I believe if you'll check my post, that's what I said.
I gave kudos to Sony for going ahead, even though they perceived it would hurt them in the racist international market. But, as I said, the conversation did happen. You said it didn't.
I know no one likes to be wrong but, , does everyone have to be so pedantic when they feel challenged over something so inconsequential. My comment was made at the end of a post, germane to this thread. It wasn't even relevant to the conversation but, as I stated, it was interesting because it crossed over into a discussion we were having in another thread.
2: Update at 8p.m. 12/18/14: Minutes after we published this story examining the known evidence for and against North Korea as the source of the hack, The New York Times and other media outlets announced that the U.S. administration was ready to conclude North Korea was involved in the Sony hack. We have updated the story with this new information.
Do you have some kind of "white privilege" Google Alert set up? This was the opinion of one University professor in an article devoted to collecting a variety of points of view on Sony's cancellation of The Interview.
Besides, Death of a President was controversial when it was released: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_o...film)#Response
Where have you seen any kind of widespread outcry over The Interview's depiction of Kim Jong Un being assassinated?
These were the updates they made to the article:
1 The New York Timesreported this evening that North Korea is “centrally involved” in the hack, citing unnamed U.S. intelligence officials. It’s unclear from the Times report what “centrally involved” means and whether the intelligence officials are saying the hackers were state-sponsored or actually agents of the state. The Times also notes that “It is not clear how the United States came to its determination that the North Korean regime played a central role in the Sony attacks.” The public evidence pointing at the Hermit Kingdom is flimsy.
2 New reports, however, indicate that intelligence officials who are not permitted to speak on the record have concluded that the North Koreans are behind the hack. But they have provided no evidence to support this and without knowing even what agency the officials belong to, it’s difficult to know what to make of the claim. And we should point out that intelligence agencies and government officials have jumped to hasty conclusions or misled the public in the past because it was politically expedient.
I certainly don't have any evidence one way or the other, so for all I know this could be Kim Jong Un himself and a group of his hacker buddies... But my point was that the North Korea/domestic terrorist threat, however unrealistic, is a great excuse for Sony to pull the movie completely and prevent additional leaks, which is their primary concern.
Which living state leaders were assassinated in Shanghai Express and The Bitter Tea of General Yen?
No, I just consume a wide range of information sources.
Controversial, sure. But, I dare to suggest if that movie were made today, about Obama, controversy wouldn't even begin to describe what would happen.
Nowhere, I probably wouldn't even be aware that North Korea had released a movie. Do they have a film industry?
Seriously? If the French made a movie where Obama got his head graphically exploded on video you don't think there would be fallout?
Before this happens I am on record...
Freedom Fries!
I thought we were talking about the Norks.
The French.
how much money are we spending on the TSA, airport security, ports of entry security over the terrerist boogeyman? and we can't even screen a movie without ting pants over a tweeter threat?
Yoni sure can't
I was planning on going to the movie.
People are way too scared of North Korea.
The only reason the country exists is so China can have a buffer state between it and South Korea.
You said Sony was right to pull it. You your pants over an anonymous, nonspecific tweet.
You're a coward.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-19-2014 at 01:35 AM.
Damn, winehole with no regard.
Yoni cringes in the face of terror and licks the boot of countervailing force. That's just how he rolls.
Not that it matters, I actually modified that remark in a later post. I realized posters such as you were unable to discern the meaning of what was being said, in the context of the greater conversation, and that you seize on simple words and phrases to pull out of a total conversation to beat other posters about the head a face with them and, so, thought better of using the word "right."
My saying they did the "right" thing was related to their reasonable concern that if ANYTHING had happened to ANYONE at ANY theater, where The Interview was being screened, they would be held liable if it could even be tangentially connected to their "refusal to bow to terrorist" and/or leaving the movie in theaters when they knew a threat existed. I was thinking of our litigious society, not terrorists.
Yonivore says
You said it was a clear case of state sponsored terrorism and suggested a nuclear bomb would an appropriate response.My saying they did the "right" thing was related to their reasonable concern that if ANYTHING had happened to ANYONE at ANY theater, where The Interview was being screened, they would be held liable if it could even be tangentially connected to their "refusal to bow to terrorist" and/or leaving the movie in theaters when they knew a threat existed. I was thinking of our litigious society, not terrorists
You quickly backpedaled when you saw how preposterous your own reaction was. I agree with you that it was ridiculous and applaud the more reasonable position you claim to hold now.
You're going to have to quote me on that.
You don't understand snark or sarcasm, do you?
Here are the three posts I could find where I talk about who's responsible and what I would do about it. If I missed one, I apologize, you can point it out to me.
Now, where in these three posts, do I say it is a "clear case of state sponsored terrorism" [I know, in post #2 but, I don't identify Korea] and, further, where do I suggest a "nuclear bomb would be an appropriate response?"
Post #13
Post #4
I apologize for not putting the snarky second sentence in blue. I clearly indicated I don't know what I would do because, I don't have enough information.
Post #2
Yoni, running just as fast as he can.
So, you're claiming that wasn't snark or sarcasm? When it followed a sentence that said I don't know what I'd do, I don't have enough information?
Okay. You're a champion of conversation, you win the internet today.
You posited a rhetorically serious question to Chump immediately afterward. Given the amount of tone-deaf statements you've made on Spurstalk here in the past, I wouldn't find it too far beyond the pale for you to say that.
Perhaps the most wryly humorous part of your quote is that you just suggested you wouldn't share your opinion when you lack sufficient information. Which, if exercised commonly, would reduce your posting rate here at ST to a mere pittance.
It's difficult to tell what's sarcasm or not, tbh... especially coming from a torture apologist...
I don't apologize for torture.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
