Many bloodsucking insects

[funkychinaman]

Can we just explain our objections in the intro, including the two deaths that this film has directly contributed to? I'd be happy to whip one up.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

Can we just explain our objections in the intro, including the two deaths that this film has directly contributed to? I'd be happy to whip one up.

Don't change anything until others have had a chance to think about the matter. And it's not only 2 deaths. It's much more. But I don't think we need to start chronicling all the death and mayhem 'inspired' by the film since some of that is 'arguable' and we don't need to go down that road either.

[MT2008]

(1.) This Tec-9 dude is wrong (IMO), but I would appreciate it if you guys would stop using his behavior as an excuse to bash university students and academics. In case you've all forgotten, I am a graduate student, and I'm not a leftist. Also, if Tec-9 thinks his education automatically makes his opinions superior to ours, he'll have to argue his way past me first (and while I don't know for sure, I can almost assure you that the university where I'm doing my M.A. is ranked considerably above his own).

(2.) It is one thing to use the forum for debates (provided they don't degenerate into personal attacks and name-calling, which used to happen with BurtReynoldsMustache), but the site itself is for gun IDs only. The discussion pages should only be used for this purpose, not debating politics. I really wish you guys had just told Tec-9 to shut up and take it to the forum, and deleted his comments, instead of participating.

(3.) While I have zero respect for Tec-9's politics or his opinion of U.S. soldiers, I do think that it is somewhat unnecessary to have a disclaimer on the "Redacted" page. IMFDB exists to document guns in films/TV/video games only; the inclusion of anti-gun or anti-military media on the site should not be mistaken for anything other than completion purposes (as opposed to our political leanings). We can add this (or some equivalent universal disclaimer) in an appropriate heading on the Rules, Standards, and Principles page, but anyone who thinks that our page for "Redacted" indicates our support for Brian De Palma's politics needs their head examined anyway (IMO). Isn't it fairly intuitive that someone who would contribute to a site such as IMFDB would lean to the right on the political spectrum, and therefore find "Redacted" to be abhorrent?

[MT2008]

Oh, and Evil Tim, I appreciate your refutation of Tec-9's comments, but you do realize you're preaching to the choir, right?

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Oh, and Evil Tim, I appreciate your refutation of Tec-9's comments, but you do realize you're preaching to the choir, right?

Tim's post was actually brilliant. Tec-9's debating style is akin to much of the liberal left I have to deal with. I suppose my mind is not well tuned to "deflect and divert" tactics. I prefer honesty and straight talk and their intellectual dishonesty is astounding at times. I could not have designed a better refutation, and using his own quotes actually helped clarify my own thoughts on the matter. I always ended up more FLUSTERED than not, to I really had trouble engineering an appropriate response that fully outlined his hypocrisy.

On the point of disclaimers, I actually DISAGREE with you. I knew you never thought it necessary, but I feel VERY STRONGLY about it. I understand your point about pure neutrality on the site. But then, an 'academic' would think this way LOL. (just kidding, but you SHOULD know that a lot of academics see everything PURELY as an intellectual exercise, devoid of real world consequences, which is why many people get frustrated with them. There are tons of PhDs who have no clue how the real world works). And i know you understand other peoples' strong feelings otherwise on this one issue.

Okay, here is a digression. This dude, POI, Burt Reynolds Mustache. They create an interesting phenomenon in that they 'push' the envelope but never really far enough to merit banning them when they start. It's like it is an 'intellectual exercise' to see how much prodding it takes to make other members of IMFDB snap. It's like a kid poking you with a stick, gently over and over again.

My view is that we don't need people who feel pleasure in prodding others with provocative postings. But that's just an opinion. But I'm getting the same POI vibe here, albeit his world view is far more offensive to me (the quote alone of supporting the deaths of American troops for "much deserved" revenge by Muslims) crossed a line in my mind.

One important point: Other than pissing off a lot of members, this guy's contribution to this site consists purely of correcting our grammar, misspellings and some formatting changes. No information re guns. No Information re movies, tvs, anime, Videogames. He just walks in an restructures our sentences so that they flow more smoothly (sometimes the changes are irrelevant since the original wording was just fine). Nothing heinous here, but something I just noticed.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

On the point of disclaimers, I actually DISAGREE with you. I knew you never thought it necessary, but I feel VERY STRONGLY about it. I understand your point about pure neutrality on the site.

In all honesty, I don't feel strongly (not enough to really protest, anyway). But my opinion is that the disclaimer is unnecessary. I think the issue is legitimate even if the same cannot be said about Tec-9's world view.

As for the new disclaimer that was posted by Funkychinaman: If there is going to be a new disclaimer at all, I prefer the older one to this new one. This one is even less neutral than the previous.

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

But then, an 'academic' would think this way LOL. (just kidding, but you SHOULD know that a lot of academics see everything PURELY as an intellectual exercise, devoid of real world consequences, which is why many people get frustrated with them. There are tons of PhDs who have no clue how the real world works). And i know you understand other peoples' strong feelings otherwise on this one issue.

First of all, not sure about "academics" in general (that is a very broad term), but in my field, Political Science, I'd say that those "intellectual exercises" are how we come up with ways to explain state/non-state entities' behavior so that policymakers can make the appropriate decisions. For instance, the theory of "democratic peace" underlies the tendency of American policymakers to promote democratization abroad, and also makes a convenient argument against moron leftists who see moral equivalence between democracies and dictatorships.

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

Though I like your post, DOOM or violent videogames did not inspire the Columbine shootings. Bullying did.

Minor digression, bullying didn't cause Columbine, either. Read this (yes, it's Slate, but they're right this time).

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by MT2008

As for the new disclaimer that was posted by Funkychinaman: If there is going to be a new disclaimer at all, I prefer the older one to this new one. This one is even less neutral than the previous.

I tried to move away from merely stating our opinion, which, as many have pointed out, seems a bit out of place, to stating the fact that many disapprove of the film, and the reasons why. I admit I tried to present one side, and let the reader decide which side to fall on. It's like the difference between a campaign ad that states "I don't like Bob Smith," vs "Bob Smith raised taxes and is a convicted sex offender." Again, just an idea.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Minor digression, bullying didn't cause Columbine, either. Read this (yes, it's Slate, but they're right this time).

Thanks for that. VERY INTERESTING STUFF. At least SLATE didn't throw the blame on us stupid Americans and our 'fascination with guns' BS or that idiotic screed "Easy access to guns"......

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

Don't change anything until others have had a chance to think about the matter. And it's not only 2 deaths. It's much more. But I don't think we need to start chronicling all the death and mayhem 'inspired' by the film since some of that is 'arguable' and we don't need to go down that road either.

Well, I can't change anything, since the page is still locked.

For your consideration:

"'Redacted' is a 2007 film that is fictionalized account of the Mahmudiyah killings that occurred during the Iraq War, by writer and director Brian De Palma. The film was met with mixed reviews and extremely poor box office sales, with a total worldwide gross of less than a million dollars.

This film has been criticized for it's depiction of American servicemen, with a some going as far as accusing writer/director Brian De Palma and producer Mark Cuban of treason. Some have also criticized the film for not showing any repercussions of the crimes themselves, as the perpetrators of the actual Mahmudiyah killings received harsh sentences, ranging from 27 months for obstruction of justice to life imprisonment without possibly of parole for the ringleader. There was also the fear that the movie could incite violence towards Americans. These fears were realized in March of 2010 when two American airmen were killed and two others wounded in an attack allegedly perpetrated by a Islamic extremist who had watched a clip from this film on Youtube.

The following guns were used in the film Redacted"

[predator20]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

Well, I can't change anything, since the page is still locked.

For your consideration:

"'Redacted' is a 2007 film that is fictionalized account of the Mahmudiyah killings that occurred during the Iraq War, by writer and director Brian De Palma. The film was met with mixed reviews and extremely poor box office sales, with a total worldwide gross of less than a million dollars.

This film has been criticized for it's depiction of American servicemen, with a some going as far as accusing writer/director Brian De Palma and producer Mark Cuban of treason. Some have also criticized the film for not showing any repercussions of the crimes themselves, as the perpetrators of the actual Mahmudiyah killings received harsh sentences, ranging from 27 months for obstruction of justice to life imprisonment without possibly of parole for the ringleader. There was also the fear that the movie could incite violence towards Americans. These fears were realized in March of 2010 when two American airmen were killed and two others wounded in an attack allegedly perpetrated by a Islamic extremist who had watched a clip from this film on Youtube.

The following guns were used in the film Redacted"

Sounds good to me. Let's see what the others think.