It refers to what is logical for a rational actor within a given context, which is Hollywood. Trusting people in profession which is built partly on deception, in a time of fascism (egoism/profit over everything else) and in a given situation all point to why you should not blindly trust a person in this situation.
This is all very basic logics, in a very clear context.
Please walk me through the scene then if you have seen it and quote the very few lines. Shouldn't take more than 5 minutes - this way you prove that you now actually have seen the scene. It's easy to find scripts, they're available at different places both to purchase copies and download, moviebuffs don't seldomly collects them - depicting a scene and transcribing a few lines is not that hard thing to do. In difference to you I do read what someone posts to me writes, and the ambiguity within both your language and reference makes it clear that you want it to be unclear.
I find it more likely that you did not watch the scene than that you did, no reaction is given and unless you are an astroturfer, deaf (read; suffering from hearing deprevation) or someone connected to the person in question there would be.
■ To be fair there are more than one different chain of events that could easily missconstrue this line of events; It might even be that Seth does not recall where he got the inspiration from and has afterwards quoted a role he does like or recall for some specific reason.
It might also be what you are constructing for me (a strawman) that he does think other people will call him out to be some kind of thief, this even though tons upon tons is reused material today in Hollywood. As with any other skill they evolve over time, passed on or refined without being taught - that is natural progression...
You are creating a strawman by saying I'm calling him a thief, by doing so you are putting me through defamation, "...if you canno't fault the facts fault the person".
From "my" point of view (one that I have no doubt, most hold as true) most things come from somewhere else or are built on predecessors work - that is how cummulation of knowledge/information works. Paraphrasing my meaning when it is not meant with malice but with the clear reasoning that correct information is good information, is ad hominem of the worse kind.
I do not hold some kind of personal grudge against him, I've made and am consistanly making observations, this is just one that costed me some time of writing as I do not wish to bow down to ignorance.
"Your opinion that he 'stole' the characterization from this film is not proof. It is simply an opinion that I and the people on the Family Guy board disagree with."
■ I've presented my source for anyone to see (Carry on Camping, about 8 minutes in, the campingstore clerk), I've also explained several theoretical paths of reasoning to as why Seth Mcfarlane would not be up front with it, even though that was a logical error in reasoning to do (which I pointed out before doing so to humor me and you).
■ You go on hearsay, it is first hand, but it is nonetheless hearsay (read; word of mouth; added to avoid semantical strawmen).
To finish it off it's enough that you speak for yourself, you don't have to borrow credibility (if that is the right word) from some other person or entity (unless you supply a source, new one i might ad), neither are it/they here to back up your claim in person (and even if they were, supplying identification and verify them would take time). Speaking on someone elses imagined behalf is not a good sign for credible statements.
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.
reply
share