On Announcements: Mother’s Day Giveaway: LG Optimus G Pro

David Onda

Biography

This user has yet to fill out their bio.

About Me

  • Favorite Gear Live Site

    Don't know..

  • Latest Comments
  • David - Thank you for yet another response. I can certainly appreciate the verbal sparring, despite snide and sarcastic remarks, such as calling my article a “original masterpiece.” After all, I have never claimed that it was, nor would I expect anyone else to. I would hate for you to put more words into my unoriginal mouth. If I would label my piece as anything, it would be “thoughtful” - and I can only expect a less shallow, more centered, more thoughtful response to it. I should also point out that the term “punk out” was not used to describe those who agree with special interest groups, but to describe those who concede to them (i.e. MSNBC when they fired Imus) in the face of controversy, thus empowering them further. Please leave careless mistakes like that to “lessor” readers. I ask that you read closer in the future, though I understand how the mistake could be made. Considering a source and allowing popular opinion to determine the things you do in your life may be fine for you. But I prefer to not be one of the sheep. There is a reason I don’t read movie reviews - I don’t allow one person’s opinion to dictate what I do. Unfortunately, as is the case with “Golden Compass,” there are people who allow a governing body (The Catholic Church) to tell them what is best. To say that I won’t see another Tarantino film because he is the source of “Death Proof,” which I didn’t care for, is not the way I choose to live my life. I’d like to be more open-minded than that. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree though. But I appreciate your point of view.

    'The Golden Compass' vs. Religion: An Opinion
    Posted on: January 01, 2008 at 5:37 pm on FilmCrunch - 2 comments total

  • David - I appreciate your response. Perhaps in the future, when you craft a reply that is meant to be "poignant" and the "be all, end all" of responses, you will actually make a point rather than type circles around yourself. I was looking for the part where you actually counter the article’s viewpoints with something original. Instead, I found recycled rhetoric filled with smarmy pot shots. Bravo. Do you always consider the source of a movie’s development before going to see a film, David? Is this now a prerequisite to the movie-going process? Should people who are blatantly anti-gay not see “Superman Returns” because the director is a homosexual? Should Christians not see “Valkyrie“ because Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. Should Atheists avoid “The Chronicles of Narnia” because the author wrote strong Christian allegory into the story? Are we all now “delusional” because you, clearly a “in the know” scholar, say we are if we don’t consider the author, producer, director and best boy’s political or religious agenda? I go to the movies to be entertained. And that’s what this article is about. It is about the desire to be entertained without the political and religious views of self-righteous special interest groups disrupting that right. There are several places in the article where it states clearly that everyone has their right to freedom of speech. Though I appreciate your little jab to the contrary. You want to talk about slander? How about the Catholic League who told Christians around the world to boycott this movie? How about the Catholic League who has smeared Phillip Pullman’s work (and the work of hundreds who worked to make it a film) and may have hindered its box-office success? Where was the Atheistic outrage over “Narnia”? Find it for me. Because the fact of the matter is that it is all peachy-keen for Christians when everything is coming up “God.” But as soon as someone doesn’t share their views the Catholic League is ready to take them to the gallows. There is no one suppressing their point of view or saying that they don’t have the right to it. No one is denying their right to respond - the Christians have had more than their say. The difference here, David, is that when Christians express “Christian rhetoric” (i.e. “Narnia”) there is no one calling for a worldwide boycott of that work. There is no one trying to ruin the livelihood of someone who worked hard to create that work. But as soon as something opposes their point of view, it’s a whole different story. It’s either all Christian, or nothing. And in the U.S., a country based on religious freedom, that is an unacceptable way to operate. You can grow oh so “weary” of people using that argument - it’s an easy way for you to avoid the topic, I understand - but the fact of the matter is that we can’t have a “my way or the highway” attitude. It can’t be sunshine and dewdrops when Christianity is showcased, and hellfire and brimstone when someone flips the coin. I admire your attempt, David. I really do. And perhaps if you hadn’t taken such “entitled” and pretentious shots in your reply, such as labeling this article “whiney,” I would have more tolerance for your ignorance. It appears that with your “why is it that some can’t take the criticism that they feel so entitled to hand out” line, you were attempting to make a preemptive strike on any replies to your opinion. It’s an easy way for you to negate any follow-ups with a “see, they can’t take the criticism!” I don’t play into those childish games. Perhaps next time when you decide to think out your own “poor” argument, you will do yourself a favor and read the article, respond to the argument, and produce original thoughts. I hate to have to hold your hand through this. Someone along the line told you that you are always right, and that your opinion always matters. They should have spent more time teaching you how to prove a point.

    'The Golden Compass' vs. Religion: An Opinion
    Posted on: January 01, 2008 at 2:57 pm on FilmCrunch - 2 comments total

  • Peter - As I'm sure you are aware, Ellen has given several interviews on this subject. However, during her talk show meltdown Ellen says that caring for the dog was "too much energy and it was too rambunctious." I don't think it is a stretch to translate that into her being unable to handle the added responsibility. It is unreasonable to assume that the interview you saw was the only one she gave and thus, unreasonable to assume that my statement is "plain inaccurate."

    All Dogs Go To Ellen: An Opinion
    Posted on: October 18, 2007 at 2:34 pm on TV Envy - 1 comments total

  • Page 1 of 1 pages

Advertisement