happen to like the idea.   
   >   
   > You don't answer the question, and instead stick steadfastly   
   > to an over-used device that Evil = hideously grotesque.  Are you   
   > obdurate much or did my slapping you for being impolite in the use of   
   > the word "gay" in the sentence above simply make you take an obdurate   
   > stand because you don't want to admit you were wrong in its use?   
      
   What does one have to do with the other?  Are you saying that evil equaling   
   to hideously grotesque is a moral issue, or where you changing the subject?   
      
   > The issue here is that you're clearly intending to imply the   
   > strong possibility Palpatine was always grotesque (through the use of   
   > the Dark Side of the Force) and that he hid it through glamours and   
   > illusions.  A perspective I don't share because it's pedantic,   
   > two-dimensional, disappointing, and contrived.  Something I don't   
   > share in because evil doesn't always have to be truly hideous, just as   
   > though evil doesn't have to be unnaturally beautiful.  It's the acts   
   > when using power (such as the Force) that make someone evil, not the   
   > way they look.   
      
   No, the point isn't that Palpatine was always grotesque. He was supposedly   
   physically warped by the powers he used. Now I understand you have a problem   
   with that, but I don't, given the whole underlying notion in Star Wars that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)