Actually, you don't see me around much because of people and comments just like you and yours.

Probably act affronted and be equally as ridiculous as the reaction to Argo is.

The rage is ridiculous. Argo perhaps billed itself as closer to the history then it actually is, but when your choice is between 'based on' and 'inspired by' (not exactly a wide gulf) I find it dubious to criticize their marketing. As to the film itself: Has Canada suddenly decided Hollywood needs to be held to some brand new pedigree of historic accuracy? I mean, the idea that any major release is going to be at all accurate is laughably naive and all this rage is coming across as incredibly self-serving. It's very interesting to me that there's so much vitriol around any inaccuracies that are perceived to be marginalizing Canadian efforts and yet comparatively no one says boo about the politically neutral shit that they straight made up like the entire climax.

If you're going to hold to this argument for accuracy, it can't just be the bits that you feel affronted by on Ken Taylor's behalf, which is how much of the criticisms are coming across. It's a moot point though because, as I said, it's a ridiculous proposition from the off. Nobody is going into Argo with the expectation that it is History (anecdotally, I've run into about a half dozen people who thought the entire thing was fiction) and if they are then they're foolish because even if Ben Affleck had the sincerest intentions of telling The Truth (whatever the hell that is-- I haven't checked, but I'd imagine there are disagreements among historians because there almost always is) there's no way to portray these events accurately in the length of a film and simultaneously make it entertaining. Anyone who is interested in a historic account is always welcome to pick up Our Man in Tehran if they're that curious. Ultimately though, it's a blockbuster that appealed to the critics and cleaned up with a lot of awards and PR for Affleck, but it's hardly going to go down as anything other then yet another American-made political thriller loosely based in history, like dozens before it. The fact that it appropriates from Canada does not make it unique or worth this belaboured discussion about Hollywood inaccuracy, which should be a foregone conclusion by now.

This is what they mean when they talk about the inferiority complex.

Yeah, I don't really like snide commentary about a personal relationship from someone who doesn't know me from a beaver in Great Slave Lake. And it's maybe the third or fourth comment you've made about it since it's become public specifically to do with my age. I'm not sure what your fixation is, but it gets really, really tedious.

Just thought personal attacks were one of the few no-fly zones around here, guess not if you're a mod *shrug*

I'm really not sure what your issue is tonight, but seriously fuck off.

Early onset erectile dysfunction making you a bit bitter tonight, pops?

I'm sure it is.

Well, in part probably when every first year women's studies aficionado stops using it ad nauseum to describe any discourse they want to vacuum up to pad their term paper with. I know one of the points of intersectionality is to question traditionally held parameters, but sometimes the term gets nebulous and is very poorly defined. It's never OK to mock and outright ignore, but there's a lot of healthy skepticism with any intersectional or more broadly any interdisciplinary movement because there really is a lot of room for pure BS that can't be as readily called out.

I never knew Sauron was Australian.