@livedreamplay: 1. Giving historical facts that include the time and place the events took place as well as the people involved seems pretty conclusive to me. You have no basis upon which to disagree with these facts other than not liking the information because it is inconvenient to your position. If you have information which directly contradicts the historical information presented in the NYT, then I invite you to present it. Otherwise, shut up.
2. Giving away DVDs is a form of bribes, which is why potential judges are the only people who ever get them. Again, why would the studios bother to spend all that money giving out the DVDs in the first place? For the general public, the studios are trying to SELL movie tickets and DVDs, NOT give them away.
3. Again, I refuse to believe you are stupid enough to change your mind five times in a row over the same issue. I find it much more plausible that you are just a liar.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 39
@livedreamplay: 1. Your response can basically be summed up as just "No, it didn't because I said so." The NYT article give the dates that the bribery happened, the people that did it, and the circumstances involved. How the hell can you say this isn't proof? Yes, your own article did damage your own position because it provided information that directly contradicted you, but I guess you just aren't smart enough to see it.
2. Yes, the DVDs are a form of bribes because they do make judges more likely to select those movies. If you disagree, why do you think the movie studios would bother to spend all that money doing so? Come on, use your brain for once.
3. You lied by the very definition I provided. You said you would leave when you never had any intention of doing so. No, it is not plausible that you would change your mind five times over the same thing. It is far easier to come to the conclusion that you were lying about your intention to leave.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 38
@gts-r288: Totally fine. I use the term "console peasant" in jest as it really seems to rile some people up. Having said that though, I do think that the days of consoles are numbered, although it's possible that Nintendo might be able to make their console line still work.
@livedreamplay: 1. The NYT clearly shows that The Academy Awards has a history of awarding Oscars based on bribes and things other than talent and skill. To come to any other conclusion shows your willful ignorance of the facts. Also, you are still an idiot for knowingly posting an article which damaged your own position.
2. Giving out DVDs is a form of bribes as it makes people more likely to award that movie, and studios that cannot afford to do this stand a much lower chance of winning. Whether it is allowed in the rules or not is irrelevant. The point is that it is not an even playing field, and that money clearly has a strong influence over whether a movie is awarded or not.
3. You didn't change your mind five times over the same thing. You just lied. I'm really not sure why you are trying to make yourself out as an idiot instead of a liar, but perhaps it is because the former is already a bygone conclusion regardless.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 37
@livedreamplay: 1. The NYT article does far more than "raise questions." As I already said, it names people and dates that these events occurred, but apparently you'd rather not acknowledge these historical facts because they are inconvenient. And yes, if you post an article in support of your position, but it in fact contradicts it, then you are stupid.
2. Already established the fact that movie companies give DVDs to potential judges, so this fits your definition of bribery since it is giving something in exchange for a favorable vote. Movie studios that do not do this are much less likely to have their movie selected.
3. Quit the circle jerking. You said you were going to leave multiple times and didn't. Changing your mind over the same thing five times isn't plausible. A more plausible explanation is that you are just a liar.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 36
1. The New York Times article was anything but a conspiracy theory. It presented historical facts with specific names and dates. Just because you find these facts inconvenient does not mean you can just dismiss them, and the fact that you think you can do so shows how anti-intellectual your argument really is. All of this is not to mention that you yourself posted an article which also provided evidence that money controls the Oscar. If you thought that your own article contained a conspiracy theory that contradicted your own argument and yet posted it anyway, then you are stupid, stupid, stupid.
2. Wrong. I talked about marketing from from almost the very beginning, and as I already stated, the line between marketing and bribes is a blurred one and it is often difficult if not impossible to distinguish between the two. My main point here remains unchanged: the Oscars are about money, not talent and skill.
3. You didn't change your mind five times. You just lied. I don't care what leaps of logic you try to make to weasel your way out of this. The fact is that you claimed you were going to leave multiple times and then didn't. No, this is not the same a interpreting or miscounting numbers differently. You were just being disingenuous, just as you have been in this entire "discussion."
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 35
@livedreamplay: The only person who looks ridiculous here is you. I'm not sure why you keep repeating that I've been proven wrong when 1) you have done nothing of the sort, and 2) you actually spent a great deal of time explaining why you don't feel the need to prove anything when you declined to provide sources of any kind advocating for your position. You seem to be under the false impression that repeating that I'm wrong makes it true, but you never did provide any fact-based evidence advocating for your position, dismissed any and all evidence against your position, even when you provided it yourself, and lied multiple times about leaving when you never had any intention of doing so. Since calling you out on these things, your subsequent postings can pretty much be summed up with the child's, "I know you are, but what am I?" comeback, which is frankly quite sad. I really wish we could have had an actual fact-based discussion about the original topic, but it appears that you are both too lazy and intellectually dishonest to do so.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 34
@livedreamplay: We've been through this. Changing your mind over the same thing five times in a row? Not credible. Few people are that stupid. It's far more believable that you are just a liar.
You haven't proven anyone wrong. Quite the opposite, you have provided sources which have been extremely damaging to your own argument and then have refused to provide more because you are either lazy or because you know none exist that bolster your position.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 32
Darth_Tyrranus' comments