I think this is what Maureen O'Hara would have wanted.

If you're suggesting that technically, this is a stupid thing to argue about, I agree.

If you want to say that ARGUABLY, the classic Hollywood era ends in 1948, fine, go right ahead…but you said TECHNICALLY, which is, again, meaningless in this context. A tomato isn't arguably a fruit, it's technically a fruit (i.e., according to the strict scientific definition of what a fruit is). We lack those…

So, some film scholars say that 1948 is the end of the classic Hollywood era, and you agree with them. That's a subjectively chosen end point for the period: it's meaningless to call this a "technical" judgment. Just as it's meaningless to say, "technically, the spirit of the 60s died at Altamont."

Technically, it's impossible to date these things "technically."

I'll close by saying: the more I read about Robert Moss, the more kooky and evil he seems (apparently, he was a professional propagandist for anti-Communist think tanks)…and the more I agree with Chomsky and Herman's main point, i.e., that if you're attacking the official enemy, you can say whatever you want…there are…

You keep saying "for the record"…and then you change the record! Whatever…I've done that before too, no big deal.

That first bit is a quote from your source (not your own words)…it is a fact that your source says this about Chomsky, but what did Chomsky actually say? Do you even care?

Um…you did say he was accurate, and then you tinkered with your post, and took that part out. What the fuck?

Chomsky/Herman don't just claim, but demonstrate that Moss falsified a quote from Samphan (in the 70s). What Samphan says in 2008 is completely irrelevant to this very narrow matter of whether or not Moss' work in the 70s was reliable. We can easily follow the trail they laid out, and see for ourselves that that's…

The very definition of "taking something out of context" is pulling out a scary phrase or two from a longer article or book, omitting what comes before and after it, putting your own spin on that selection, thus distorting its intended meaning. That is precisely what you've done here. I don't understand why you've…

I'm not sure I see the difference between (a) trying to upset people with racist comments because of genuine racist convictions, versus (b) trying to upset people via a "character" you invented, who's a racist. You could say that (b) is worse, because you know better.

I'm sure those families would also appreciate how the victims have become talking points, in a transparently fraudulent 40-year-old effort to smear Noam Chomsky.

Well, that's precisely Chomsky and Herman's point in the article you linked to: that the New York Times et al. ignored certain aspects of the story that didn't fit their preferred narrative of how the world worked (i.e. the US role in destroying Cambodia). The essay isn't even really about death tolls under the Khmer…

For centuries it was assumed that the truths of religion and the truths of science were the same thing…and it would be crazy to reject one or the other. It's only very recently that "old time religion" becomes a defensive reaction to science, obsessed with proving the literal truth of the Bible (Noah's ark was real,…

Why will no one take my Jaws porn question seriously?! And yes, if you've got those links handy…

So the masturbatory possibilities contained in Jaws are as plain as day to you? Okay.

I assume these things begin with the idea "people want to see someone who looks a bit like So-and-so from that movie/TV show fucking." How does that work with Jaws?

I salute your perverted dream, sir.

That would require actors who can act, and writers who can write.