On Saturday, July 9, John G. Thomas wrote:
 
>         It is good to see that you've been hitting the books
> lately, but what is the relevance of your research to the study
> and/or exploration of film?
 
John, don't you ever give up?  From what I remember, whether you
started this particular thread or not, you're certainly the one
responsible for fanning the coals until the fire erupted.  Weren't
*you* the one who was referring to the L.A. Times as your source for
a myriad of "facts" you presented (although no quotes or direct
citations were ever presented)?
 
What Donna Cunningham did was a wonderful attempt at eliminating the
over-abundance of guessing, conjecturing and misquoting, and to
replace those with well-researched facts, *cited* so that anyone
wishing to follow up could do so.  I applaud both her efforts and
her decision try to put a merciful end to the recent bickering, so
that we can all move on to how media *portrays* these acts, now that
we have a genuine idea of who is actually committing them.
 
Your snotty one-liner serves no purpose whatsoever, and is in direct
contention with your recent barrage of postings referring to *your*
"facts."  Why don't you PLEASE give it a rest, so we can all move on
here?  I may be wrong, but I think the majority of Screen-L
subscribers are of the opinion that this particular topic has been
sufficiently trampled by now.
 
Respectfully,
 
Chris White