@livedreamplay: Sorry, you don't get to claim you just "changed your mind" when you said more than one time that you were leaving. You might have been able to make that case if you had said you were leaving just one time, but you said it multiple times and yet continued to post. It should be abundantly clear that you are a dishonest person by now, so just accept it and move on.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 15
@livedreamplay: I've made my case. You've just chosen to ignore it. It's pretty clear that no amount of facts will ever dissuade you from your opinion, which is why your requests for more proof come off as completely disingenuous. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't read any of the articles that either of us posted, since you never tried to grapple with the information that contradicted your position in any of them and instead sought to dismiss any fact inconvenient to your argument as an "assumption." This is not the way to make a convincing argument, and it definitely does not incentivize your opponents to find more information when you will likely just continue to make the same illogical dismissals.
Saying that you are going to leave while in fact having no intention of doing so? Yeah, I would say that qualifies as lying, especially since you said more than one time that you were backing out and yet here you still are.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 14
@livedreamplay: Did I give any indication at all about changing my belief about the Oscars? NO. The Oscars are a sham, and you blindly believe otherwise against all evidence, even when it is found in articles of your own choosing.
Okay, it's pretty clear now that your position is completely incoherent. You have been arguing that the Oscars are not awarded based on money, but now you are defending the practice of big studios spending tons of money in order to guarantee an Oscar win? How is that consistent at all?
Directly from dictionary.com:
Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
I'm going to say this a third time so that hopefully it punctures your thick skull: Stop conflating lying with interpretation. Interpreting something differently is not the same thing as intentionally misrepresenting it. For some reason you just can't accept the fact that the only dishonest person in this discussion is you. But if it makes you feel any better, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll go and edit my post and change the number to "two" to reflect your intended (but not conveyed) meaning if you go and delete every single one of your posts after you said you were leaving. How about that?
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 13
@livedreamplay: Even if no other forms of bribery take place (which I am NOT saying), I consider sending DVDs out to judges as a form of bribery, as it is a gift given in order to influence the judges' opinion. This is particularly the case since smaller film studios do not have the budget to do this, thus the "gifting" of DVDs creates an unequal playing field. Furthermore, your definition of bribery is not correct, as gifts do not necessarily have to be given out in a dishonest manner in order to be considered bribes (Although they often are.) In any case, since we can now both agree that the Oscars are indeed a sham (the main point of my original post), I hope we have no further need to quibble over the specifics of what does and doesn't constitute bribery.
I disagree. Saying, "This isn't worth my time," contains the specific implication of a plan to do something other than what you are currently doing i.e. backing out. Even if you didn't intend to convey this meaning, the meaning is nevertheless there. As I said before, stop conflating lying with interpretation.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 12
@livedreamplay: This has been about marketing and bribes the entire time. I even specifically mentioned marketing in my second post. Why is this suddenly news to you? In regards to bribes, it really depends on how you define bribes, and the line between marketing and bribes is a very blurred one indeed. I personally don't think there are briefcases of cash being handed over for votes, but bribes can take many forms, including gifts. It's an established fact that the "For Your Consideration" campaigns send out DVDs of their films to potential judges, and if nothing else, this qualifies as a bribe. In fact, many government agencies are not even allowed to accept $1 bottles of water from contractors for this very reason, despite its low value. In any case, you agree with me that marketing has a profound influence on the Academy Awards, so we can now both agree that the Oscars are a sham based on money.
I just explained this in my last post. Saying "This isn't worth my time" contains the same sentiment as "I'm not doing this anymore/I'm backing out" Stop trying to conflate interpretation with outright lying. The only person being dishonest in this discussion is you.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 11
@kaminobenimizu: I was curious about that too. He released three videos of himself with the music in the background. He hasn't been able to release all of the songs because the contract with Wu Tang stipulated that he not do so, but he is trying to find a way to negotiate with them about that. Personally, I doubt we'll every hear all of them.
@livedreamplay: Getting a little testy, aren't we?! Hilarious, but this game of semantics is growing tiring. I could just as easily type out in all-caps induced rage, "I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE THAT THE OSCARS ARE NOT BASED ON SKILL AND TALENT! YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE!!!" My point is that we each have an assertion which requires proof. You have just as much responsibility of showing evidence for your position as me.
Let me ask you this directly: Do you deny the existence of the "For Your Consideration" campaigns with respect to the Academy Awards? Do you deny that movie studios spend millions marketing their movies specifically in the LA area? If so, on what basis when there is so much evidence for their existence (The studios don't even attempt to hide it.) If not, do you deny that these campaigns likely have a profound influence on the judges' preferences, which is the only reason that the movie studios would ever be willing to spend millions of dollars on the campaigns to begin with?
Thank you for admitting that you are too lazy to explain your dismissiveness of the NYT. It's very telling.
Let's carefully review your posts:
1st time: "I assume this will go on for a while, so I will back out. Not the worst conspiracy theory to be a part of anyway, not worth the time...."
2nd time: "As I've said, this is not worth the time, not the worst conspiracy theory for you to support..."
While the second time does not contain the exact words "I'm backing out," it clearly contains the same sentiment with phrases like "this is not worth the time" i.e. "I have better things to do and am backing out." Again, can we stop the semantics please? Just admit that you are a dishonest person and we can move on.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 10
@livedreamplay: I feel like you have a serious reading comprehension problem...it's like you aren't even reading my posts. As I said in my last post, we BOTH have assertions we are trying to argue for. Your assertion is that the Oscars are based on talent and skill, and my assertion is that they are based on money. BOTH of us need to provide evidence for our positions, but for some reason you feel like you are immune from this. You aren't. I've provided evidence for my position. You have provided none, and I doubt that is going to change. Regarding my position, If you honestly think that the NYT is pulling historical facts out of thin air, then no evidence will ever be good enough for you. (By the way, who is the conspiracy theorist now?) Furthermore, you still haven't given any argument for how this recording of historical events in regards to the Oscars is any different from those who have recorded the rest of history in our books other than to say, "I feel sorry for you."
In regards to the rules you posted, I 100% agree that "the awards are given based on voters' preferences." I'm not arguing that the vote count is being altered by the Academy Awards officials. What I'm arguing is that people's preferences have been influenced by the heavy marketing across LA and the "for your consideration" campaigns. Are people choosing movies based on their preferences? Yes. Are people's preferences influenced by outside factors such as marketing and "gifts"? Yes. These two things are not mutually exclusive, but for some reason, you act as if they are.
I don't know why I have to explain this to you, but I will for your sake. When you lie, that greatly diminishes your credibility. You said you were going to leave MULTIPLE times and yet you obviously never had any intention of doing so. Saying you have credibility does not make it so. If you want people to take what you write seriously, don't write lies in your posts. It should be common sense, really, but you just don't seem to get it.
Number of times you have posted since promising to leave: 9
Darth_Tyrranus' comments