Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Jason Wallis Are all movies required to be positive and ‘uplifting’?

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

93 comments:

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:37 am on Wed, Aug 10, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Evidentally, Chris does not have a perception of what I was saying and is content to support his friend Jason without any intellectual discourse... NP
    Very happy to finally end this thread...even though my point was never addressed honestly.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:41 am on Fri, Aug 5, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    You tell me Chriss... what do you perceive I am saying. You have contributed almost nothing except to say " Holy cr*p... 76 comments? I thought this was Jason's place, not Darrell's.

    I think it would be more refreshing to hear something from you.

     
  • Chris Wallace posted at 2:35 pm on Thu, Aug 4, 2011.

    Chris Wallace Posts: 32

    What are you trying to say, Darrel?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:58 pm on Wed, Aug 3, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Just in case you do not remember... this post you agreed that pretty much everything I itemized you agreed was what you stated and agreed with... I would say most illustrates “ mocho mode”

    Jason Wallis posted at 2:47 am on Mon, Jul 11, 2011...
    Pretty much everything you just typed appears to be the case based on your posts in my opinion, although there are a lot of possibilities in there that I cannot commit to (are you a complete troll or are you in earnest, etc

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:04 am on Wed, Aug 3, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    If you do not perceive you behaved in a “macho fashion” then macho does not exist. However, what ever term you wish to ascribe to your style and method to deal with issues, it is not professional, intellectual or meaningful in any way. This is why people I know were surprised that you are actually “staff” at Lodi News Sentinel.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:58 am on Wed, Aug 3, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    As you have consistently make an issue to denie you behaved in a mocho fashion, lets focus on that...
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macho

    Macho...having a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate.
    1928 (n.) "tough guy,"

    So instead of focusing on the real point, you articulated the following.. which I refer to as Macho mode ...

    1. I can not comprehend the obvious
    2. I do not think before I write.
    3. I am genuinely nasty
    4. I am thick.
    5. I am a waste of your time.
    6. This tread is beneath you ( this crazy pool)
    7. This issue here is insignificant and not worthy the energy it takes to type it.
    8. My points are simply splitting hairs and petty.
    9. I attempt to be intellectual but fall short.
    10. I am disingenuous
    11. I make arguments that have no merit or substantiation.
    12. The points I made were not points at all, just delusional fantasy.
    13. I cannot recognizance the obvious and must read what you have stated over and over so that I can have a chance to comprehend what you have to say.
    14. I am a dense and dim witted person.
    15. I am obtuse.
    16. If I read what you write I do not have the skill or ability to understand what it is that you wrote.
    17. You intentionally write snaky sarcasm
    18. I cannot even comprehend a simple sentence.
    19. It appears I have many difficulties understanding simple things in day-to-day life.
    20. I was simply BS-ing you
    21. I am such a simpleton that you doubt I can even operate a computer
    22. You think I might be implying that I have a learning disability because I said your IQ is higher than mine.
    23. You think it is possible that I suffer from some kind of disability.
    24. You think that I was simply goading you into a talk back by implying that you are afraid to face me in a debate.
    25. You pointed out that nobody over the age of five would ever be scared to swap barbs with me.
    26. You think it would probably be a good thing if kids watched the right R-rated movies.
    27. I refusal to absorb very simple facts?
    28. Reasonable, educated or otherwise intelligent people look at my posts and not a single one can figure out what my trip is.
    29. I am a singularly odd and unpleasant

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:47 am on Wed, Aug 3, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jason stated...especially when it is offered up with nothing but "childish disrespect" from the beginning...

    Exactly Jason!. You took this perception with you from the beginning and you still have it. In taking this position it clouded your perception and caused you to dismiss anything we had to say as
    " meaningful". You did not contemplate or make room for the possibility that what was presented was anything but silly discourse. In other words, you did as I suggested which was to behave in a closed minded way where you couldn't possibly think outside the box. Instead, you simply focused on calling me names and bringing my character and intelligence into question. In my view, anyone who does that is “childish”

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:32 am on Wed, Aug 3, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jason stated...I didn't "bring" anyone in here, Darrell.
    Jason... Thank you for showing such a good example of how you interpret incorrectly. I did not state or imply that you brought anyone here. I said I did not bring anyone here (as a response to your claim on a previous post...” Darrell, you now have an entire thread full of people telling you that you're out of line. Let it go, man) ... you also had said earlier that you had consulted with various people you respected ( the two teachers and others) and that they supported your position and thought I was out of line. You have shown a pattern of stating that you substantiate your position as “reasonable” based on other people's comments and your own perception. I though I would add my experience concerning talking with others. I could have sent emails to some people I know and asked them to comment... but I did not.
    Obviously what you “perceived “ was not reality just as your assertion that you were not unintentionally encouraging younger children to view a movie suited for adults … That was my opinion as well as Mr Kinderman and a teacher named Micah.

    . Shouldn't you balance that statement so that you admit that I was not the only one who thought you were out of line. I know... It makes you look so much more right if I were the only one.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 2:01 pm on Mon, Aug 1, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    I didn't "bring" anyone in here, Darrell. Stephen is the only person here I know, and it's only because of him that I even knew this thread was active to begin with. And yes, I tend to discount baseless opinions, not because I disagree with them, but because I believe that one's views and arguments should be rooted in some kind of tangible logic and reason. If something is nonsensical, then I try not to give it too much weight or respect, especially when it is offered up with nothing but childish disrespect from the beginning. And again, I think your grasp of the definition of "macho" is tenuous at best.

     
  • Chris Wallace posted at 12:35 pm on Mon, Aug 1, 2011.

    Chris Wallace Posts: 32

    But Darrel, Jason didn't post here today. So how could he be as wrong today as from the beginning?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:12 am on Mon, Aug 1, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Sorry Jason...you are just as wrong today as you were at the beginning... so are your friends who obviously disagree with me. I get many comments from friends and people I know that follow my comments in all sections of LNS. I have not brought them into online activity as when people have public positions they wouldn't dare say things publicly unless anonymously. The feed back that I got was that a few agreed with you, but a majority agreed with me. that they could not believe you were actually staff at Lodi News Sentinel. There were two other bloggers who publicly agreed with me, but of course... you discounted their opinions.

    The only bizarre comments originated from you when in macho mode.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 7:49 am on Sun, Jul 31, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    My God. This is still going on? Look, Darrell, you now have an entire thread full of people telling you that you're out of line. Let it go, man. Yes, this is a place for dissenting opinion -- but not bizarre harassment about obvious BS.

    And Chris, there is no way your comments could reasonably be taken as flaming. I always appreciate your feedback, man.

     
  • Chris Wallace posted at 11:17 pm on Tue, Jul 26, 2011.

    Chris Wallace Posts: 32

    Yes... neither.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:09 pm on Tue, Jul 26, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    what was cleared up? that this is Jason's place? or this is not a place to voice opposing opinion?.. or both?

     
  • Chris Wallace posted at 2:34 pm on Tue, Jul 26, 2011.

    Chris Wallace Posts: 32

    Just as long as we got that cleared up.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:24 pm on Tue, Jul 26, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Chris Wallace posted at 11:29 pm on Mon, Jul 25, 2011....I thought this was Jason's place, not Darrell's.


    I thought this was a public place... not mine and not Jason's. Thank you for correcting that perception.. I will consider it Jason's place ... I think he did something wrong... he thinks he did nothing wrong. Obviously this is not a place for opposing opinion.

     
  • Chris Wallace posted at 11:29 pm on Mon, Jul 25, 2011.

    Chris Wallace Posts: 32

    Holy cr*p... 76 comments? I thought this was Jason's place, not Darrell's.
    Yeah, I though I'd return to the topic. I re-read my initial post, and thought it came off as flaming. Glad Jason didn't take it as so because I didn't mean it as so.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:52 am on Thu, Jul 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    posted at 9:43 pm on Wed, Jul 20, 2011You seem to know a lot about trolls and troll behavior. I guess the above description is all about you. After all... you do a lot of yawning....

    also posted at posted at 8:16 pm on Wed, Jul 20, 2011....Darrell has to get the last word in... kind of like a macho teen?...

    No problem... happy to give both of you the last words... " No comment" to your posts.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:46 am on Thu, Jul 21, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Stephen Wiebe posted at 8:16 pm on Wed, Jul 20, 2011....Darrell has to get the last word in... kind of like a macho teen...

    Interesting perception Mr Wiebe... kind of like a thoughtless teen who does not see what an adult sees.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 10:02 pm on Wed, Jul 20, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Stephen Wiebe wrote, "Darrell has to get the last word in... kind of like a macho teen?"

    Stephen: Yes, he does need to have the last word even if he posts nonsense, which is quite often.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 9:58 pm on Wed, Jul 20, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "Unfortunately for trolls like the one at (posted at 11:24 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011)... they are burdened with additctive behavior that results in illusions and delusions... We can only pray for the recovery and well being of these poor lost souls. Take care my troll."

    Darrell: It doesn't elevate you when you call me names. It just makes you look petty and small. And again, in the comment above, you are projecting. Your nasty comments towards me, name calling and all, is not void when you say you'll pray for me. You may be better off praying for yourself. It’s very disrespectful to God to tell me that you are praying for me while in the same breath you call me nasty names and have hate in your heart. Your true colors are showing. If you insist on being nasty maybe you should leave God out of it.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 9:43 pm on Wed, Jul 20, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "Troll-itis... according to Wikipedia... This is a condition that causes one to experience sleeping disorders as well as severe yawning..."

    Darrell: You seem to know a lot about trolls and troll behavior. I guess the above description is all about you. After all... you do a lot of yawning.

     
  • Stephen Wiebe posted at 8:16 pm on Wed, Jul 20, 2011.

    Stephen Wiebe Posts: 17

    Darrell has to get the last word in... kind of like a macho teen?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:07 pm on Wed, Jul 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Troll-itis... according to Wikipedia... This is a condition that causes one to experience sleeping disorders as well as severe yawning... No mediacation is needed. It is highly recommended that one with insomnia experience this condition that many times results a good night sleep...
    Unfortunately for trolls like the one at (posted at 11:24 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011)... they are burdened with additctive behavior that results in illusions and delusions... We can only pray for the recovery and well being of these poor lost souls. Take care my troll.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:24 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: You can't muster up a real comment and you are so sleepy. Are you medicated?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:59 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    posted at 6:51 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011...as you lose every debate, but it just makes it clear that you post ridiculous comments

    Yawn.......... Noooooo Cooommmmmmmment ...snooze....

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 6:51 pm on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: I can see why someone like you would continue to write no comment on every thread here, as you lose every debate, but it just makes it clear that you post ridiculous comments and assertions that you cannot back up with any measure of integrity. I know that you will read this and you'll post "no comment". That's good enough for me.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:27 am on Tue, Jul 19, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    again...no comment needed....

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 5:40 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    This is a collection call... "No comment"

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 5:40 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    You have the right to remain silent... "No comment" LOL!

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 5:39 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Do you take this woman to be... "No comment"

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 5:39 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    I can just see Darrell's high school test answers now... "No comment". LOL!

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 5:38 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    ""not" worth a comment."


    Darrell is running from the truth of his actions again.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:50 pm on Mon, Jul 18, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    posted at 7:26 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011......Darrell has ESP....not!


    hummm... "not" worth a comment.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 7:26 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    ...not!

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 7:11 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell has ESP.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:37 pm on Sun, Jul 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    posted at 7:07 pm on Fri, Jul 15, 2011...Darrell: I find you "funny".

    In the spirit in which this comment was made... and in the genuine, heartfelt sincerity that this comment was made, I have to say......... “No comment”..........

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 7:07 pm on Fri, Jul 15, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: I find you "funny".

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:29 am on Fri, Jul 15, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Many judge others by observing who one hangs with ( intellectually and philosophically).... Obviously Jason and a certain blogger see things in a similar fashion. and are like minded in “how” to oppose people with different points of view... I think Jason and this person are on a higher level of intelligence and most likely would enjoy each others company.. Jason... may I ask... do you find Letterman and Stewart funny. Since this blogger does, I was just curious.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:11 am on Fri, Jul 15, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Jason Wallis: Thanks... I think we're on the same page about Darrell. And, as predicted, he posted his usual non-response comment. He's become quite predictable.

    Take care.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:50 pm on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    posted at 1:48 pm on Thu, Jul 14, 2011... posted "nothing"

    response... "nothing"

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:23 pm on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jason stated...Be careful not to disagree with him too bluntly, though -- he could think you're trying to be macho and throw a hissy fit himself. Just a heads-up.

    Perfect ending Jason... I couldn't have asked for more to make clear who you are.
    Great Post!!!!!!!

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 2:51 pm on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    Believe me, K, at this point I'm not. Because what's the point? I could point out the existence of long-term subs or talk about how I was initially trying to figure out if Darrell was on the level and required real responses of if he was simply a troll (hence the thread being worth perhaps a small amount of my time before, but not now that everything is clear), etc. The list goes on.

    And by the way, by the same token, I wouldn't worry too much about Darrell's labeling of you as a troll. (I'm sure you're not worried, just sayin'.) Granted, I don't know your posting history, but if Darrell classifies you as a troll, then I'd say you've gotta be doing something right. Be careful not to disagree with him too bluntly, though -- he could think you're trying to be macho and throw a hissy fit himself. Just a heads-up.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:48 pm on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Jason Wallis: I wouldn't worry too much about responding to Darrell. He has hard time conversing or debating with others; just take a look at all other threads (ie; Sarah Palin). He just doesn't see the forest for the trees or respect others and has a very hard time when someone disagrees with him....even a little. He bates, twists and then he'll bail when it's obvious that he has lost the debate. This is all unfortunate, but I guess he has a lot of time on his hands to post mindless comments and then argue about nothing. In my opinion he is a troll and a bully. Just don't take him or his comments seriously. His next comment here will probably be... "No comment". That's what he posts when he is out of gas.

    Have a great day, Jason.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:38 pm on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Wow! LOL!

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:21 am on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Finally to end this topic since Jason has stated he perceives this to be a waste of his time, I would like to end with the following.

    Jason, thank you much for finally clarifying your position. Even though it took you three + weeks to respond, late is better than never.

    In addition, please do not worry about apologizing, I forgive you.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:15 am on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    posted at 11:43 pm on Wed, Jul 13, 2011...Jason Wallis: You've made some great comments on this thread/topic. You’ve hit the nail right on its rusty little head.

    Then Jason stated...Why thank you, Nice to know I'm not going irretrievably insane, at least by most accounts...

    response... Jason... sorry to burst your illusion, but this blogger follows me around and makes comments opposite me on a regular basis... This blogger supporting you would be just about as meaningful as me trusting a movie review that you publish...
    Finally... in my opinion you are not irretrievably insane...just macho and limited in thinking outside the box.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:59 am on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Below are my responses to your thoughts Jason.

    01. Statement...So me once again repeating something I've said several times before now means I'm addressing your point finally?

    Response... No.. did not state you were addressing my point... said you finally said something that
    illustrates something close to what I was saying all along... In other words, you accidentally or unintentionally swerved into my point.

    02. Statement...In any case, I think it's clear that this discussion is no longer worth my time...

    Response... Jason is acting as if it ever was worth his time. Obvious, from the beginning, you thought you were above it all and this whole discussion was a waste of time. Since you mistakenly perceived you addressed my point, which you still have not, you think this is silly and wacky. Very predictable Jason... It's what I expected you to say and think.

    ,03. Statement ... since you seem to be clinging to the argument...

    response... not clinging to anything... I am articulating what I think. Clinging sounds so desperate. Maybe saying that it is you that is “clinging” to a false reality is more appropriate.

    04. Statement... that not explicitly stating that an obviously adult-oriented movie is not for kids, regardless of their interest, is grounds for people pulling their kids out of my theoretical class...

    response... wrong again Jason... you originally stated “ your students” were looking forward to the movie... since it is teachers who have a classroom assigned to them, and refer to students in the classroom as “their students”, you created an image that you were a full time teacher and not a sub. It was good of you to finally make clear that you are a sub... so your comment about theoretical class is silly.
    In addition, yes... if I knew you were a teacher of my child, I would definitely pull my child from your class if it were possible. That does not mean that other parents would.. but I do not appreciate people like yourself that has attitude. I would be afraid that if my son disagreed with you on something you felt was “obvious”, that you would behave in the same manner that you did with me.. macho... and unreasonably; you are right... he is wrong... berp...

    05. Statement...This despite my assurance that I did in fact discourage the students from seeing the film at the time of the exchange...

    response... This is the heart of my contention... I already agreed with you that you were “not” intentionally encouraging students... I might even concede that you did in fact “ attempt” to discourage the students.... however, that is to miss my point completely. This is why I have repeatedly said you have not addressed my concern. Intentions are not good enough. Maybe people have good intentions yet hurt people....... please focus on this key word
    ***** “UNINTENTIONALLY”******.......“unintentionally” *** UnInTentioNaLLy***
    In other others, your assurances only apply to what you intended. Just as I can assure you that I originally had no intent to insult you. Evidently, I unintentionally insulted you. When I said I would pull a child from your class, that should not insult you... I home schooled my son for 2 years to avoid people who think like you. Other parents may appreciate how you think and would not perceive you a problem.

    06. Statement...Lastly, you keep using the word "macho." I do not think it means what you think it means. Refusing to give in to obvious BS isn't "macho,"

    response... of course refusing to give in to someone else is not macho... obviously... that you think I think that is not very perceptive. Determination and not giving in is a positive characteristic. However, your obvious caveman macho response to me was inappropriate. I attempted to embarrass you with listing all that you stated that was “macho” from my perspective. Instead of being embarrassed, you responded like the macho guy you are, and implied that you were proud of what you stated.... that just confirms my contention. Each paragraph you have posted is still dripping with superior indignant sarcastic mannerisms. I think it suits you well in conveying your inner self. You perceive you aggressively and appropriately dealt with me. That is comical. You only revealed who you are.

    07. Statement... Either way, it's been... weird, man. Real weird.
    Response.. I used to think it was weird to encounter people like yourself who think they are superior and attempt to win points by either ignoring it so it goes away or being macho instead factually addressing the point... but it no longer surprises me nor is it weird. I think it is sad... very very sad.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 4:33 am on Thu, Jul 14, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    Why thank you, K. Nice to know I'm not going irretrieveably insane, at least by most accounts. And yes, you've caught me: I was hunting for more Baumbach goodness.

    Since I'm here, consider this theoretical line from a wine/spirits/whatever critic: "Hornsby's Hard Cider is so sweet and delicious and nectar-like that it threatens to turn our nation's infants into raging alcoholics." *

    Compare that to: "Hornsby's Hard Cider is so sweet and delicious and nectar-like that it threatens to turn our nation's infants into raging alcoholics. But seriously parents, you shouldn't feed your baby booze because that would be bad."

    Does the latter strike you as a reasonable way to write, Darrell?

    * Definitely a sub-par line, but it's 4:30 in the morning and I just worked for eight hours and wrote a review and I'm very tired and a little tipsy (thanks, Hornsby's!). Gonna watch some "Fraggle Rock" and go to bed. (Yeah, I watch "Fraggle Rock." What of it?)

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:43 pm on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Jason Wallis: You've made some great comments on this thread/topic. You’ve hit the nail right on its rusty little head.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 5:31 pm on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    *Blink*

    So me once again repeating something I've said several times before now means I'm addressing your point finally?

    In any case, I think it's clear that this discussion is no longer worth my time, since you seem to be clinging to the argument that not explicitly stating that an obviously adult-oriented movie is not for kids, regardless of their interest, is grounds for people pulling their kids out of my theoretical class, and that not including such a mind-bendingly obvious observation is grounds for personal attacks on my profession. This despite my assurance that I did in fact discourage the students from seeing the film at the time of the exchange (not that it's any of your business), although as Stephen pointed out, prying into parents' personal beliefs is not really my role as an educator anyway.

    Lastly, you keep using the word "macho." I do not think it means what you think it means. Refusing to give in to obvious BS isn't "macho," nor is making light of your nasty attitude and apparent inability to follow simple logic. However, harassing someone publicly instead of attempting to reach them privately, and then starting off the conversation with baseless personal attacks sure sounds an awful lot like bullying.

    I hope I can follow through and not respond any more, but I'm not discounting the possibility that you'll post an absolute gem that demands further attention. Either way, it's been... weird, man. Real weird.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:35 pm on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jason stated...when such a truth is clearly self-evident to any reasonable person given my description of the film...

    Finally Jason... finally you said something that illustrates something close to what I was saying all along.
    Unless you think “all”children and “ all “ adults are reasonable and draw conclusions they should , then the truth you see and what a reasonable person should see can be two different things.

    Just as one truth that is clearly self evident to any reasonable person is that smoking cigarettes is bad for one who smokes them. Obvious... “right?” Then why did the government force cigarette companies to spend millions in “warnings”on packs of cigarettes? Why have people won lawsuits against these companies when claiming they did not know cigarettes were bad for them... The answer is obvious. There are a set of people , especially children, that interpret things differently that you and I. What is evident to reasonable people may not be evident to them.
    So when they see a teacher/ film critic enjoy such a film and at the same time mention that his young students are looking forward to the film, an unreasonable student or adult may easily conclude that you are actually saying... wink wink... this is for adults. If you had written something like Micah did, it would have been perfectly clear. All I wanted was one additional sentence to make clear. Instead... we got Jason the macho man.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:15 pm on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jason stated...How childish. And I can't wait to inform a few masters degree holders that they, in fact, are the ones who can't digest simple concepts.
    Jason, thank you for demonstrating again how you misunderstand and misinterpret. It goes along way to show why we see things so differently.

    Clear as day, you think that I said that your friends cannot digest simple concepts. Just like many conclusions you draw, this is equally wrong. I stated the following... “ If your friends are like you, with “similar” ( not simple) comprehension skills, it is not a surprise."
    You and your friends are most likely highly intelligent and have abilities to comprehend many things. However the conclusions you draw are not conclusions I draw. When I stated “similar comprehension skills, I was referring to the comprehension skills of you and your friends, that result in drawing similar conclusions.
    If you look at the two political parties in our country, highly intelligent people draw completely opposite conclusions. Each party then claims the other is crazy. For you to draw the conclusion that I was referring to a low or high intelligence level was a mistake on your part. If you tell your friends that I think they cannot digest simple concepts, that would be a lie. Never said or implied it.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 11:33 am on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    By the way,

    "I can imgaine Jason. If your friends are like you, with similar comprehension skills, it is not a surprise."

    How childish. And I can't wait to inform a few masters degree holders that they, in fact, are the ones who can't digest simple concepts. (Granted, just because someone is educated doesn't mean they're intelligent or otherwise reasonable, but in this situation I think I'm comfortable using their opinions as evidence that I am not going insane and/or have suddenly lost my ability to read English.) They're pretty solid people, and have counseled me well in the past (except for the handful of readers I've never spoken to before who have mentioned this thread to me without prompting and gone on to speak with wonder and amazement of the man who argues nonsensically just for the sake of it).

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 10:46 am on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    If you and Micah seriously feel that not explicitly mentioning in a "Hangover II" review that the film is inappropriate for children (when such a truth is clearly self-evident to any reasonable person given my description of the film) is "reprehensible," then I am honestly at a loss for words. Is your life really so boring that you have to invent things to complain about?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:26 am on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    By the way, I've shown this thread to several more people (friends, acquaintances, readers, etc.), and still not a one of them can figure out what your deal is. Granted, popular opinion is not necessarily an effective gauge of reason, but still, it makes you think...

    I can imgaine Jason. If your friends are like you, with similar comprehension skills, it is not a surprise. To clarify "again" so you and your friends can get it, I think you " unintentionally" encouraged children to watch adult orientaed movies. That is my opinion. Your obvious opinion is that you did not.
    I also think that any teacher that does that is in appropriate. That does not make the teacher a “ horrible teacher” as you claim I stated.

    This fellow teacher ( Micah Muraoka) disagrees with you as well... this is all I was talking about...

    http://www.lodinews.com/opinion/letters/article_9a531217-c70c-51a2-beef-d01c0d7f2a4c.html#user-comment-area
    Micah Muraoka posted at 5:39 am on Sun, Jun 12, 2011...
    ME? If my students talked about "The Hangover", my review would have started with a strong warning......
    "This summer, everyone's talking about The Hangover, part II, from folks bellied up to the bar at Gary's to the kids in my sixth grade class, but, let me warn you, this is NO movie for kids..."
    Movie critic and teacher are both positions of influence. Just like Charles Barkley, Jason Wallis is a role model whether he wants to be or not. He clearly showed a lack of judgement here. A mistake.
    While I have disagreed (vehemently) with (almost all of) his reviews for many years, this is the first time I have read something so reprehensible from him. I hope he learns from this and uses better judgement in linking a movie to child audiences in the future. I'm pretty sure he would do this one over if he could. We all make mistakes

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 1:57 am on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    Do me a quick favor, Darrell. Look over the posts made in this thread by Chris and Ted. Like yours, they included criticisms of me that I do not agree with. So by your rational, I should be "attacking" them in the same way that I am you. After all, they hurt my pride, right? My glorious pride, that I must protect like a macho teenager?

    However, if you look at them closely, I am confident that you will notice a distinct difference between theirs and yours in terms of tone, respect and rationality. If you do not offer respect, and in fact begin a conversation with nothing but outright rudeness, then you can't expect to handled with kid gloves. There is a *reason* that normal, productive posters like Chris and Ted are treated differently than you. I hope for your sake that you can somehow eventually grasp this concept.

    I mean, you do realize the reputation you've gotten on these forums, right? One of the people I've shared this thread with was able to guess your identity based solely on my unkind description of your arguments and tactics, before reading a word. This is not a good thing, sir.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 1:36 am on Wed, Jul 13, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    Your point was addressed. At length. Multiple times, as I have said before. Round and round we go. Why do you pretend like it hasn't been, and repeat the same tired line?

    By the way, have you ever actually dealt with a nasty online attacker? One who's actually angry instead of bemused? It goes quite a bit different than your exchange with me, I can assure you. If you perceive my comments as a temper tantrum or the actions of a macho teen, then I would wager that you're simply not used to people calling you on your BS at all. Believe me, man, I could have been a lot less charitable.

    By the way, I've shown this thread to several more people (friends, acquaintances, readers, etc.), and still not a one of them can figure out what your deal is. Granted, popular opinion is not necessarily an effective gauge of reason, but still, it makes you think...

    And in light of your posts, to act like I'm the one who is evading points and making bizarre arguments and needless personal attacks (don't you think a completely unprovoked statement about me being a horrible teacher, based on your misinterpretation of a comment I made about a movie, easily trumps a barb about you not being able to use a computer or whatever, in terms of intent and flat-out nastiness?) seems disingenuous, sir.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:49 am on Tue, Jul 12, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Did you not say that I needed to come in here and defend my comments or further explain, and imply that you disagreed with them and would perhaps take part in said discussion...

    No... never said to defend your comments. I said to address my concern as well as others( not just me)... You were completely ignoring the subject. As of today, you still have not dealt with it. You instead are attempting to attack me. You have not even pondered or considered my point. Instead, you simply say it does not exist. I understand you “perceive “ you have addressed it. I think you are mistaken.
    From my point of view, this no longer is important. You have revealed who and what you are by your demeanor and quality of answer. Thank you!


    Jason, you are intent on misquoting me and dealing with my concern... below are my actual words... please get it right. Notice that I did not attack you... you attacked me like an uncontrollable macho teen.
    I have a different perception and view than you. That is all. I think it is very obvious that you have no concern that you “might” be wrong. ( there is no doubt in your mind that I am wrong)

    Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:22 pm on Sat, Jul 2, 2011....
    Jason... still waiting for you to address the real question... why are you ducking and side stepping?

    Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:22 pm on Wed, Jun 29, 2011...

    4. I could indirectly encourage others to do something by making it appear a good or fun thing to do. It it appears fun, it will encourage.
    In this case, Jason's review made it sound fun to go see... he stated his young students were looking forward to seeing the movie. At a minimum, he should have commented that he hopes his students do not go...He is a teacher who is a roll model. He also is a movie critic that talked about how much he enjoyed the movie. He did nothing in the review to suggest children should not see this movie. It would be prudent of him to perceive that some of his students would see his review.

    Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:28 am on Wed, Jun 15, 2011...

    . Mr Wallis must not be concerned or interested. You would think he being a teacher would take this as an opportunity to educate.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 3:14 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    Also, to Chris: Good to see you back. Just wanted to say hey. It's nice to see some criticisms that are serious and thoughtful, I must admit. I gotta get ready for work right now, so I might write more later on the off chance that you're still lurking around. One point before I go: I think there's quite a difference between categorically railing against movies that are deemed offensive by certain segments of society (as people often do) and refusing to waste time with ones that are roundly judged to be pretty objectively stupid (a word I don't like to throw around with people, but have no problem applying to movies, just so we're clear).

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 2:13 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    Aha! My email wrangler assures me that nothing from Darrell was included. I can rest easy now.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 1:52 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    As an amend, some emails sent to my personal account were recently deleted (not by me) before I read them, so if you did in fact email me something that I did not respond to, then I sincerely apologize. Since you haven't made mention of a personal correspondence, however, I think I can safely assume nothing of yours was included in that.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 1:36 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    With every post, you bring fresh skewed perspectives.

    Just a few quick ones: Did you not say that I needed to come in here and defend my comments or further explain, and imply that you disagreed with them and would perhaps take part in said discussion? That outlines what is defined as a debate, sir. You were goading me into a public debate instead of emailing me, in which case I would be far more likely to either personally respond or join you in here, depending on your preference. How do you not see that that is childish, especially in light of your umbrella definition of the word that includes my perfectly reasonable behavior here?

    And 95% of my postings were personally attacking you? Now is not the time for ridiculous hyperbole. I properly addressed *every* point you attempted to make, and then you try to kick back and claim that I did nothing of the sort, and instead threw a temper tantrum. I guess we can add "temper tantrum" to our list to terms on whose very definition we disagree.

    Lastly, by posting "it is sometimes okay for kids to see R-rated movies" or whatever within a list of statements you obviously take issue with pretty much implies that you take issue with that statement as well, hence my response. (FYI, stuff like this is why I question your seriousness.)

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:13 pm on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    ason stated...Oh, and as a P.S., don't you dare try and play victim here. This all started because you were cluelessly taunting me in this thread like a sixth-grader with the implication that I was afraid to debate you...

    Jason... I did not list your points by number in order to play the victim. That conclusion is equally naive as your movie review in Hang Over. I listed your points to illustrate you spent 95% of your time talking about me in a derogatory childish way and not the point that was at issue. Since I know your points are from a man who is not a man intellectually, but that of an adolescent teen boy, your perspective has little value.

    I also was not taunting you to debate me at all. It was just more macho teen like male thinking from you.
    After 3 weeks of “no comments” from you, I was trying to get you to say “something.... “Anything”. Debate was not in my thinking at all. Now that I know you have little ability to comprehend, I think any discussion with you would be fruitless and of no value.

    I was not alone. Others wanted you to comment. All you did was react like a little boy having a tantrum. That is why I asked if you felt better.... you comically replied.. pretty much.

    Oh... glad to hear you are a sub... I'm sure parents will be relieved.

    Finally... you obviously did not read my post... I already agreed with you that the rating by the movie industry were a sham … since you did not address most of what I stated... I assume you glanced at my post and did not actually read it. Typical teen behavior you display.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 3:04 am on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    Two more quick points before I away to bed:

    * I like your implication that snarky sarcasm never has a place, even when you're telling a blatant antagonist to hold his horses until you get off work. Lollers.

    * Also, are you telling me that no R-rated movie is suitable for children, ever? Are you gonna say with a straight face that (three off the top of my head, taking five seconds of superficial thought) "The King's Speech," "Almost Famous" and "Glory" are inappropriate viewing for mature 11-year-olds, simply because some random mouth-breathing member of the objectively absurd MPAA ratings board says they are? (Way to think for yourself, duder.) Clearly kids are better off watching the latest PG-13 Adam Sandler comedy, which teaches nothing but negative values, because, hey, at least it's not rated R!

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 2:47 am on Mon, Jul 11, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    Pretty much everything you just typed appears to be the case based on your posts in my opinion, although there are a lot of possibilities in there that I cannot commit to (are you a complete troll or are you in earnest, etc.). I would say that #s 4 and 14 are a little harsh, though. I have been very careful in this little tit-for-tat not to call you stupid, and in all honesty I don't think you are. I think you have been *intentionally* obtuse and pedantic in an attempt to... do what, I'm still not quite sure. But as I said, it stands to reason that somebody who has this degree of difficulty grasping a simple point would probably not be able to spell as (somewhat) well as you do, use the Interwebs, etc. (I brought up the disability thing to cover my bases, because I wasn't absolutely certain what you were getting at before -- better safe than sorry and all that). Surely you can understand my inability to reconcile your somewhat lucid nature with your stubborn and mind-blowing refusal to listen to simple reason. That's why I vote troll. If not, then I don't even know what to say at this point. Apparently we just have an entirely different view of how the English language is used and what words mean. Funny how that works.

    Oh, and as a P.S., don't you dare try and play victim here. This all started because you were cluelessly taunting me in this thread like a sixth-grader with the implication that I was afraid to debate you. This, complete with comments like you would yank your kid out of my class (good luck, by the way, since I'm a sub). What the heck is that about, man? How is behavior like this in any way acceptable?

    Oh, yes, because I was encouraging kids to see "The Hangover II." And blue-eyed people are smarter than brown-eyed people. Gotcha.

    *puts head in oven*

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:19 pm on Sat, Jul 9, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Jason... may I ask, do you feel better now? Let me see ...what should I take from your commentary and wisdom? So your idea of a debate and intellectual discourse about a serious issue is? Below are the points,implications and inferences you made on this tread. The comical thing I see is that you accuse me of intellectual intimidation yet you post all this:
    1. I can not comprehend the obvious
    2. I do not think before I write.
    3. I am genuinely nasty
    4. I am thick.
    5. I am a waste of your time.
    6. This tread is beneath you ( this crazy pool)
    7. This issue here is insignificant and not worthy the energy it takes to type it.
    8. My points are simply splitting hairs and petty.
    9. I attempt to be intellectual but fall short.
    10. I am disingenuous
    11. I make arguments that have no merit or substantiation.
    12. The points I made were not points at all, just delusional fantasy.
    13. I cannot recognizance the obvious and must read what you have stated over and over so that I can have a chance to comprehend what you have to say.
    14. I am a dense and dim witted person.
    15. I am obtuse.
    16. If I read what you write I do not have the skill or ability to understand what it is that you wrote.
    17. You intentionally write snaky sarcasm
    18. I cannot even comprehend a simple sentence.
    19. It appears I have many difficulties understanding simple things in day-to-day life.
    20. I was simply BS-ing you
    21. I am such a simpleton that you doubt I can even operate a computer
    22. You think I might be implying that I have a learning disability because I said your IQ is higher than mine.
    23. You think it is possible that I suffer from some kind of disability.
    24. You think that I was simply goading you into a talk back by implying that you are afraid to face me in a debate.
    25. You pointed out that nobody over the age of five would ever be scared to swap barbs with me.
    26. You think it would probably be a good thing if kids watched the right R-rated movies.
    27. I refusal to absorb very simple facts?
    28. Reasonable, educated or otherwise intelligent people look at my posts and not a single one can figure out what my trip is.
    29. I am a singularly odd and unpleasant fellow

    So if all the above is true, then obviously a reasonable person would conclude that the topic I was concerned with was completely absurd and not worthy of anyone's time, energy or consideration.
    I have seen many people over the years attempt to win a point by attempting to smear and attack the intelligence and character of his opponent, especially when they knew they were in a weak position and could not debate based on merit. I was being polite in stating you had a higher IQ than me and at the same time state that if you were wrong, it was not because of your intelligence. You turn that around and claim I might have some type of disability and am basically a willing idiot. I had a serious concern , as did a fellow teacher which was in my original point that you were “UNINTENSIONALLY” encouraging children to see adult orientated movies... All you did was demonstrate that you are a man of crude character and that I was right about my concern. Thank you for finally responding after 3+ weeks.

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 2:28 pm on Sat, Jul 9, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    *sigh*

    Why do I continue to do this?

    Once again, most of what you are talking about has already been addressed. Multiple times. At length. Rather than repost the same things, I encourage you to go back and read my post again. A couple times if you need to. Let it wash over you and sink in.

    A few more points, though:

    * I was honestly not going for animosity or anger in my response, but rather semi-detached bemusement. (You’ve gotta admit, this whole thing is very funny on some level.) However, again, to be fair, if my comments are tinged with frustration, it is only because you have presented yourself as a genuinely nasty and intentionally thick person. And that’s not really my fault, now is it?

    * I got the sense in the original talkback that a couple people were wondering where I was, but I felt no urgent need to jump into the crazy pool given my plans to address the “big issues” (being defined as topics that may warrant a column, and discussion even beyond the scope of the actual talkback) in a follow-up commentary. As I said, if I missed an explicit call-out, then I apologize. And apparently I did miss one in my perusing, so look at that: I’m admitting that I was wrong, and am apologizing. Like a reasonable person. Honestly, dude, it’s not that hard.

    * Two brief points: First, I think you’re splitting hairs when you attempt to make a distinction between “R-rated” and “adult-oriented” movies. There are plenty of R-rated movies that are in fact appropriate for children under the age of 12, but I defy you to name an honest-to-goodness adult-oriented movie (reasonably defined as one that contains explicit sex, nudity or language, or gratuitous violence) that does not carry at least an R rating. You know what I meant, so don’t be pedantic just for the sake of it. Also, your theoretical opening to a “Hangover Part II” review is terrible and awkward (*of course* it’s not for kids!!!), but I’m sure you already knew that.

    This whole thing with you reminds me of a talk show segment I saw about 20 years ago in which an interview subject was talking about something… Logical fallacies, maybe? Not particularly important. Point is, at one point she made the point that if she were to make the claim that blue-eyed people are naturally more intelligent than brown-eyed people but failed to present any actual evidence, then she would be objectively full of it. And wouldn’t you know it, the remainder of the show was filled with righteously indignant audience members taking the mic and telling the woman that she was wrong when she said that blue-eyed people are naturally more intelligent than brown-eyed people. One after another. The woman would explain that’s not what she said, but still these people continued to take offense over something that was never even said in the first place.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:22 am on Sat, Jul 9, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:03 pm on Mon, Jun 13, 2011...

    if and when he does respond I'll do my best to glean from what he writes his true intent insofar as this particular film is concerned. That might go a long way to determine just why I have literally never seen eye-to-eye with Mr. Wallis and his reviews

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:48 am on Sat, Jul 9, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Jason...Maybe the problem is you did not read 27 comments in this tread... maybe all the friends who are confused did not read them as well... It was not only me that questioned you in which you were called out to explain yourself. I read your response twice... I have plenty to say about your rant that talked about everything but the topic... but I will not respond yet until you have had a chance to read the 27 other comments posted as a response to Loretta Daniels n June 11th.

    Jason... please read the comments without such animosity and anger... I think you are not thinking clearly as a result.you are reading things that are not there. For example, I never said you were encouraging kids to see R rated movies. I said you were encouraging kids to see adult orientated movies. That is a big difference. I agree with you that the MPAA ratings board is a sham and meaningless. The R rating as “nothing” to do with this just so you know ahead of time. It also has nothing to do with morality police.

    http://www.lodinews.com/opinion/letters/article_9a531217-c70c-51a2-beef-d01c0d7f2a4c.html#user-comment-area

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:46 am on Sat, Jul 9, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    http://www.lodinews.com/opinion/letters/article_9a531217-c70c-51a2-beef-d01c0d7f2a4c.html#user-comment-area

    Micah Muraoka posted at 5:39 am on Sun, Jun 12, 2011...

    ME? If my students talked about "The Hangover", my review would have started with a strong warning......
    "This summer, everyone's talking about The Hangover, part II, from folks bellied up to the bar at Gary's to the kids in my sixth grade class, but, let me warn you, this is NO movie for kids..."
    Movie critic and teacher are both positions of influence. Just like Charles Barkley, Jason Wallis is a role model whether he wants to be or not. He clearly showed a lack of judgement here. A mistake.
    While I have disagreed (vehemently) with (almost all of) his reviews for many years, this is the first time I have read something so reprehensible from him. I hope he learns from this and uses better judgement in linking a movie to child audiences in the future. I'm pretty sure he would do this one over if he could. We all make mistakes

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 1:53 am on Sat, Jul 9, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    My God, man. Two more responses, and two more instances of you being either maddeningly stubborn or intentionally obtuse.

    Did you even read my post? Not just look at it -- actually read it? It was not my intention to include anything but snaky sarcasm in my first post because, as I thought I made clear, I would be addressing your actual concerns when I got off work. Is such a simple sentence seriously that difficult to comprehend? Also, as I thought I made clear, your posts in *this article* were made many moons ago but I was only alerted to them a few days ago.

    I’m speaking plain English, man.

    As for the original talkback, I didn’t join in because I didn’t see a need and don’t recall being explicitly called out (if I missed it… sorry, I guess?).

    I must agree with Stephen when he says this whole thing is probably a massive troll. If you seriously have as many difficulties understanding simple things in day-to-day life as you make it appear in your posts, then it stands to reason that you would be rendered unable to operate a computer. So don’t try to BS me.

    Still, for the sake of argument, let’s have some fun and assume that your posts have been in earnest, and hit on a few of your greatest hits:

    * I’m not quite sure if you’re implying that you have a learning disability or what re: your comments about deficient IQs. If you do indeed suffer from some kind of disability, then it is without sarcasm or malice that I apologize to you and revoke all less-than-cordial statements I have made up to this point. Seriously.

    In all fairness, though, you can’t really goad me into a talkback by implying that I’m afraid to face you in a debate and then be surprised or act like I did something wrong when I point out that nobody over the age of five would ever be scared to swap barbs with you.

    * So I’m encouraging kids to see R-rated movies, eh? Incidentally, it would probably be a good thing if kids watched the right R-rated movies (after all, the MPAA ratings board is a sham and utterly meaningless in the end, and any refutation of that statement is demonstrably without merit, just so you know ahead of time). However, nowhere in my review of “The Hangover, Part II” did I say, explicitly or implicitly, that kids should see *this* R-rated movie.

    I said that they wanted to. I said that they would. I observed that their clear interest in these films, along with the interest of the elderly and everyone in between, make it a contender for the title of zeitgeist film of the year (so far, anyway). But I did not say that they should, and in fact, in real life, I informed my students that such a film is surely inappropriate for them (after they told me their parents were taking them, I dropped the issue). Not that my conversations with my students is any of your business, beyond what I choose to mention if I feel it is pertinent to whatever I’m wring about.

    In fact, in my review, I made mention of the film’s infinitely tawdry nature, including references to jokes about transsexual hookers, narcotics and underage sex tourism. If people read that and still need me to explicitly say that the film is not intended for children, then I honestly don’t know what to tell them. They have lost the cosmic lottery, and should probably consider not having any more kids.

    All this was already explained in my brief printed response to the original letter writer and/or my two commentaries, so why is it that you persist in your refusal to absorb these very simple facts? Seriously, man, I’ve had around a dozen people (reasonable, educated or otherwise intelligent people) look at your posts at this point, and not a single one can figure out what your trip is.

    * Are you saying that the “big issues” of “offensive” content and film’s moral obligation to society weren’t broached in either the original letter or the subsequent talkback? Perhaps I dreamt it, but I could have sworn that you participated in the discussions yourself. Just because I didn’t suit your fancy and devote an entire column to the repetition of the sentence, “No reasonable person would think that I was encouraging kids to see ‘The Hangover, Part II,’” doesn’t mean that you can pretend that those issues weren’t touched upon and worth extrapolating on.

    Anyway, it’s almost 2 a.m. and I’m tired, so I’m gonna leave it there. You strike me as a singularly odd and unpleasant fellow, Mr. Baumbach, but I must say that the experience has been interesting. Troll or not, in some sick way I look forward to your appearances in the Battle Royale forums (they are indeed coming, but I thought it best not to mention anything in print until they’re actually up and running), where I’m sure we’ll continue to go ’round and ’round.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:50 pm on Fri, Jul 8, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jason stated...Or, it could be that I rarely check these forums any more due to lack of traffic, and had to be alerted to this little tit-for-tat a few days back via a text message from a friend...

    Sounds like there is a perception problem. The original article was published in early June, 2011 in which concern for your statements were postted. It's been much longer than a few days Jason... much longer.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:52 pm on Fri, Jul 8, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jason stated...Yes, Darrell, your increasingly bizarre rants and highly questionable grammar have instilled me with fear...

    Jason... How interesting that you quickly shift the issue to my grammar. Oh no... now that the mighty Jason Wallis is flexing his intellectual might by taking notice of my bad grammar, the original point that was addressed but ignored by you is no longer important or worth a discussion. In addition, you attempt to belittle the issue by labeling my participation as intellectual intimidation. In my view, I am not capable of intimidating people intellectually as my IQ is far lower than yours and many others Im' sure.
    Sounds to me that it is you who is now attempting intellectual intimidation by writing a response dripping with sarcasm and superiority; act you age Darrell, your increasing bizarre rants, my bad grammer, film criticism for the insane, alone, afraid and praying... be a professional Jason... take responsibility for your mistakes

     
  • Jason Wallis posted at 8:17 pm on Fri, Jul 8, 2011.

    Jason Wallis Posts: 36 Staff

    Yes, Darrell, your increasingly bizarre rants and highly questionable grammar have instilled me with fear, proving to me that I could never hope to match wits with the likes of you. I have been in hiding these past many days -- alone, afraid, and praying that the mighty Darrell Baumbach will cease his intellectual intimidation.

    Or, it could be that I rarely check these forums any more due to lack of traffic, and had to be alerted to this little tit-for-tat a few days back via a text message from a friend. Do forgive me for not dropping everything immediately to come and partake in another round of Film Criticism for the Insane.

    When I get off work, I'll drop back by and attempt to address your ramblings point by point. Until then, chill out and act your age, man.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:53 am on Fri, Jul 8, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    This week, there are a few things I’d like to clear up before we launch into some recent DVD picks. You will remember that last week we ran out of time to delve into a key question that some News-Sentinel readers attempted to tackle in last week’s Letters to the Editor talkback, "with limited success"..

    Since success can only happen if Jason bothers to participate... of course the success is limited... since Jason refuses to address the real problem, everyone is forced to guess... maybe that is Jason's strategy as he knows he was wrong... better just to hide.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:20 am on Thu, Jul 7, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Its Thursday... no reviews on the Sounds of Silence... Jason... where are you?

    Its summer vacation... I assume you have time to clear up the real issue...
    How long could it take to say.... sorry"?????????????????

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:11 am on Tue, Jul 5, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Another day... more ignoring.... Maybe Jason should review the song "Sounds of Silence"

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:58 pm on Mon, Jul 4, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jason... I will take your silence as confirmation that what I stated was accurate.
    That is too bad. In the real world, ignoring something does not make it go away.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:57 am on Sun, Jul 3, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Lee stated...Jason: No, a film is not required to lift us up or make us feel better. It is okay for a movie to be cynical and it's acceptable for it to be offensive.ree 100% with Ms Lee...

    I agree 100% with Ms Lee...
    Unfortunately, this question is not the topic which Jason was supposed to answer...
    Still waiting Jason... why are you so silent?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:34 am on Sun, Jul 3, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Jason Wallis asked, "What is a film’s obligation to society?"

    ----- Jason: A film does not have an obligation to society.

    Jason Wallis asked, "Is it required that every film released purports a positive view of society, and “lifts us up” to make us feel better about ourselves, or is it OK for a movie to be more cynical? Is it acceptable for a movie to be “offensive”?"

    ----- Jason: No, a film is not required to lift us up or make us feel better. It is okay for a movie to be cynical and it's acceptable for it to be offensive.

    I don't think a film has a responsibility to the viewer. We choose what we want to see at the movies. With that said, a filmmaker is usually not going to be able to make a movie that will not generate an income, so most will try to make a movie they think will be successful. Certain movies will make money and that is the reality. When a filmmaker wants to get his/her film produced they'll go with what the audience desires... for the most part. Yes, there are surely filmmakers with a social conscience etc, but many good films never get made because they will simply not make any money. Thankfully there are art festivals and independent films/filmmakers etc, so that we can have other choices besides the main stream moneymakers and blockbusters.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:22 pm on Sat, Jul 2, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jason... still waiting for you to address the real question... why are you ducking and side stepping?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:23 pm on Thu, Jun 30, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    sp.. Steven= Stephen

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:00 pm on Thu, Jun 30, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Steven stated...Even so, I would question whether it's even a teacher's responsibility to discourage children from seeing particular films

    Interesting point, but incomplete. Jason is the one who brought his students into the discussion. Jason is not just a teacher... he is not just a film critic... he is both... and because he observed that his students were looking forward to the film, and sinse he knew it was an adult film not suitable for children... and because he is respected by children and said how much fun he had... he could have added one sentence to state what he stated his second post... which was parents would be crazy to take their children to this movie... I still think this is so obvious that it is bizarre

     
  • Stephen Wiebe posted at 3:18 pm on Thu, Jun 30, 2011.

    Stephen Wiebe Posts: 17

    I didn't go to Lodi High, must be another Steve Wiebe. Anyway, the role of a film critic is to give the reader an accurate representation of the film. It is not to provide moral guidance, which is what you seem to be looking for from your film critics. By reading the full review, any parents would clearly be able to see that the movie probably wasn't appropriate for their children, and thus Jason had fulfilled his role.

    Jason's role as a film critic is separate from his role as a teacher, and you shouldn't confuse his responsibilities to one role with his responsibilities to the other. Even so, I would question whether it's even a teacher's responsibility to discourage children from seeing particular films. But in any case, it's certainly not a film critic's role (beyond describing the film accurately enough to inform parents).

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:21 am on Thu, Jun 30, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jason stated...This week, there are a few things I’d like to clear up before we launch into some recent DVD picks... then Jason stated what he wanted to clear up was... The question at hand is: What is a film’s obligation to society?

    Jason is ignoring reality if he thinks that is the question at hand... He can distort and deflect if he wishes, but this is not responsible.
    This has nothing to do with morality police or any film's obligation to society... no comments were made in the prior post that needed to be resolves concerning his question. That Jason would think so is bizarre.

     
  • Chris Wallace posted at 9:09 pm on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    Chris Wallace Posts: 32

    I am not sure what the point was of this writing that Jason was trying to get at. He asked this: "What is a film’s obligation to society?" Film has 1 job and 1 job only- to ellicit emotion. So when people forward their thoughts when their emotions have been provoked, why then does it stir controversy? Film is nothing more than a product, and the filmgoers are consumers in this (still) free market society. So if audiences say they want more of this or that... then you might consider listening if you want some level of success. If you don't lik or approve of the audiences response, then... what? CAll them the "morality police"?

    However, we get to a more puzzling direction of this article: Jason asks about "boycotting" certain movies that we feel might not be worthy and missing out on the wonders of Quentin Tarantino and Darren Aronofsky, Lars von Trier and P.T. Anderson, Sam Peckinpah and Mel Brooks, Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese. Jason seems to feel a certain contempt of people who... boycott.. certain movies that they feel to be beneath them and yet his opening paragraph is a statement that he will boycott the Green Lantern because it seems to be beneath him.

    Quite the paradox if you ask me. This is the not the first film that he has abstained from.

    As a parent I will answer 1 question: I didn't want my kids watching explicit sex or violence. No Larry Flynt either / or at all. However as they got older I did allow more violence than sex and nudity. Violence is fake while nudity is real. Altho sex is simulated (in most films at least) visible body parts normally hid in a PG movie being... touched, etc.... is real. As kids get older hormones kick in. I'm less worried about them going on a shooting spree. But to agree with Jason, it mostly depends on the kid. THAT is parenting... not taking a kid to what the PARENT feels to be inappropriate and then countering the kid later.

    This confuses me:
    A) "the answer is to be a freakin’ parent, and either shield your children from adult-oriented films "
    &
    B) "The answer is not to target the films themselves"

    Well it either is or it isn't. Which is it?

    So the question that Jason posed is what film's obligation to society was; yet, in context, his article actually seems to be suggesting that we, the people, seem to have some obligation to film.

    Film is obligated to ellicit emotion; it is there for us- we are not there for it.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:22 pm on Wed, Jun 29, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Wiebe stated...That you would characterize Jason's review as encouraging children to see adult entertainment leads me to believe you are either intentionally misrepresenting the review for the purposes of deceit, or you have poor reading comprehension.

    Mr Wiebe... I think you are incredibly naive if you think there are only two choices as to my motives.
    If you are the same Steve Wiebe that graduated in 1971 from Lodi High, I can understand why you might say that.
    Let me suggest an alternate possibility.

    There are many ways to encourage others to do things.
    1. I could offer money in influence.
    2. I could offer verbal encouragement to influence.
    3. I could directly participate in activity that influences
    4. I could indirectly encourage others to do something by making it appear a good or fun thing to do. It it appears fun, it will encourage.
    In this case, Jason's review made it sound fun to go see... he stated his young students were looking forward to seeing the movie. At a minimum, he should have commented that he hopes his students do not go...He is a teacher who is a roll model. He also is a movie critic that talked about how much he enjoyed the movie. He did nothing in the review to suggest children should not see this movie. It would be prudent of him to perceive that some of his students would see his review.
    Since everyone who read his review would develop an impression impression that it was a fun movie to see, and since he did not discourage anyone from seeing it ( young children)until his follow up, it would follow that he is encouraging all people to see this film (indirectly) Included in all people are children.

    I am not misrepresenting his review and I find it bizarre that you and Jason have no clue to what I am talking about. If I were a parent with a child in Jason's class, I would ask for a transfer. I think if he can not understand what I am talking about, something is wrong.

     
  • Stephen Wiebe posted at 1:57 pm on Mon, Jun 27, 2011.

    Stephen Wiebe Posts: 17

    Darrell: I'm not sure what Bruce Willis has to do with anything, but anyway... The non-issue is that Jason's comments about 8-year-olds being excited to see an R-rated movie was clearly a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. He was clearly not making a moral judgement about whether children should see adult entertainment. Now, you might think he should have made a moral pronouncement on the value of children seeing adult entertainment, but this is not the accepted social role of a film critic.

    That you would characterize Jason's review as encouraging children to see adult entertainment leads me to believe you are either intentionally misrepresenting the review for the purposes of deceit, or you have poor reading comprehension.

     
  • Ted Lauchland posted at 7:57 am on Sun, Jun 26, 2011.

    Ted Lauchland Posts: 254

    I did not read last week's comments but my objections to this column began with the " morality crusade that only makes you look foolish " statement. An attitude that implies that there should not be any social moral standards and that you should stand back and not accept any responsibility what so ever about the world we live in . If that were the case there would be a cat house on every corner, everyone would be part of a gang of some sorts and so on and so on. There would be no need for police as everyone is free to do as they please. I think Mr. Wallis' view of what is positive and uplifting is short sighted and should have included what the - moral - of the story was and intended to be for every movie he reviews. Oh wait - a movie subjective to his review ( moral standards)? - How ironic. Shock value has it's use at times if it ends with a moral of the story feeling. People use to come to hangings to satisfy their morbid curiousities but walked away with a sense of positive ending . Call it justified satisfaction if you like . " Freakin parent ' was offensive to me in that thinking that you can separate who the kids are from who you are is short on insight . - They are - what you eat. That becomes real evident when you hear the first cuss word out of their mouth. They follow by your example and society's example . The question really should be why SHOULD'NT the movie industry focus on setting a good example and not fall for the potty humor and crass wordings that only show the inability to express ones emotion's in a respectful way .
    THAT must be the moral of That story. The real business world out there shows that respect and my personal life does too . Movies teach on a different level than even school settings present and is part of an on going lesson that touches everyone's lives
    They open your eyes . I don't believe a person can make logical or expanded decisions without basing them on some sort of learned standard. Keep those standards good and not allow them to be self destructive.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:25 pm on Sat, Jun 25, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Stephen Wiebe stated...Well you have to admit that those comments were a pretty ridiculous response to an absolute non-issue

    Please clarify what you are saying. What was the non issue? what exact comments were ridiculous? In my view, Mr Willis was encouraging under age children to look forward to seeing adult entertainment is an important issue.... I think that is an important issue. What issue were you referring to? The issue Mr Willis wanted to clarify that you talked about was not what the comments earlier were about.

     
  • Stephen Wiebe posted at 3:54 pm on Fri, Jun 24, 2011.

    Stephen Wiebe Posts: 17

    Well you have to admit that those comments were a pretty ridiculous response to an absolute non-issue. It didn't need any more of a response from Jason than the one he already gave it. The question posed in this article is a much more interesting topic for discussion.

    Regarding the question, I'd flip it around since the answer to the posed question (are movies required to be positive/uplifting?) is obviously "no" for any sane person. However, given that we accept some limits on our freedom of speech (shouting "fire" in a theater, inciting violence, discussing assassinating political figures), are there any limits that we as a society should impose on films? Is there any content that is so offensive and valueless that we should outright ban? For example, the British Film Board recently voted to effectively ban The Human Centipede II. Is this a valid response?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:07 am on Fri, Jun 24, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Willis stated...The question at hand is: What is a film’s obligation to society? Is it required that every film released purports a positive view of society, and “lifts us up” to make us feel better about ourselves, or is it OK for a movie to be more cynical? Is it acceptable for a movie to be “offensive”?

    Mr Willis appears to have ignored and not read the comments he professes to be addressing in this weeks edition. This is evidenced in what he states is the question at hand. The question of concern that generated posts last week has absolutely nothing to do with what he suggests. Mr Willis was invited to participate in the comments to clarify. Instead, he simply misstated what the "question at hand" is.
    Mr Willis, you have “NO” credibility...none...

     

Calling All Poets!

Do you want to share your poetry with the readers of Lodi Living? If so, send your poem, along with a short autobiography and picture of yourself to sarap@lodinews.com. Poems will not be published without a photo and bio.

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists