SCREEN-L Archives

August 2002, Week 5

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Date:
Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:01:57 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
David Tetzlaff wrote:

> the absurd rants of the [Leni Riefenstahl] apologists ("Until someone can
> prove, beyond a doudt that she did know, I choose to believe her
> statement") [...] at least have the excuse of being delusional.

Because this sounds like name-calling to me ('delusional'), and because I believe
that NONE of us is free of subjectivity (except for David?), what would happen if
I called DAVID 'delusional'?  Would he attempt to JUSTIFY his claim, instead of
presenting it as a truism?

Just wondering - Ken M.

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite

ATOM RSS1 RSS2