Every Academic Needs to Watch This

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

You have said this before but I am not sure what you mean. Or better said, I am not sure I understand your use of the term "documentary."

If you have ever taken a film studies class, one of the first things, if not the first thing you learn about the docu-genre is that documentary simply refers to non-fiction with documentary value. It has nothing to do with politics and certainly does not require all opinions to be represented.

From the turn of the century, through the cinema verite era, to today, "documentaries" have always been non-fictional accounts told through the eye of the director. Even a cursory look at a list of Academy Awards for "documentaries" over the years shows a wide spectrum of topics, many of them controversial in nature (see Life and Times of Harvey Milk).

What are examples of "real documentaries" as you call them? And how do you reconcile films like Harvey Milk or American Dream (which could be argued is a one-sided account of the strike against of the Hormel factory in Minnesota)?

"Real" documentaries are about animals and are shown on Nature on PBS.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Let's back up just a bit. The movie is based on a group of academics who claim to be the target of a massive conspiracy to silence them because they dare to challenge the prevailing scientific establishment which has a clearly anti-religious bias. More specifically, their peer-reviewed articles were either not published, or not sufficiently respected after they were published. What this scenario has (even remotely) to do with "the prevailing attitude of the CG religion forum" is beyond me. The two environments are completely different.

Furthermore, the reason for my skepticism is that conspiracy claims like this are almost always just a smokescreen for poor scholarship. Some people simply can't accept the fact that the paper they are trying to publish is just a pile of shit, so they make up a conspiracy theory and try to be martyrs. The ID crowd loves to play this role.

You mean it's not similar to the many threads that intimate or overtly suggest that ...

There isn't some great big conspiracy to systimatically deny some aspects of the churches past and discipline expositors of said past systematically?

Didn't you argue in favour of the conspiracy as espoused by a political cartoonist that president Bension was paraded around like a trained bear?

etc. etc.

It IS the same thing ... and ironic, and humorous.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

"Real" documentaries are about animals and are shown on Nature on PBS.

So if this film shows animals humping, then will it be considered a documentary?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So if this film shows animals humping, then will it be considered a documentary?

Sure. Why not?

It's all about educating the masses.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You mean it's not similar to the many threads that intimate or overtly suggest that ...

There isn't some great big conspiracy to systimatically deny some aspects of the churches past and discipline expositors of said past systematically?

Apples and oranges. Perhaps if I believed that those trying to speak honestly of church history were in fact full of shit and were using some conspiracy theory to overcome their poor scholarship, then you might have a case. I have never claimed that. Nor do I believe that.

Originally Posted by tooblue

Didn't you argue in favour of the conspiracy as espoused by a political cartoonist that president Bension was paraded around like a trained bear?

LOL. No. That is not what I argued.

Originally Posted by tooblue

etc. etc.

It IS the same thing ... and ironic, and humorous.

Indeed it is.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Apples and oranges. Perhaps if I believed that those trying to speak honestly of church history were in fact full of shit and were using some conspiracy theory to overcome their poor scholarship, then you might have a case. I have never claimed that. Nor do I believe that.



LOL. No. That is not what I argued.



Indeed it is.

It's not apples and oranges. It's a granny smith apple and a royal gala apple -that's why it's ironic.

I was throwing out generalities -not trying to corner you etc.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by tooblue

It's not apples and oranges. It's a granny smith apple and a royal gala apple -that's why it's ironic.

I was throwing out generalities -not trying to corner you etc.

?? You lost me again.

Donut holes?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

?? You lost me again.

Donut holes?

The tone, words, passion, investment and arguments are so similar they are different varieties of the same fruit.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The tone, words, passion, investment and arguments are so similar they are different varieties of the same fruit.

Wakarimasen, sensei.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Wakarimasen, sensei.

J'ai pas quoi dire de plus, inspector.