Me, then Jenny:
Well, actually, we had *that* particular argument a few months back, and it got rather unpleasant. :-)
Yes. Ever wondered why?
Nope. Some people just can't have a civilised debate without attacking or bating their opponents, it seems. I did wonder why it went on so long, though.
If you disagree about the evidence, you're
unlikely to be convinced.
Not at all. You bring consistent evidence to support a conclusion, then I will consider it very carefully.
[blink] Are you saying that if someone presents evidence that you disagree with, you still might be swayed by it?
As for evidence...
But what we are implicitly accepting here is that there is an actual "truth".
You might. I don't,
You do with Shakespeare.
Who, me? Nope.
for the reasons stated in an earlier post on
dramatic productions. Elements of interpretation and interpolation become necessary, but they should be recognised as such.
They also have to have a bearing on the text.
I presume you mean "don't conflict with", here. But you need to define "text". Writer's intention? Script? Script editor's intension? Direction? But that's a separate issue. My point is, saying "X is true" when you're actually merely inferring X from circumstantial evidence, is flawed.
Don't recall that many people have left because of this kind of thing. It seems more to be because of how people said it; comments ceased to be about the series, and became about posters.
Go back and look at it again.
No, thanks. Been through it once. See no reason to go through it again.
The entire fight was over interpretation. Some people just don't like having their fanons challenged.
Must be talking about different events, then. Guess those posts passed me by.
steve
-
Steve Kilbane