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